Self-study
Radio producer: Support Our failure to attract new listeners over the past several years has forced us to choose between devoting some airtime to other, more popular genres of music, and sticking with classical music that appeals only to our small but loyal audience. ████ █████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ ██████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████
Argument Summary
The radio producer presents two options: devote some airtime to popular genres, or stick with classical music for the loyal audience. She then argues that sticking with classical is undesirable, because the loyal audience doesn't generate enough ad revenue, and the station risks going out of business. Since we shouldn't take that risk, she concludes we should go with the other option: devote airtime to popular genres.
The Reasoning Pattern
Before looking at the answers, let's understand the reasoning pattern:
Step 1: Present two options (A or B)
Step 2: Show that one option is undesirable (it leads to a bad outcome)
Step 3: Conclude that we should choose the other option
This is reasoning by eliminating options. Lets look for something that has those three reasoning steps.
22.
Which one of the following █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ █████████
a
We should either ███ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████ █████████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████
(A)'s conclusion is conditional: "if cost is our greatest concern, we should make curtains." But the stimulus's conclusion is unconditional. The radio producer doesn't say "if avoiding risk is our greatest concern, we should devote airtime to popular genres." She flatly concludes that we should do it based in part on a premise that we shouldn't take the risk associated with the other option. That structural difference disqualifies (A).
b
We should either ████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███████ █████ █████ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ █████████
(B) matches the pattern. Here's how:
Stimulus
Two options: popular genres or classical
Classical is undesirable (risks going out of business, and we shouldn't take that risk)
Therefore, choose popular genres(B)
Two options: make curtains or buy blinds
Blinds are undesirable (require special order, and we don't have time)
Therefore, make curtains
Both arguments present two mutually exclusive options, eliminate one by showing it leads to an unacceptable outcome, and conclude we should choose the other.
c
For the living ████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ ███ █████████
(C) presents three possibilities: curtains, valances, or both. These options aren't mutually exclusive, since (C) explicitly says we can do "curtains or valances or both." In the stimulus, the two options were mutually exclusive (devote time to other genres or stick with only classical music).
d
Since we have ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████
(D)'s conclusion doesn't match. The argument starts with two options (buy more fabric or make valances), but the conclusion recommends a third option: buying blinds. The stimulus's conclusion picked one of the original two options. In addition, (D) never establishes that one of the original options is straightforwardly undesirable. It says buying matching fabric would be "hard," but difficulty isn't the same as the kind of unacceptable risk described in the stimulus.
e
We should either ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ █████████
(E) starts with two options (buy blinds or make curtains), which matches. But the conclusion goes off track: "if we do not make the curtains, we should make the valances." This introduces a third concept (valances) that wasn't part of the original choice. It also makes the recommendation conditional on not choosing one of the options. The stimulus's conclusion was unconditional and stayed within the original two options.