Self-study
Support No one in the French department to which Professor Alban belongs is allowed to teach more than one introductory level class in any one term. █████████ ███ ████ ████████ ███████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ █████████ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ████████████ █████ ████████
Method of Reasoning
The author reaches a valid conclusion based on two premises, either one of which could prove conclusion true independent of the other premise.
Premise 1:
French Department (which Alban belongs to) → NOT allowed to teach more than 1 intro class per term
Premise 2:
language class next term → advanced
Conclusion:
Alban isn’t teaching 2 intro French classes. (He can’t teach 2 intro French classes because he can’t teach more than 1 intro class next term, and because none of the language classes next term are intro.)
19.
The pattern of reasoning displayed ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████
a
The Morrison Building ████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ██ █ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ███ █████ █████ ██ ███ ███ ████████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████
This argument is valid based on the connection between the two premises. But this doesn’t parallel the structure of the stimulus, which did not involve a connection between the two premises.
b
The revised tax ████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██ █████████ █████ ██████ █████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███████ ██ █████████ █████ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████
This involves a valid conclusion based only on one premise; the other statement (concerning the first section of the revised code) doesn’t independently prove the conclusion true. Although that statement would prove that the first section of the revised code doesn’t apply to the Norton Building, the first statement, which concerns whether the revised tax code applies at all is what offers support for the conclusion.
c
All property on ███████ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████ ███ ███ █████ ███████ ████████████ ██ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ███████ ████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ █████
(C) is not a valid argument, so it can’t parallel the valid argument in the stimulus. (C) isn’t valid because Elnor’s property taxes don’t have to be higher next year even if they’re reassessed. They might be reassessed to be lower.
d
New buildings that ███████ ██████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ███ █████ ███ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ████████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ████ █████
This reaches a valid conclusion based on two premises, either one of which could prove the conclusion true independent of the other.
Premise 1:
new building with public space → exempt from taxes for 2 years
Premise 2:
new building in Alton district → exempt from taxes for 5 years
Since the large building is new (”recently completed”), has public space, and is in Alton, it’s exempt from taxes for at least the next year.
e
Since according to ██████ ████████ █ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ██ █ ███████ █████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ █████
This argument is valid based on the connection between the two premises. But this doesn’t parallel the structure of the stimulus, which did not involve a connection between the two premises.