The first sentence in the stimulus was not at all difficult for me to parse, since I have myself been one of those "short-sighted car owners" who forgot to do a scheduled oil change on my car and needed an emergency oil change!
I went with B because to me the whole point wasn't about cars, they were as support, so their inclusion was a red flag to me. That's just how I processed it though
Maybe I’m going out on a limb when I say this, but I think both conclusions were subs and the “sub-premise” was the actual conclusion.
That is if analogies (such maintenance almost always pays off in the long run. =other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments) can be conclusions and Stimuluses can have two Sub-Conclusions.
I say this in reference to the SC-MC rule:
other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments, because we should praise our city council for hiring a long-term development advisor
&
other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments, because our city is likely to see a big payoff in several years
vs
we should praise our city council for hiring a long-term development advisor, because other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments
&
that our city is likely to see a big payoff in several years, because other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments
Creating an “alternate” hypothesis:
We should not praise our city council for hiring a long-term development advisor, because the columnist's city has a much smaller population and economy than the other cities did when they began devoting resources to economic development planning.
&
That our city is unlikely to see a big payoff in several years, because the columnist's city has a much smaller population and economy than the other cities did when they began devoting resources to economic development planning.
POE and identifying the argument strategy seems to be key here. If you identify its an argument by analogy, you know you are looking for how the analogy doesn't work.
And C only talk about cars/motorists. Nothing to do with the argument. D talks about the city and advisors, but is already addressed in the stim. They already got the advisor, end of story. E was also in the stim. "payoff in several years"
Even if you aren't confident in B, its the only one that talks about the argument strategy/flaw.
(I write this as someone who was very lost before watching the video lol)
Note to a lot of people who are having trouble with the question. The most important part of the question stem is "most weakens". Everything other than choice B, are either irrelevant or does nothing. B does something, barely, but it is something to weaken the argument, viz. pointing out potential dissimilarities in the analogy. Which is all to say, the choice that weakens "the most", not necessarily is a one-hitter quitter, is the right one no matter how uncomfortable it feels to choose it. If all of the other choices blow, and there is one you don't like, but is relevant, that's the answer (probably).
I think B is very poorly supported, there is simply not enough information to know whether that is relevant. E is supposedly disqualified since there is a presumed difference between "first few" and "several" but the assumption needed to consider first few and several as equivalent is MUCH smaller than the assumption that a difference in relative size is harmful to the argument. I strongly disagree with this one.
I think I can help provide some guidance for anyone who got stuck between A and B like I did and went with A:
The reason that A is not the answer is that although the option of "requiring costly repairs" seems alluring in the weakening of the economic development, you are weakening the analogy used by the columnist and then have to infer that the columnist's city may also require costly repair. However, option B more directly criticizes the support between the premise of "Other cities have earned large returns on such an investment." and the conclusion that this city also investing in this adviser by bringing the scope out to say "well ok but you're comparing the economic development of New York and Boston to the economic development of Bangor Maine"
So, while both A and B are weakening the supports of the premises, B does so much more directly so that you don't need to infer that because some cars do still break down despite receiving preventative maintenance, this city's economy will also incur major costs despite the economic adviser.
So the reason it's not A and is instead B, is becasue A does not widen the gap between Motorists and the city council. Instead it provides facts about A, but dosen't compare that to B so we can't use it?
@HilarySackor It doesn't weaken the analogy. It somewhat weakens the argument. The prompt doesn't ask us to weaken the analogy - just the argument.
'Other cities [with much larger economies and populations] experienced large returns, so can we reliably conclude that our city is also likely to experience a big payoff?' Maybe less so, because answer B is what tells us that our city has small pop & econ.
(but even then, it's not a very good 'weakening' argument imho..)
@HilarySackor It does weaken the analogy. It is listing properties of the columnists city that are different from the other cities used at the end of the argument to analogize. When you have an analogy, the more different the two things being compared are, the weaker it is as a logical argument.
Let's say you want to know what happens if you open a brand new restaurant in NYC. Imagine I explain to you exactly what happened when I opened a restaurant in say Charleston SC, that it was extremely successful, and gave that as a reason to open the same kind of restaurant. Well my analogy is weak because Charleston has significant differences, it is smaller, a completely different culture, presumably different people with different food presences, different tax codes etc...
So that is what the original argument is doing. It's basically saying that "these other cities that you compared our city to is too different in respect to size and economy." By elucidating that difference, it has made the analogy worse.
101 comments
The first sentence in the stimulus was not at all difficult for me to parse, since I have myself been one of those "short-sighted car owners" who forgot to do a scheduled oil change on my car and needed an emergency oil change!
I went with B because to me the whole point wasn't about cars, they were as support, so their inclusion was a red flag to me. That's just how I processed it though
Querying
me thinking shortsighted meant literally people that can't see well 🤡
My initial answer was B, and I picked E.....THIS IS UR REMINDER TO GO WITH UR GUT RAAAAAAAAAAAAA
He read my mind that my gut feeling wasn't there with B because it didn't definitively prove the conclusion was false.
I love how he always refers to the speaker, author etc. as she #girlboss
Maybe I’m going out on a limb when I say this, but I think both conclusions were subs and the “sub-premise” was the actual conclusion.
That is if analogies (such maintenance almost always pays off in the long run. = other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments) can be conclusions and Stimuluses can have two Sub-Conclusions.
I say this in reference to the SC-MC rule:
other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments, because we should praise our city council for hiring a long-term development advisor
&
other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments, because our city is likely to see a big payoff in several years
vs
we should praise our city council for hiring a long-term development advisor, because other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments
&
that our city is likely to see a big payoff in several years, because other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments
Creating an “alternate” hypothesis:
We should not praise our city council for hiring a long-term development advisor, because the columnist's city has a much smaller population and economy than the other cities did when they began devoting resources to economic development planning.
&
That our city is unlikely to see a big payoff in several years, because the columnist's city has a much smaller population and economy than the other cities did when they began devoting resources to economic development planning.
holy crap that columnist should be fired and this question should be burned
POE and identifying the argument strategy seems to be key here. If you identify its an argument by analogy, you know you are looking for how the analogy doesn't work.
And C only talk about cars/motorists. Nothing to do with the argument. D talks about the city and advisors, but is already addressed in the stim. They already got the advisor, end of story. E was also in the stim. "payoff in several years"
Even if you aren't confident in B, its the only one that talks about the argument strategy/flaw.
(I write this as someone who was very lost before watching the video lol)
This was a good explanation.
had to 2x this video...
Note to a lot of people who are having trouble with the question. The most important part of the question stem is "most weakens". Everything other than choice B, are either irrelevant or does nothing. B does something, barely, but it is something to weaken the argument, viz. pointing out potential dissimilarities in the analogy. Which is all to say, the choice that weakens "the most", not necessarily is a one-hitter quitter, is the right one no matter how uncomfortable it feels to choose it. If all of the other choices blow, and there is one you don't like, but is relevant, that's the answer (probably).
I think B is very poorly supported, there is simply not enough information to know whether that is relevant. E is supposedly disqualified since there is a presumed difference between "first few" and "several" but the assumption needed to consider first few and several as equivalent is MUCH smaller than the assumption that a difference in relative size is harmful to the argument. I strongly disagree with this one.
This whole premise and answer choices, including the correct answer choice, are really weak....Not a fan of this question or explanation
wait highkey why is this explanation 16 mins long, i feel like i can't retain any of it
Why not just give us the whole stimulus? It was way harder to identify which sentences were premises and conclusion this way.
@MelanieGonzalez you can see the entire question and answers at the top of the screen where it says "show question" :)
@MelanieGonzalez I draw conclusions as I read, and then he presents a brand new part of the question. It is so frustrating!
I think I can help provide some guidance for anyone who got stuck between A and B like I did and went with A:
The reason that A is not the answer is that although the option of "requiring costly repairs" seems alluring in the weakening of the economic development, you are weakening the analogy used by the columnist and then have to infer that the columnist's city may also require costly repair. However, option B more directly criticizes the support between the premise of "Other cities have earned large returns on such an investment." and the conclusion that this city also investing in this adviser by bringing the scope out to say "well ok but you're comparing the economic development of New York and Boston to the economic development of Bangor Maine"
So, while both A and B are weakening the supports of the premises, B does so much more directly so that you don't need to infer that because some cars do still break down despite receiving preventative maintenance, this city's economy will also incur major costs despite the economic adviser.
@JosefLangevin Well done with this explanation. Thank you
gonna pretend i understood any of this for my own sanity
This question hurts my whole body
Am I the only one that thought all of these answers sucked? 😂
So the reason it's not A and is instead B, is becasue A does not widen the gap between Motorists and the city council. Instead it provides facts about A, but dosen't compare that to B so we can't use it?
what the hell is this stimulus
Can someone simplify B and how it weakens the analogy
@HilarySackor It doesn't weaken the analogy. It somewhat weakens the argument. The prompt doesn't ask us to weaken the analogy - just the argument.
'Other cities [with much larger economies and populations] experienced large returns, so can we reliably conclude that our city is also likely to experience a big payoff?' Maybe less so, because answer B is what tells us that our city has small pop & econ.
(but even then, it's not a very good 'weakening' argument imho..)
@HilarySackor It does weaken the analogy. It is listing properties of the columnists city that are different from the other cities used at the end of the argument to analogize. When you have an analogy, the more different the two things being compared are, the weaker it is as a logical argument.
Let's say you want to know what happens if you open a brand new restaurant in NYC. Imagine I explain to you exactly what happened when I opened a restaurant in say Charleston SC, that it was extremely successful, and gave that as a reason to open the same kind of restaurant. Well my analogy is weak because Charleston has significant differences, it is smaller, a completely different culture, presumably different people with different food presences, different tax codes etc...
So that is what the original argument is doing. It's basically saying that "these other cities that you compared our city to is too different in respect to size and economy." By elucidating that difference, it has made the analogy worse.