i think it' s just badly designed question. They are humans after all
LG used to be my worst section and now I'm ALMOST consistently hitting -2 to 0. But it still fluctuates widly lol. I would say I'm a natural at RC and diagnostic test with -3 and I haven't prepped for it yet. Currently focusing on LR section (Timed -6 to -3; untimed -3 to 0).
Trying to hit 170 above and looking for a study buddy who can drive each other to committ to the test.
There is a particular emphasis on the fact that we never know with the foreign parts whether we are getting something reliable or not. However, if some of the foreign parts are passing the goverment standards, well then we do know parts that are foreign and also reliable, so we could just buy those parts.
Thank you for the very detailed analysis.
But it seems to me that, in making this interpretation, you're assuming that the "knowability" in question strictly hinges on whether the parts pass the government's automotive test, that passing the test is a confirmation of our belief into the knowledge that the part indeed is reliable and not cheap-constructed. But the problem with this interpretation is that it fails to consider the possibility that an unreliable and cheap can also likewise pass the test, so the test itself is not a sufficient criterion of determining whether the part is reliable or cheaply constructed or not.
Premise 1: Clark brand name parts are made for cars manufactured in this country.
Premise 2: they satisfy all the government's automotive tests.
Premise 3: for foreign made parts, you never know which one might be cheap look-alike and reliable.
Conclusion: you should prefer Clark brand name parts to foreign made parts.
The question is asking for the necessary assumption of the stimulus. I picked the right answer. But, upon second look, I think even the right answer, strictly speaking, seems to be wrong....
Answer C, the supposedly right answer, states that "parts that satisfy our government standards are not as poorly constructed as the cheap foreign-made parts".
It doesn't seem to me the negation of this answer choice necessarily undermines the original argument. For I read the premise 3 of the stimulus as only implying that, in contrast to foreign made parts, you COULD KNOW which one might be cheap look-alike and reliable in the case of Clark brand name parts, which means Clark brand name parts could contain cheap and unreliable parts just as foreign made ones do. The only difference is you can tell the difference in the case of former, but not the latter. For answer C to be the necessary assumption of the original argument, however, we need to read that premise 3 as implying that Clark brand name parts are INDEED NOT cheap look-alike and reliable, which seems to me a bit too strong an inference to be made.
Furthermore, nothing in the stimulus implies that cheap and unreliable foreign-made parts cannot satisfy the government automotive standards.
Can someone help point out if I miss anything? Am I reading too much into the stimulus?
D is wrong because it states the opposite of the stimulus’s premise: “the end of an action is NOT THE MERE byproduct of an action”. And if nothing can justify a means except by the end’s value, the byproduct of an action, because it does not constitute the end of an action, cannot justify an action, not to mention being the ONLY justification of an action.
Do you have trouble identifying the conclusion? If not, the question is simple if you realize the structure of the stimulus relies on a series of substitutive definitions. The key lies on the translation of the conclusion: "nothing will justify a means except the end's value".
What is the "means"? What is the "end's value"? Well, if you read the first two sentences, they will tell you:
1) the means = an action
2) the end of an action = intended outcome of an action =/ the byproduct of an action
the end's value = value of the end of an action = the value of intended outcome of an action
So the conclusion could be translated as:
nothing will justify an action except by the value of the intended outcome of the action.
Now let's look at the answer choice:
A is wrong because the author is UNSURE if the value of some ends WILL justify any means (he says "perhaps, there is no end whose value will justify any means").
B is wrong again because the author is UNSURE if the value of then end of an action can ALWAYS justify its means.
C. is the right answer because it perfectly paraphrase the conclusion.
D is wrong because it states the opposite of the stimulus's premise: "the end of an action is NOT THE MERE byproduct of an action". And if nothing can justify a means except by the end's value, the byproduct of an action, because it does not constitute the end of an action, cannot justify an action, not to mention being the ONLY justification of an action.
E is wrong also because it almost states the conclusion misleadingly similar but inverse way: the stimulus is not about the justification of the intended outcome of an action by its actual outcome, but about the justification of an action by its intended outcome while eliminating the action's byproduct as part of the criterion of the justification.
Do you have trouble identifying the conclusion? If not, the question is simple if you realize the structure of the stimulus relies on a series of substitutive definitions. The key lies on the translation of the conclusion: "nothing will justify a means except the end's value".
What is the "means"? What is the "end's value"? Well, if you read the first two sentences, they will tell you:
1) the means = an action
2) the end of an action = intended outcome of an action =/ the byproduct of an action
the end's value = value of the end of an action = the value of intended outcome of an action
So the conclusion could be translated as:
nothing will justify an action except by the value of the intended outcome of the action.
Now let's look at the answer choice:
A is wrong because the author is UNSURE if the value of some ends WILL justify any means (he says "perhaps, there is no end whose value will justify any means").
B is wrong again because the author is UNSURE if the value of then end of an action can ALWAYS justify its means.
C. is the right answer because it perfectly paraphrase the conclusion.
D is wrong because it states the opposite of the stimulus's premise: "the end of an action is NOT THE MERE byproduct of an action".
E is wrong also because it almost states the the conclusion inversely: the stimulus is not about the justification of the intended outcome of an action by its actual outcome, but about the justification of an action by its intended outcome while eliminating the action's byproduct.
7 sage needs to update all their LR explanations with this guy's. His explanation is superior to JY's lol