Self-study
Support Carl's Coffee Emporium stocks only two decaffeinated coffees: French Roast and Mocha Java. █████ ████ ██████ █████████████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ██████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██ █████ █████ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ███ █████ █████
Method of Reasoning
The argument proceeds by eliminating options. Yusuf’s options for which coffee to serve are limited to decaf, and Carl’s only stocks two decaf options. Yusuf definitely didn’t serve one of those two options (French Roast). So the author reaches the conditional conclusion that if the coffee Yusuf served was indeed something from Carl’s, it must have been the only other option (Mocha Java).
13.
The argument above is most ███████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
Samuel wants to ████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ █ █████ ███ █ ████████████ ███ ███████████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ███ █ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████ █ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ████████████
Mismatched premises. This presents two options and confirms that one is possible (the convertible), while failing to eliminate the second option (the sedan). The stimulus, meanwhile, presents two options and confirms that one is not possible.
b
If Anna wants ██ ████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ █████
Mismatched premises and conclusion. This presents two options and suggests (somewhat weakly) that both should be rejected. By rejecting both options, it then triggers a contrapositive to reach a non-conditional conclusion (Anna doesn’t like either option, so she doesn’t walk to work at all). The stimulus, meanwhile, confidently eliminates one of two options and reaches the conditional conclusion that the outcome is the remaining option.
c
Rose can either ████ █ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███████ ███ ████ █ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ████████ █████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ████ █████ █ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ███ ███ ████████
Mismatched premises and conclusion. This considers two options and eliminates them both, and concludes that, given a certain condition, the outcome will be some other option altogether (a different vacation than what Rose planned). The stimulus, meanwhile, only eliminates one of two options and concludes that, given a certain condition, the outcome is the remaining option.
d
Werdix, Inc., has ███████ ████ █ ██████ ███████ █ ███ ██ █████ ███ █ ███ ██ █████████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ █████ █████ ████ █ ███ ██ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██ ███████ ███ ██ █████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █████████
The argument proceeds by eliminating options. Arno’s options for which Werdix job to take are limited to two options. Arno definitely won’t take one those two options (sales). So the author reaches the conditional conclusion that if Arno is indeed accepting a job at Werdix, it must be the only other option (research).
e
If Teresa does ███ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ████████████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ██████ ███ █████████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████████ ███ ██ ██ ███████████ ████████ ███ ██ ██████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████████
Mismatched premises and conclusion. This considers two options and doesn’t eliminate either of them. Instead, it shows how both options lead to the same result and concludes that, given a certain condition, that result therefore is inevitable. The stimulus, meanwhile, eliminates one of the two options and concludes that, given a certain condition, the outcome is the remaining option.