Self-study
Support A number of seriously interested amateur astronomers have tested the new Exodus refractor telescope. ████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ █████████ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ██████████████ ██████████████ █████████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ████ █████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ███████ █████ █████ ███████ ██████████████ █████████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██ ██ ██ ██████ █ █████████ ███ █████████ ████████████
Argument Summary
The stimulus tells us that "a number" of "seriously interested amateur astronomers" have tried this new Exodus telescope. We're told that compared to the old Newtonian telescopes, the Exodus telescopes have allowed astronomers to see planetary features in much greater detail, despite gathering less light. The argument concludes that, based on these astronomers' experiences, other serious amateur astronomers who want a telescope for planetary observation should choose the Exodus telescope.
Analysis: Method of Reasoning
We're told that some people who fit a certain description ("seriously interested amateur astronomers") have tried a new item and have discovered some advantages it provides for a particular purpose: planetary observation. The argument concludes with the suggestion that everyone who fits that description — "any" serious amateur astronomers — and has the same goal should buy the new item.
20.
The argument proceeds by
a
evaluating the credibility ██ ██████ ████ ██ █ ██████████ █████
Incorrect. The argument never questions whether the astronomers' claims are credible or not.
b
detailing the ways ██ █████ █ ███████ █████████ ████████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███
Incorrect. It's true that the argument talks about astronomers "testing" the Exodus telescope. But even if we assume that this is an unusual "testing situation," as opposed to the astronomers just testing the telescopes by using them normally, the argument never contrasts this situation with "ordinary use" conditions.
c
placing a phenomenon ██ █ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ██
Incorrect. The argument doesn't single out one particular phenomenon that it tries to "explain."
d
supporting a recommendation ██ █ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ████ █████
Correct. Based on the experiences of this subset of "seriously interested amateur astronomers," the argument makes a recommendation to "any serious amateur astronomer" who wants a telescope for planetary observation.
e
distinguishing between the ██████ ███████ ███ █ ███████ █████ ███ █ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ████ █████
Incorrect. The argument never talks about the "actual" versus the "best" reasons for using this telescope or observing planets.