Self-paced
Unless the residents of Glen Hills band together, the proposal to rezone that city will be approved. ██ ██ ███ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██████ ██████ █████ █████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ██████████ ███████ █████ ██ █████ ███████ ███████████ ███ █████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ██████████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████████
Stimulus Breakdown: Conditional Chain
Although the stimulus doesn't provide a full argument, it does give us a bunch of conditional claims that we can chain together. Chaining our conditions will help us by revealing the indirect links that could serve as possible conclusions. Be careful though—only some of these conditions can chain together.
P1: /residents band together → rezoning approved
P2: rezoning approved → new water and sewer systems possible
P3: /new water and sewer systems → /developers construct apartments
P4: developers construct apartments → new residents
P5: new residents → new roads (and probably schools)
P6: new roads OR new schools → substantial tax increases
P7: growth –maybe→ destroy rural atmosphere
Chain 1: /residents band together → rezoning approved → new water and sewer systems possible
Chain 2: developers construct apartments → new residents → new roads (and probably schools) → substantial tax increases
Chain 3: developers construct apartments → "growth" –maybe→ destroy rural atmosphere
That was a lot of chaining, but now we can see a number of possible inferences from those indirect links. And of course, the contrapositive of any such inference is also a valid conclusion. Wrong answers will make invalid inferences, such as confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.
11.
Which one of the following ███ ██ ████████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████
a
If the citizens ██ ████ █████ ████ █████████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ███████
The first condition that's relevant here is that if residents don't band together, the rezoning will be approved. (A) tries to deny the sufficient condition, which is a logical flaw.
Stimulus: /residents band together → rezoning approved
Valid inference: /rezoning approved → residents band together
Invalid inference (A): residents band together → /rezoning approved
What's more, there's not actually a conditional link between rezoning and developers building apartments. Looking carefully, rezoning is merely one way to enable a necessary condition for apartments. There could be other paths to building new water and sewer systems.
b
If developers build █████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██████
If developers build apartments, that triggers a long
c
If the rezoning ████████ ████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ ██ █████
At best, the stimulus suggests that rezoning is a possible indirect cause of destroying Glen Hills' rural atmosphere. (C) instead positions rezoning as a necessary condition of destroying the rural atmosphere. That's not valid—there are many other reasons the rural atmosphere could be lost.
d
If developers do ███ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████████
(D) takes the
e
If developers do ███ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ ██ ███████████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██ ██████████
(E) is a sufficient-necessary confusion on a smaller scale than (B), but invalid nonetheless. The stimulus says that developers building apartments is sufficient to cause road congestion and (maybe) school overcrowding; (B) instead treats it as a necessary condition.