Student Question:

If the conclusion is the last sentence “So all made-to-measure wigs should be dry-cleaned," how then was the sufficient assumption landing on “whose price falls in the medium-priced to expensive range has a handmade foundation.” I have watched the explanation video but this does not help my understanding of making the conclusion true.

Tutor Answer:

Let's break down the stimulus with diagramming to keep track of how everything fits together. As you correctly noted, the conclusion is that all made-to-measure wigs should be dry cleaned. So if something is a made-to-measure wig, then it should be dry-cleaned:

made-to-measure wig --> dry-cleaned

We need to find a way to draw this conclusion. Let's look at the premises that support it. First, we know that made-to-measure wigs range from medium-priced to expensive.

made-to-measure wig --> medium-priced to expensive

We also know that handmade foundations are never on wigs that don't use human hair. So if there is a wig with handmade foundations, we know it must use human hair.

handmade foundations --> human hair

However, any wig that does use human hair should be dry-cleaned. We can add this human hair --> dry-cleaned piece to make a chain with our previous premise:

handmade foundations --> human hair --> dry-cleaned

Now let's put our premises together with the conclusion so we can see what we're missing.

made-to-measure wig --> medium-priced to expensive

handmade foundations --> human hair --> dry-cleaned

-------------------------

CONCLUSION: made-to-measure wig --> dry-cleaned

So we know the price of the made-to-measure wigs, and we know wigs with handmade foundations have human hair, and such wigs need to be dry-cleaned. However, we don't have a link right now that shows how made-to-measure wigs need dry-cleaning.

This is where answer choice A comes in, telling us that "any wig whose price falls in the medium-priced to expensive range has a handmade foundation."

Remember that we know made-to-measure wigs fall in the medium-priced to expensive range. Let's add this new information about the wigs in this price range having handmade foundations.

made-to-measure wig --> medium-priced to expensive --> handmade foundations

Now we have to ask ourselves if this triggers anything. What do we know about handmade foundations? From the stimulus, we know they use human hair, which means they need to be dry-cleaned (handmade foundations --> human hair --> dry-cleaned)

So let's put the whole chain together now, with the new link answer choice A added in bold for clarity:

made-to-measure wig --> medium-priced to expensive --> handmade foundations --> human hair --> dry-cleaned

Now we have a clear connection that shows how all made-to-measure wigs should be dry cleaned. This is how answer choice A gets us to the conclusion.

@Gabero123 That's right! This is what I noted with this sentence: "The mall is within the community, so its higher economic activity should also contribute to the overall community economy." However, the discrepancy in the stimulus isn't that there isn't a boost to the local economy at all, it's that the increase is smaller than expected.

Student Question:

I understand why A is better in terms of providing an alternative cause that affects smoking and snoring - but why wouldn’t D also cause doubt?

Tutor Answer:

Compare answer choice D, which says most smokers do not snore, to the information in the stimulus. In the first line, we're already told that snoring isn't common in smokers or non-smokers, so we already know that most smokers do not snore. The author is still basing their conclusion from the fact that smokers snore more often than nonsmokers.

The author’s conclusion is that smoking can cause (induce) snoring. They aren't claiming that smoking always or usually leads to snoring, so reiterating that most smokers do not snore doesn’t contradict or undermine the idea that smoking can induce snoring.

Student Question:

Can you please provide the explanation of why AC C is the correct answer

Tutor Answer:

Let's start by translating answer choice C.

C says that the author is offering something as " an adequate defense of a practice." The "practice" it's defending here is the "journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks, as if they were the interviewee’s own words." In other words, the author is defending the way journalists sometimes make up quotes and print them to look like they were the exact words of the people they were interviewing.

Answer choice C says that what is offered up as a defense for this practice is "an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice." The "observation" here is the part of the stimulus that says "people’s actual spoken remarks rarely convey their ideas as clearly as does a distillation of those ideas crafted, after an interview, by a skilled writer." The author is observing that what people say rarely shows that they actually mean as clearly as if a writer reworded it for them.

However, this defense "discredits only one of several possible alternatives" to totally fabricating quotes.

The author tells us why people's exact spoken remarks aren't the clearest, but that doesn't automatically mean it's defensible to fabricate quotes instead. Maybe the interviewer could guide the interviewees to speak more clearly, or maybe the journalist can make it clear that something isn't a direct quote, but their own interpretation of what the interviewee was saying.

This is why answer choice C is correct, because it points out that there aren't only two options (completely fabricating quotes vs quoting exactly what people say). C shows that the author only showed why one alternative to fabricating quotes isn't ideal.

Student Question:

I am still confused as to why option C is not correct.

Tutor Response:

Answer choice C is not correct because if we break down the argument, it's not actually flawed and cannot match the flawed structure in the stimulus.

The stimulus says "only experienced salespeople will be able to meet the company's selling quota." This means if you meet the selling quota, you must be an experienced sales person.

meet quota --> experienced sales person

The author then concludes that they must not count as an experienced sales person based on selling only half the quota (aka not meeting the quota)

/meet quota --> /experienced sales person.

This is a classic sufficiency-necessity flaw where the author thinks denying the sufficient condition condition means denying the necessary (A --> B, /A --> /B). You can read more on this here.

Answer choice C, on the other hand, correctly denies the necessary condition, which triggers denying the sufficient condition. Let's map it out.

C says "only oceanographers enjoy the Atlantic in midwinter," which means if you enjoy the Atlantic in midwinter, then you must be an oceanographer.

enjoy atlantic --> oceanographer

Then it concludes that Gerland doesn't enjoy the Atlantic midwinter because he isn't an oceanographer.

/oceanographer --> /enjoy atlantic

As you can see, C is denying the necessary condition in order to conclude that Gerland doesn't meet the sufficient condition. This is the valid contrapositive argument form, which you can read about here (A --> B, /B --> /A).

Student Question:

I am still puzzled about how C is the “best” answer. I think C still leaves open the possibility that sea creatures could have been depicted. It states “many,” not “all,” which is still too “loose” an answer for my liking. Are these kinds of questions more dependent on what “must” be true or what “could” be true?

Tutor Answer:

We are dealing with a Weaken EXCEPT question, so we need an answer choice that does not weaken the argument in the stimulus. The correct answer will either strengthen or do nothing to the argument.

Answer choice C doesn't actually add much to the argument and doesn't change the support in the stimulus. C says that the cave paintings had many land animals, but this is already a possibility in the stimulus. The author is just saying we would expect to see sea animals, but never denies there could be other animals in the paintings too. As you pointed out, it just says "many" which also doesn't mean all the animals are land animals, so clarifying that some of the paintings have land animals doesn't undermine the argument. That's why it's the correct answer in this Weaken EXCEPT question because we're looking for an answer that does not weaken.

Student Question:

I cannot wrap my head around how we are allowed to assume that the general theory of art and premodern theory of art had the same purpose? We arent told anything about the pre modern theory arts purpose only the general theory of arts purpose.

Tutor Answer:

In the first line of the stimulus, it's talking about the "purpose of a general theory of art," not the General Theory. It's talking about the purpose of general theories. Then we're told about premodern general theories, which aren't a completely distinct art theory, but the premodern subset of the group of general theories. This is how we can infer that the premodern general theories have the same purpose.

Student Question:

Can you help me better understand what is meant by “analogy” in answer choice E? When going through the answers, I thought the second half of answer E matched perfectly, but from my understanding the word analogy refers to the comparison of 2 different things. Since I saw 2 drugs were being compared I thought the first half of answer E was therefore wrong since both things being compared are drugs. Is it because in the stimulus they’re described as 2 different kinds of drugs they are seen as different even though they are meant to combat the same thing? Or is it because Kathy says they are chemically different that we can then assume the two drugs are different and thus being compared through analogy?

Because I didn’t think an analogy was happening I went with answer B because I thought it better addressed how Kathy was responding by pointing out a difference between the 2 drugs despite their similarity.

Tutor Answer:

When used in an argument, an analogy just refers to a comparison between two things in order to explain something for the argument. While you can't compare the exact same thing (like the very same drug), comparing two drugs that do the same things is perfectly fine. In fact, the more similar the two things being compared are, the more applicable an analogy might be. Even without Kathy specifically saying the drugs are different chemically, Mark already clarifies that we're comparing two decongestants, Zokaz and Qualzan.

Answer choice B is also wrong because Kathy isn't comparing Mark's argument to a different, flawed argument. Kathy is presenting her own argument and pointing out something that makes Zokaz and Qualzan different, which may poke holes in the analogy. She isn't purposefully making a bad argument that matches Mark's.

Student Question:

Stopping at the red light is idling, so since the engine is still working, there are still emissions. So in the power plants, they basically wouldn't shut their engines down. So why D, not C?

Tutor Answer:

Remember that in the stimulus, Levin is comparing the emissions at the powerplants to speed, not engine emissions from the cars. You're making a different analogy here by comparing car engine emissions to the powerplant emissions.

Since Levin is comparing speeds with emissions, the complete stop at stoplights (0 speed) would be analogous to a complete stop of powerplant emissions (0 emissions).

Student Question:

Is the language strong enough in B? I thought C had the right type of strong language

Tutor Answer:

The conclusion in the argument doesn't have to be true based on the information in the stimulus alone. Why can't there be some other way for someone to have learned practical intelligence? Like reading about it from a skill book, or learning about it from an instructor?

Answer choice B bridges this gap by telling us "skills are acquired only if they are needed," which gives us a strong, clear rule. If a skill is acquired, it must be the case that the skill was needed.

skill acquired --> needed

Since the conclusion is talking about someone who has never been deprived of anything, we can now conclude that they wouldn't develop the skill of practical intelligence.

/needed --> /skill acquired

Unlike B, which gives us a strong rule, C actually uses weaker language. Answer choice C says "the best way to learn how to acquire something is to be deprived of it." C is still allowing for the possibility that there could be other ways to learn.

Student question:

I thought A was wrong bc it states a “system” specifically which isn't tech necessarily but a system is implied bc the main point is about government overreach?

Tutor answer:

The "system" answer choice A is referring to is the system in which the government electronically records transactions. We can tell this because answer choice A also specifically compares it to the paper money system.

Student Question:

Is (A) incorrect here because our stimulus does not describe anything necessary/prescriptive, and instead, like (B), follows the line of reasoning of, we had success in this instance through X, so we should repeat X to have success again?

Tutor Answer:

According to the question stem, we are given a flawed argument in the stimulus that we have to match in the answers. Answer choice A is incorrect because it gives us a valid argument.

If it's true that airplanes could fly before any airplanes even had jet engines, then it must be true that jet engines are not required to fly.

You're right that answer choice A also isn't prescriptive. It doesn't prescribe what someone or something should do by making a comparison.

Student Question:

Sometimes we are told to take the premise as true, and other times, not. This stimulus says, “To justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other color.” I was confused on whether or not I should take this as true — if yes, then I’d eliminate AC C because I’d take what the insurance company said to be true and their justification is correct, and if not, I’d choose AC C, thinking that both the insurance company and the author have committed the same assumption error.

Tutor Answer:

You should be taking the premises as being true, but the trick here is that the premise isn't saying insurance companies are right about their justification. The premise that we would take to be true is that insurance companies claim this fact. The author tells us that insurance companies claim it to be true in order to justify higher charges. We don't have any premises that specifically tell us if the insurance companies are right or not. The author even says in the conclusion, "If this claim is true," so it's not a guaranteed truth even in the author's head.

However, it doesn't actually matter here for answer choice C. Even if you take it as true that "a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other color," it still doesn't tell us why there are more red cars involved. The author is still assuming that the red cars themselves are causing the accidents somehow, and not considering the fact that maybe reckless drivers prefer having red cars. Assuming the insurance companies are right wouldn't eliminate answer choice C. They could be totally right that red cars are involved in more accidents, but the author's conclusion hinges on what actually causes those accidents.

Student Question:

I’m just not understanding how D is the answer and then A isn’t.

Tutor Answer:

The discrepancy that we are trying to solve here is that we'd expect it to be more useful to advertise to people aged 46 to 55, since they spend the most money. Instead, however, the advertisers are appealing to people aged 25 and under, and we aren't really told why.

Answer choice A is wrong because it doesn't explain this. It just tells us that it's important for companies from an expense perspective to target people who are most likely to buy their stuff. But this just deepens the mystery. Why is it that the people aged 25 and under are most likely to buy their stuff? Don't the older 46-55 year old group spend more money? Why aren't they the ones targeted? Answer choice A doesn't solve anything.

Answer choice D, on the other hand, tells us what the TV advertisers think are different about the age groups. They think that people older than 25 (which includes the group of 46-55 year olds) almost never change their minds about the stuff they buy. This means that the TV advertisements wouldn't be all that effective on them. This explains why they're targeting the 25 and under group, even if they don't spend as much money, because they think there's a better chance of convincing them to buy the advertised stuff.

Student Question:

I’m still not understanding how B is going the other way.

Tutor Answer:

B is saying that the rest of the fish-eating group's diet did NOT include food that was likely to cause the development of heart disease. In other words, B says that aside from the fish component, the rest of their diet is also pretty healthy in the heart disease context.

Does this have to be true for our argument to work? No, it actually hurts, because then we can no longer isolate what is causing the group to be less likely to develop heart disease. Was it the fish? Or was it the fact that the rest of their diet also avoids heart disease-developing food? It's not necessary for the argument because it's actually undermines the idea that fish provides these benefits.

B goes the "other way around" because it hurts the argument instead of being necessary. Also for a Necessary Assumption question, negating the right answer choice should destroy the argument. If we negate answer choice B, it actually helps the argument. Negating B would say that the fish-eating subjects did have a diet that was otherwise conducive to causing heart disease. So, the fish-eaters had a crappy diet, and they still came out on top with a lower likelihood of developing heart disease! This makes the contributions of the fish more impressive, because now it seems like the fish really did help them out. This is what we mean when we saw answer choice be "goes the wrong way," because its negation helps the argument instead of destroying it.

Student Question:

How can I make the assumption that the lack of agricultural products is the “problem” in the stimulus?

Tutor Answer:

You don't! The correct answer choice is actually what tells us the lack of agricultural products could be part of the problems. In the stimulus alone, all we're really told is that these mysterious problems caused by urbanization could be solved by trading for more agricultural products. You're right that we don't know that the lack of agricultural products itself is a problem. The author doesn't say that.

This is where answer choice C, the correct answer, comes in. It provides us new information that makes the economists solution make more sense since it specifically tells us a lack of agricultural products is central to the problems caused by urbanization. It gives us a reason to believe that trading for more agricultural products would solve anything.

@AmandaTesar6

You're right that it's not impossible that Neanderthals also burned lichen/grass for heat/light and for smoking food. We don't really know, the archaeologist is just making an argument about that they think is most likely. The archeologist thinks they were burning the lichen and grass for smoking meat. It doesn't mean the argument is airtight or has no other possibilities. In fact, we know the argument isn't airtight because we're dealing with a Weaken question. We would not have been able to poke holes in a valid argument.

Answer choice A does not weaken the argument because your interpretation is requiring us to make quite a few unlikely assumptions just to make it a neutral fact. Despite knowing that the materials produce more heat than smoke, we have to assume that the Neanderthals didn't care about that and still just used it to smoke/preserve food. And we have to assume this despite the fact that answer choice A tells us the fireplaces with different types of materials were in separate fireplaces, so the materials were not used together. The Neanderthals seemed to have separated the materials, which doesn't naturally suggest they were still using it for the same purpose. It's still possible that Neanderthals prioritized meat preservation the whole time, but it's not the most supported scenario.

Interpreting answer choice A with fewer unsupported assumptions shows that it could actually strengthen the argument. It tells us there were other, separate fireplaces near the ones with lichen and grass. These fireplaces had materials that produced more heat, so we know it's not as if they didn't have these materials. They had access to more heat-producing materials with which to fuel their fires, and even used them in fireplaces distinct from the lichen ones. They had different fireplaces with different types of materials, so they may have had a reason to separately keep using the lichen/grass despite it not producing as much heat. This makes it more likely that they were using the lichen/grass for some other purpose like smoking meat. Otherwise, we might expect all the materials to be dumped in one fireplace together.

Student Question:

I don’t quite follow how the fact that lead seals were recast once they were opened and served purpose show that the number of documents sealed that way were greater than the 40,000 remaining... and how A fills in the gap.

Tutor Answer:

Most lead seals were recast to use again. The author is suggesting that after the seal is recast, they're being used to seal other documents again. For example, imagine each seal is recast and used at least 3 times on different documents. This would mean when we see 40,000 lead seals, it indicates 120,000 (40,000 x 3) letters.

However, we don't actually know how often they recast the seals and used them on new documents. Answer choice A tells us specifically that during the same early Byzantine time period, the sealed documents were actually opened in that period. This helps cut out an alternative, because what if they sealed the documents, but the documents weren't opened most of the time? This would mean the seal is still stuck on there and hasn't been recast yet. By confirming that most of documents were opened, answer choice A makes it more likely that the seals were be recast and reused on other documents.

Student Question:

Does this argument commit a whole-to-part flaw?

Tutor Response:

You're right that part v. whole plays a role here. This is because the stimulus tells us something about greenhouse gases in general being higher 3 billion years ago. The argument then draws a conclusion about how the level of carbon dioxide, one specific greenhouse gas, was probably higher as well.

Student Question:

I am honestly not understanding why the answer is less money here when all they refer to is a decreasing percentage. how can a decreasing percentage mean the same as decreasing the total amount of money?

Tutor Answer:

You're right that a decreasing percentage of money being spent on something doesn't necessarily mean the total amount of money spent has decreased. Why is this the case? Because it's possible that if the total amount of money (where the percentage is coming from) increased enough, then even a smaller percentage of that larger pool could be the same amount of money as before, or an even greater amount.

Let's use some example numbers to make it clear.

Say we usually spend $100,000 on treating disease X, and 30% ( $30,000) goes to the standard effective treatment. The percentage of spending on this decreased in the past decade, let's say to only 10%. But the conclusion then expects that the amount of money being spent on the standard treatment has also decreased (so less than $30,000).

However, we don't know if the total amount of money in the pool has increased. What if we are now spending $500,000 on treating disease X? Now, even if I'm only spending 10% of that on the standard effective treatments, I'm still spending $50,000, which is more than it used to be. That would be a scenario where the conclusion isn't true.

This is the gap that answer choice E fills in, allowing us to draw the conclusion. It specifies that the total amount of money spent on treating the disease declined during the last decade, so we know the total didn't increase. Using our previous numbers example, the total amount of money being spent on treating disease X would have to be less than $100,000, and the percentage being spent would be less than $30,000. It's now no longer possible that the conclusion isn't true.

Student Question:

I am confused how A is incorrect. Isn't our conclusion resting on the fact that complaints will never stop? if we get rid of our appeal procedure at some point, how will we still get complaints that reveal problems?

Tutor Responses:

You're right that our conclusion rests on the assumption that the complaints (that reveal unanticipated problems) will never stop, in order for the system to always be expanding. That is exactly what the correct answer C says, that the ideal bureaucracy "will never be permanently without complaints about problems that are not covered by that bureaucracy's regulations."

Answer choice A is incorrect because it's talking about what would happen after the bureaucracy has "defined and classified all possible problems" and figured out the regulations to deal with them. While this is the ideal goal of the bureaucracy, it will never actually achieve this goal according to the argument. The conclusion rests on the fact that they will never actually achieve the goal of dealing with every single problem, which is the whole reason why complaints will keep coming in and the "ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations." Answer choice A says they will obtain the goal of solving all the problems, which is not what is happening in the argument.

Student Question:

How is E right when food is irrelevant to the stimulus?

Tutor Answer:

We are dealing with a Necessary Assumption question, which means we have to find an answer choice that has to be true for the conclusion to even be possible. It doesn't mean that it helps out the argument a ton, but it's one of the bare minimum assumptions about the world to give the conclusion even a fighting shot.

In this case, the conclusion is that if the rattles weren't so brittle, then we could figure out their age from looking at the sections in the rattle. This is because the rattlesnakes make a new section every time they molt.

Important here is that we're not told how many times they molt per year. They could molt three times a year, for example, and we could still tell their age if the rattles were all there by dividing the total number of rattles. This is why the most popular wrong answer, answer choice A, doesn't HAVE to be true in order for the conclusion to be true.

Answer choice E does have to be true in order for us to reliably be able to tell the age. We can negate the answer to see if what happens if it wasn't true.

E says that rattlesnakes molt the same number of times regardless of whether they have a lot of food or have a little food. Think about if this wasn't true. If rattlesnakes actually don't molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful, then their molting is affected by something other than age. If E wasn't true, then the conclusion doesn't work anymore. We can't tell the rattlesnake's age by counting the rattles because their food might be affecting how many there are.

Student Question:

Here’s my analysis:

“a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other color”

“then lives could undoubtedly be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether.”

So, red cars-many→accidents

banning red cars→lives could be saved [/red cards→lives can be saved]

I’m still confused because there’s a gap between “accidents” and “lives can be saved”, so I chose E, because the author obviously just equal “accidents” to “lives can be saved”.

Tutor Answer:

One problem here is that this question features causal reasoning, not conditional. So it's not useful to think of these facts as rules, like red cars-many→accidents. We should just keep in mind that red cars are involved in more accidents than any other cars. This is a correlation. Because of this, the author thinks that we could save lives if we ban red cars. Why does the author think that's a good solution? Because they are assuming that the red car factor is actually causing the accidents, instead of just being correlated with accidents.

Now, answer choice E is incorrect because the author doesn't actually do what it is saying. E says the author assumes that every automobile accident results in some loss of life. In other words, that at least one person died in every single car accident. However, the author never actually assumes this. The author never says or implies that every single car accident is fatal. The author does assume that at least some of the accidents are fatal, since they think banning red cars will save lives, but they don't say how many lives will be saved in every accident.

Student Question:

How does A explain why cheetahs live in the open savannah? I thought it only explained why they have spotted coats...

Tutor Answer:

Our first job is to figure out what the discrepancy is. We know that coat patterns of big cats usually match where they live and hunt for food, and we're specifically told that spotted cats live in forests while open plains have plain-coated cats.

Then we're told that cheetahs have these spotted coats while living in the savannah, so the discrepancy comes from the fact that they don't match the expected pattern. If they matched the pattern, we'd expect that they either had plain coats since they live in the savannah, or live in the forests with their spotted coats.

Answer choice A tells us that cheetahs don't need to be stealthy or hide when they're hunting like other big cats do (the other big cats that comply with the pattern of their coats matching the environment). This helps explain why the cheetahs' coats don't necessarily match their environment, which addresses the discrepancy of why the cheetahs don't match their environment the same way other big cats do.

Student Question:

I am having a hard time understanding how we can identify what is the conclusion and what is the premise, please help.

Tutor Answer:

To find the conclusion in any argument, you'll need to identify the flow of support. This means we're looking to figure out which sentences or phrases support other sentences (premises), and which sentences or phrases are just receiving support (conclusions).

You are looking for the main conclusion, which means it will be receiving support from something else in the argument, and the sentence itself doesn't actively provide support any other claims.

For this question, it's the first line that makes a claim that is supported by the second line. The first line tells us that for these Delta vacuums, we can't just use how powerful a vacuum's motor is to predict how good it is at cleaning.

Now, to check if this line is supported, we need to see if the next sentence helps make that claim more likely to be true, and it does! The second sentence tells us that even if the vacuum cleaners have equally powerful motors, the efficacy of their dust filters can be really different. So, maybe the dust filtration can affect how good the vacuum is at cleaning even if the motors are the same. Since this line supports the first sentence, and itself doesn't receive any support, we know it's the premise.

I recommend checking out the Arguments module in the 7Sage Lesson Library for some more background on how to identify argument parts.