I got it right but I disregarded the answers involving the car analogy as I identified that as context and thus irrelevant to the argument's structure. Did anyone else think this way?
On these Lessons, I've been using the Quick View tool to have a go at the question before the explanation. Lately I've been treating these as a BR session. In doing so, this is the first level 5 weakening question I've gotten right. While not 1:1, my reasoning behind why each wrong choice was wrong and why B was right was pretty similar to the explanation. I even fell into the B skeptical category and had to return to it in the end just like the explanation.
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'm quibbling with this question. In order for B to be correct, it seems as if we have to assume that the size of the population and economy is meaningfully linked to the returns on the city's investment in an advisor. This assumption isn't present in any form in the stimulus.
I still think this is the correct answer choice, as the others are less relevant to the stimulus, but B could also as easily be irrelevant, if we ultimately find out the population and size of the economy are irrelevant to the return on investment.
@EliK I think the point is that this is an argument by analogy. The argument says "this strategy worked for other cities so it should work for us too". You're right that the stimulus doesn't say that the size of the economy and population are important to investment returns BUT the strength of an analogous argument depends on the degree of similarity between the entities you're comparing. B) says "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." This highlights a significant difference between the cities and weakens our ability to draw an analogous conclusion on the expected outcome of investment.
@EliK I agree that it relies on an assumption, but that assumption is not unreasonable. I also agree with what @AudreyGilmour said. It weakens the argument as it was given in the stimmy. They are using other cities as an example of long-term development paying off. Highlighting dissimilarities between the cities being compared weakens the argument.
For the columnist's argument to remain strong, she would have to explain why the other cities are relevant examples to draw from, which is not a part of their original argument. The other answers don't have to be addressed by the columnist at all for her argument to remain strong, because they're totally irrelevant to the OG argument. Answer choice B may be relevant or irrelevant after we have more information, but it still attacks a core pillar of the argument and needs to be addressed. If you have to add more information to your argument for it to remain strong based on a point someone made, their point is most likely weakening your argument.
It's always imperative to remember the difference between "most weakens" and "must be false."
it’s reasonable to assume that population size and current size of the economy both do matter for return on investment. --this is a nonsensical assumption -where does this information come from?
I felt compelled to think that the right answer somehow had to tie back to the motorists, but I guess that wasn't really relevant to finding the right answer...
So basically the large returns would not be actualized to the same level (at least) if the target city had smaller starting variables. It's kind of like starting investing with $1,000 at 10% return and expecting to get the same return as one investing $1,000,000 with a 10% return. It ain't gonna work out like that.
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.
116 comments
gonna pretend i understood any of this for my own sanity
wait highkey why is this explanation 16 mins long, i feel like i can't retain any of it
For these analogy questions, I feel as though the main thing you must do here, is discover what the correct thing to attack is.
This whole premise and answer choices, including the correct answer choice, are really weak....Not a fan of this question or explanation
what the hell is this stimulus
holy crap that columnist should be fired and this question should be burned
What an insane question this is.
me thinking shortsighted meant literally people that can't see well 🤡
I’m so glad I found this high difficulty question simple yet have comely bombed certain low difficulty questions:p
Sameeee I got this right but a 1/5 difficulty wrong
This question hurts my whole body
This lesson just reminded me to do my oil change
fr i got a reminder for that shit
I got it right but I disregarded the answers involving the car analogy as I identified that as context and thus irrelevant to the argument's structure. Did anyone else think this way?
population has literally NOTHING to do with this.
surely that means their payoff could be even bigger.
@jjff Its a question of ROI, not raw payoff. Population and economy size don't change the rate at which a planner can help your economy.
had to 2x this video...
On these Lessons, I've been using the Quick View tool to have a go at the question before the explanation. Lately I've been treating these as a BR session. In doing so, this is the first level 5 weakening question I've gotten right. While not 1:1, my reasoning behind why each wrong choice was wrong and why B was right was pretty similar to the explanation. I even fell into the B skeptical category and had to return to it in the end just like the explanation.
Me too! But I felt into the A trap for this question
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'm quibbling with this question. In order for B to be correct, it seems as if we have to assume that the size of the population and economy is meaningfully linked to the returns on the city's investment in an advisor. This assumption isn't present in any form in the stimulus.
I still think this is the correct answer choice, as the others are less relevant to the stimulus, but B could also as easily be irrelevant, if we ultimately find out the population and size of the economy are irrelevant to the return on investment.
@EliK I think the point is that this is an argument by analogy. The argument says "this strategy worked for other cities so it should work for us too". You're right that the stimulus doesn't say that the size of the economy and population are important to investment returns BUT the strength of an analogous argument depends on the degree of similarity between the entities you're comparing. B) says "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." This highlights a significant difference between the cities and weakens our ability to draw an analogous conclusion on the expected outcome of investment.
@EliK I agree that it relies on an assumption, but that assumption is not unreasonable. I also agree with what @AudreyGilmour said. It weakens the argument as it was given in the stimmy. They are using other cities as an example of long-term development paying off. Highlighting dissimilarities between the cities being compared weakens the argument.
For the columnist's argument to remain strong, she would have to explain why the other cities are relevant examples to draw from, which is not a part of their original argument. The other answers don't have to be addressed by the columnist at all for her argument to remain strong, because they're totally irrelevant to the OG argument. Answer choice B may be relevant or irrelevant after we have more information, but it still attacks a core pillar of the argument and needs to be addressed. If you have to add more information to your argument for it to remain strong based on a point someone made, their point is most likely weakening your argument.
It's always imperative to remember the difference between "most weakens" and "must be false."
@EliK I have to agree with this. In order to make B the right answer, you still need to make several assumptions of your own.
it’s reasonable to assume that population size and current size of the economy both do matter for return on investment. --this is a nonsensical assumption -where does this information come from?
I felt compelled to think that the right answer somehow had to tie back to the motorists, but I guess that wasn't really relevant to finding the right answer...
@fl7dqf252 I think here the motorist was simply used as a premise introductory-almost like a story telling.
So basically the large returns would not be actualized to the same level (at least) if the target city had smaller starting variables. It's kind of like starting investing with $1,000 at 10% return and expecting to get the same return as one investing $1,000,000 with a 10% return. It ain't gonna work out like that.
Am I the only one that thought all of these answers sucked? 😂
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
bro talks too much