Hi guys,
I've been using the negation test as I go through the answer choices. I've been able to pinpoint why E is correct and why most of the other answer choices are wrong, except for answer choice C. I don't understand what I'm missing, but if someone could explain why negating answer choice C does not wreck the argument, that would be great.
Conclusion - Cause of increased deaths is bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms.
Premises - Two explanations for increasing death rate of people with asthma: the reporting is more accurate now and there is an increase in urban pollution.
Gap - Bronchial inhalers is not mentioned in the two premises as an explanation for increased death rate.
Answer choice C - "Bronchial inhalers are unsafe, even when used according to the recommended instructions." Why is the incorrect? If the inhalers are not unsafe, then wouldn't this wreck the argument that the inhalers cause the increased death rate? Isn't it also a must be true that the inhalers have to be unsafe for the death rate of the asthma population to significantly increase?
I find this explanation video unnecessarily detailed and too confusing. It is much simpler to break it down as follows:
less than 50... and duplicate 25%... → /funding.
The stimulus says there will be funding. So take the contrapositive.
funding →/less than 50... OR /duplicate 25%.....
Since the stimulus says there is a duplicate 25%..., then there must not be less than 50 people available for hire.