We should recognize this as a must be true question, as the stem states: If the claims made in the advertisement are true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of them?
This stimulus is a bit of an interesting one; we are being given one of those silly car advertisements that pretend that purchasing an expensive car represents what kind of person you are, but for the question’s purposes we are supposed to take the ad at face value; the car you drive really does show the type of person you are. In this case, if you own the SKX Mach-5 you make the unambiguous statement that you are Dynamic, Aggressive, and Successful! Sounds like the perfect antidote for a mid-life crisis. So all we really get from this stimulus are three things. First, that the car you own “makes a statement about the person you are”. You make a statement when you communicate something, so your car communicates your character. Second, the message of this particular car is unambigious; this just means that it couldn’t be misinterpreted. And third, the message of the car is that it’s owner is dynamic, aggressive, and successful. The correct answer will be guaranteed to be true just based on these three things. Let’s take a look at our answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) We’ve only been told that if you purchase a particular car, then you represent yourself as dynamic, aggressive and successful; remember that this is just a message, it need not reflect the truth. We certainly do not have support to validly conclude that being dynamic and aggressive is sufficient to be successful.
Correct Answer Choice (B) If owning the SKX Mach-5 is an unambiguous statement that you are dynamic and successful, and you aren’t actually dynamic and successful, while then it must be true that if you owned one you would be misrepresenting yourself. The key to getting this answer is recognizing that a statement can be false; you can communicate something about yourself that isn’t actually true.
Answer Choice (C) We don’t know anything about other cars, and making a statement doesn’t necessarily mean it is true. Whenever you get a comparative in a must be true answer, ask yourself if you know how what’s being compared actually measures in the two things being compared.
Answer Choice (D) We don’t know anything about other cars.
Answer Choice (E) We are told it is an unambiguous statement, but this does not mean that what is being communicated is guaranteed to be recognized separate from the communication, just that the statement itself is not going to be misinterpreted. If you saw someone driving the car you would interpret it as meaning they are dynamic, aggressive, and successful, but if you saw the same person separate from the car you wouldn’t necessarily recognize that they are that kind of person.
This is a strengthening question, as we are asked: Which one of the following principles, if accepted, would contribute most to Shanna’s defense of her position against that of Jorge?
This stimulus is a dialogue, and our job is to specifically strengthen Shanna’s position against Jorge’s argument. Shanna argues that just by owning a piece of art, you have the right to destroy it should you want to. If we think about it, I’m sure many of us would disagree with Shanna. But our job is to support this position; if it’s yours, you can destroy it.
Jorge responds by arguing that although ownership gives you the right to possess an unique piece of art, you don’t have the right to destroy it. This is because a unique piece of art belongs to posterity (basically, humanity as a whole including those who don’t even exist yet), and so it must be preserved regardless of what you want. Ok, so Jorge thinks the value of unique art to humanity as a whole outweighs the individual rights of the owner. We should look for a principle that empowers the owner. Let’s see what we get:
Answer Choice (A) Well according to Shanna they would still be in their rights to destroy a great piece of art if they owned it and caring for it was inconvenient! But it should be obvious this doesn’t help our position at all.
Answer Choice (B) This principle supports Jorge!
Answer Choice (C) This is arguing that we shouldn’t destroy art because of its value to humanity - that’s Jorge’s position and not Shanna’s!
Answer Choice (D) This is undermining the rights of legal owners, which is the opposite of what we want to do.
Correct Answer Choice (E) The qualification about health and safety might throw you off but this is correct. If individuals can do what they want with their property so long as it doesn’t physically harm others, then they are allowed to destroy artwork they own.