Self-study
Economics professor: Marty's Pizza and Checkers Pizza are the two major pizza parlors in our town. ███████ ████ ██████ █████ █████████ ███████ ████ ███ ███ █████ █████ █████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████ ████████ █████████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ████████ ███████ ███ █████ ████ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████
Summary
The only motive for Checkers’ action was to hurt Marty’s, because the opposite action would not have harmed Checkers and would have satisfied some of their customers.
Missing Connection
The economics professor makes a claim about motivation, but we know nothing about what qualifies for having that motive. We need to know that at least one of the circumstances surrounding Checkers’ decision (wouldn’t have hurt Checkers, would have satisfied customers) is enough to qualify as singular motive of hurting Marty’s.
21.
Which one of the following, ██ ████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ████████ ██████
a
Any company that ███████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ █████ ██ █████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ █████████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ███████████
This matches our prediction and allows the conclusion to be validly drawn. If (A) is true, then Checker’s decision and the surrounding circumstances would trigger (A)’s sufficient condition (”Any company...”) and allow us to conclude that their only motive was to hurt Marty’s.
b
Any company that ██████ ██ ████ █ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ████ █████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██████████
Given the stimulus, the only thing we can confirm from (B) is its necessary condition (”...refuse to accept them even when...”), and confirming a necessary condition does not allow us to validly infer anything.
c
At least one ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ███████████ ████ ██████ █████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ████████████
(C) only tells us that this has happened. We do not know that the company specified is Checkers.
d
Any company that ███████ ███ █████ ████████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████████
(D) weakens the argument. This is giving alternative motive, i.e. they wanted to avoid helping Marty’s, which is different than actively trying to hurt them.
Additionally, we cannot trigger the sufficient condition here (”Any company...”), because Checkers does not qualify.
e
If accepting coupons ██████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ █ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████████
(E) can support a conclusion that a refusal is motivated by a desire to satisfy customers, or, through contrapositive, that accepting coupons enables a company to satisfy customers. We need to conclude that a company’s motive in refusal is solely to hurt another company.