Self-study
University budget committee: Athletes experience fewer injuries on artificial-turf athletic fields than on natural-grass fields. █████████████ █████████████ ██████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ █████████████ ████ █████████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███████████████ █████ ████ █ █████████████ ██████
Both Facts Favor Artificial Turf
The stimulus gives us two facts about the choice between fields, and both of them favor artificial turf:
What the stimulus tells us:
Maintenance cost: artificial turf is cheaper
favors AT
Injury frequency: fewer injuries on artificial turf
favors AT
some other cost or consideration we haven't been told about
?
Both stated facts cut the same way. So a budget committee, whose explicit job is managing dollars, has every reason to keep the cheaper, safer option. Yet this committee is recommending the more expensive switch. There must be some cost or consideration the stimulus left out. That's the only way the budget committee's recommendation could make sense.
Anticipation
Keep in mind that the recommendation comes from the budget committee, so the resolution should be relevant to money. An answer that makes natural grass sound generally nicer (better aesthetics, better tradition, athletes prefer it) isn't clearly relevant.
6.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████████
a
The university's current ███████████████ ████████ █████ ███ ████████ █████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ████████ █████████████
The stimulus already told us natural grass is more expensive to maintain than artificial turf. Saying the current artificial field has required extensive maintenance doesn't change that ranking; switching to natural grass would still require more money to maintain, not less.
b
Most injuries sustained ██ ███████████████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ █████████ ██ █████████████ ███████
(B) gives us a reason to think artificial-turf fields might cost more than natural-grass fields. Injuries on artificial turf take longer to heal and cost more in physical therapy. So even though injuries on artificial turf are fewer, each one costs the university more, which might flip the total cost picture in favor of natural grass.
c
It is difficult ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████
This doesn't differentiate the two fields in a way that affects costs. If anything, spectators not being able to tell the difference is a reason to keep the cheaper artificial turf, since the university would lose nothing aesthetically by saving the money. (C) cuts in the wrong direction.
d
Maintaining artificial-turf fields ████████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ █████████████ ██████ ███████ █████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████████████
This just elaborates on why natural grass is more expensive to maintain (daily watering, periodic fertilization). It doesn't help explain why the committee recommends natural grass over artificial turf.
e
Athletes who have █████ ████ ██ █████ ███████ ████ ██ █████████████ ██████ █████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ███████████████ ███████
Two problems. First, this is a budget committee. We have no reason to think athlete preferences are the kind of consideration that's relevant to their recommendation. Second, we have no reason to think athletes at the university have spent most of their time on natural-grass fields.