PT13.S2.Q20 - Pretzels can cause cavities

Comments

• 3 Likes

  Habeas Porpoise Alum Member Sage ⭐

  February 2019 edited February 2019 1866 karma

  Hey, let me see if I can clear this up for you!

  The key is the part that says “in this regard.” What is the “this” referring to? Let’s take a look at the stimulus.
  P1: Pretzels can cause cavities.
  P2: Longer the pretzel is in contact w/ teeth when being eaten, greater the likelihood of a cavity.
  P3: What is true of the pretzel in this regard—referring to P2, the greater likelihood of cavities with longer contact with teeth—is true of caramels.
  P4: Caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than do pretzels.
  C: Eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.

  The author it taking a comparison between eating a pretzel for a minute vs eating a pretzel in 10 seconds. Saying that this comparison is the same with eating a caramel for a minute vs eating a caramel in 10 seconds. Then erroneously believes that he/she can somehow compare pretzels and caramels, and saying that eating a caramel is better than eating a pretzel because caramels dissolve more quickly.
  What if caramels cause more damage per second of contact than do pretzels? While it may be true that downing a caramel is 5 seconds is better than savoring it for a minute (i.e. we’re accepting P2 and P3 from the stimulus), are those 5 seconds ‘safer’ than 10 seconds eating a pretzel?

  This is exactly what AC A points out.
  AC A: Treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well.
  What is “categories” referring to? Pretzels and caramels.
  What is the “correlation” within the individual category? The increased likelihood of cavities with prolonged contact with teeth.
  What is “across categories?” Comparing this likelihood between the two categories, pretzels and caramels.

  Now let’s take a look at AC C:
  AC C: Makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent.
  Let’s break this down a bit. Say we’re magnanimous and “particular examples” refer to the information about contact with teeth and cavities we learn about pretzels and caramels. In what way do they not adequately represent pretzels and caramels as a whole? And what is the general claim?
  This AC would be correct if the stimulus went something like: Apples are red. Radishes are red. So all fruits and root vegetables are red.
  Apples being red doesn’t adequately represent all fruits. Radishes similarly don’t adequately represent all root vegetables. So our “general claim” about fruits and root vegetables are based on “examples that do no adequately represent the respective [food categories] that they are each intended to represent.”

  AC E: Is based on premises that cannot be all true.
  This AC is looking for a logical contradiction (which we don't have). That's like if the stimulus had said: "Caramels are the same as pretzels" (i.e. longer contact with the teeth increases the likelihood of cavities), but then gone on to say, "Eating a caramel for a longer period decreases the likelihood of cavities." In logic it would be something like:
  P1: More contact → Greater likelihood of cavity. (A → B )
  P2: More contact → /Greater likelihood of cavity. (A → /B)
  Both premises can't be true.

  Hope this helps!
• 1 Like

  awyeah26 Alum Member

  February 2019 75 karma

  Thank you so much. You were spot on with in this regard. I had treated this statement way too broadly and see now that it was improper. Thanks again!
• Habeas Porpoise Alum Member Sage ⭐

  February 2019 1866 karma

  No problem, glad to help!