This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
Summary
If the museum stays within this year’s budget, it won’t stay within next year’s budget. To support this conclusion, we’re given two conditional premises:
(1) If the museum doesn’t renovate this year, it must renovate next year.
(2) If the museum renovates next year, it won’t stay within next year’s budget.
(1) If the museum doesn’t renovate this year, it must renovate next year.
(2) If the museum renovates next year, it won’t stay within next year’s budget.
Missing Connection
The conclusion is a conditional claim involving this year’s budget, but this year’s budget doesn’t appear anywhere in the premises. Rather, the premises are all about how renovations will affect next year’s budget. So the correct answer must connect this year’s budget to those premises.
Specifically, we can reach the author’s conclusion if we assume that to stay within this year’s budget, the museum must not renovate this year. (Contrapositive: If the museum renovates this year, it must not stay within this year’s budget.)
Specifically, we can reach the author’s conclusion if we assume that to stay within this year’s budget, the museum must not renovate this year. (Contrapositive: If the museum renovates this year, it must not stay within this year’s budget.)
A
The museum will stay within this year’s budget.
This fails to show that this year’s budget affects next year’s. Because the premises don’t raise the subject of this year’s budget, staying within that budget has no effect on the argument. We still have no reason to think this year’s budget has any impact on next year’s.
B
This year’s budget is less than next year’s budget.
This compares the two budgets but fails to show that this year’s has any effect on next year’s. Because the premises don’t raise the subject of this year’s budget in any way, the relative value of that budget has no effect on the argument.
C
The museum will not renovate next year.
This fails to introduce this year’s budget to the argument. Even if we assume (C), the premises remain completely silent on the subject of this year’s budget. So we’re given no reason to think that this year’s budget has any effect on renovations or to next year’s budget.
D
The museum will exceed this year’s budget if it renovates this year.
Contrapositive: if the museum doesn’t exceed this year’s budget (i.e., if it stays within budget), it must not renovate this year. And from the premises, if the museum doesn’t renovate this year, it must renovate next year, meaning it won’t stay within next year’s budget.
E
The museum will stay within this year’s budget if it does not renovate this year.
This gets the sufficient and necessary conditions reversed. To reach the conclusion, we want an assumption that makes staying within this year’s budget sufficient for exceeding next year’s. But according to (E), staying within this year’s budget isn’t sufficient for anything.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there is no extraterrestrial intelligence in any neighboring star systems. She supports this by saying that, as far as we know, none of our transmitted messages have been recognized, and we haven't received any extraterrestrial messages.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter fallacy of assuming that, just because there’s no evidence for something, that thing isn’t true or doesn’t exist. The author assumes that there isn’t any extraterrestrial life in neighboring star systems based only on the fact that there isn’t any evidence of it.
A
fails to provide an adequate definition of the word “messages”
The author doesn’t need to provide definitions of any of her terms in order to support her argument.
B
infers that there is no extraterrestrial intelligence in neighboring star systems from the lack of proof that there is
The author concludes that there is no extraterrestrial intelligence in neighboring star systems based only on the fact that there is no proof that there is. But just because there isn’t evidence for something doesn’t mean that the thing doesn’t exist.
C
assigns too little importance to the possibility that there is extraterrestrial intelligence beyond our neighboring star systems
The author’s conclusion is only about extraterrestrial intelligence in our neighboring star systems. She doesn’t need to address the possibility of it beyond our neighboring star systems because that’s outside the scope of her argument.
D
neglects to mention that some governments have sent meticulously prepared messages and recordings on spacecraft
This may be true, but it doesn’t affect the author’s argument. She never claims that television images are the only messages that have been transmitted to nearby star systems. Even if other messages have also been sent, it’s still true that we haven’t received any messages back.
E
overlooks the immense probability that most star systems are uninhabited
The author doesn’t overlook this probability. She concludes that nearby star systems are uninhabited.
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!