interested

@Hamuel

The argument is:

• theres a bunch of expert economists who have this retirement plan (Premise)

• Since the expert guys have the highest award in economy stuff (premise)

• they obviously think that this plan is gonna be financially good for them ( Sub conclusion )

• this plan is probably good anyone who has similar needs to them ( conclusion )

( notice how the sub conclusion is so weakly supported)

The argument is not trying to say that the plan is good for everyone, notice in the conclusion it is saying it's probably good for people that have similar needs. The problem is that we don't know what these experts "obviously think", they never made a direct statement on it. If they obviously thought that this plan was good they would have needed to chose it themselves. But we don't know this, leading to the assumption and why D is correct.

D is saying that the argument is wrong because it assumes some of them chose the plan.

The argument is not about the plan being good for everyone, it is the plan probably being good for people with similar needs bc the expert guys have the plan too.

Hope this helps, I hada. hard time understanding at first too.

@BrydenSolonar Because the experts in the stimulus never endorse or even have a say in the retirement plan. I think what answer choice C is saying is : " This argument is flawed because they want people to buy the retirement plan just because a bunch of alleged "experts" said it was good."

We know that this can't be true because we don't get any lines from the winners saying that this plan is good.

Would the conclusion be a secret value judgement?

interested

The different ways we reach assumptions on C and E is very confusing. C is indicating efficiency can result in more lamps. Why can variety not indicate more lamps?

@nlaroche I also thought B was a restatement of the premise so I got it wrong. On a second look it doesn't seem like a restatement though. All the stimulus says is that the retail stores that use coupons, overall charge more for their products. We also know that they do this because they have to makeup for their coupon costs. It is never directly stated that certain products are more expensive, all we know is that on average those coupon stores are more expensive.

I don't know if I am making sense lol, but I had the same thought process as you when I was answering.

Can someone explain in more detail why we can safely assume that not serious financial problem can equal = solved financial problem? I know it's probably obvious but I am so used to being hyper critical on every word of LR I always hesitate to make that connection.

I understand why compared to the other answers B would be correct but, something that confused me was why we are allowed to assume the the bigger group is not selfish. Are we allowed correlate big institutions with public purposes will always not be selfish.

Another thing that also confused me what in the stimulus it is clear that "each member" is selfish but the answer choice is saying "not all".

I have difficulty translating this type of stimulus, what type of practice would help?

Hi I would love to join!