We’ve got a most strongly supported question/fill in the blank question which we can deduce from the question stem which reads: Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?
We start out with a statement about humans only being able to live happily in a society where love and friendship are the primary motivators. How touching! But also...confusing! Luckily, we have a way of making sense of this: conditional logic.
This statement translates quite readily into a conditional: Human Happiness →Love+Friendship are Primary Motivators for Actions (L+FPM).
Next we get a statement telling us that economic needs CAN BE satisfied in the absence of this condition. This condition is a referential phrase referring back to the second condition in the last sentence: L+FPM. So all we know is that economic needs being satisfied (ENS) is completely independent of L+FPM. They have no bearing on one another! If L+FPM are not present, we could have ENS, but we also could not. If ENS is present we likewise, cannot conclude anything about L+FPM.
Before we move on, what does this tell us about the relationship between ENS and HH? Well we know that if humans are happy then we are definitely living in a society where love and friendship are the primary motives for actions. We likewise know that if we are NOT living in a society where love and friendship are the primary motives for actions:
- Humans are NOT happy
- Economic needs can possibly be satisfied (remember that L+FPM has no bearing on ENS)
What does this tell us about the relationship between HH and ENS? Well, there isn’t one. At least not one that is proven out by our stimulus! (I don’t know about you but I’m certainly a bit happier when my economic needs can be satisfied but that’s another discussion for another day!) The point is: HH requires L+FPM. L+FPM has no bearing on ENS. From what we know–HH and ENS are not linked in any way. They could coincide, they could not.
Then we get an example of ENS in the absence of L+FPM: a merchant society, where the only thing that motivates action is economic utility. The implication here is that in a merchant society, we can have ENS but L+F are not the primary motivators because only economic utility (EU) motivates actions.
Onto the answers:
Answer Choice (A) Is there a relationship between economic utility and human happiness? No! We know that we need L+F to be primary motives, but this does not prevent there from being other motivations for actions. In order to rule out human happiness, EU cannot be the only motivator (because that would prevent L+F from being motivators).
Answer Choice (B) What did we establish about the link between HH and ENS? There is none! It’s a fallacy! Who needs money??!? Ok again, let’s not get sidetracked. There probably is a common sense link between being able to meet your economic needs and being happy, but as far as this stimulus is concerned–there is no link! Therefore we cannot conclude that this answer choice is correct.
Answer Choice (C) Tough to see any support here. We haven’t heard a peep about family and friends until this AC. I suppose you could see interacting with family and friends as something that would occur in a society where L-F are the primary motivators? We’re going way out on an assumption limb here…let’s scurry back to the safety of our stimulus (ok, I’m sorry for that one).
Correct Answer Choice (D) Remember what we established about the link between HH and ENS? There is none! It doesn’t exist! That’s what D is telling us. We can do one without the other. Not “we will” or “we must,” but it’s possible. There’s no definitive link here.
Answer Choice (E) This answer posits a conditional connection between HH and ENS (/H→/ENS or ENS→HH). As we’ve established, there is no such connection, so this answer is incorrect.
We start with the question stem: Which of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn in the argument? This is a Main Conclusion question.
The author begins by stating that it is technologically possible to build non-polluting hydrogen-fueled cars, but the problem is that there isn't a national system of fuel stations that would provide those cars with fuel. Alright, that does seem like an issue. Without a system of fuel stations to make the cars move, all you have are nonpolluting, hydrogen-efficient paperweights. Let's see what the author has to say about this problem.
The next sentence begins with the word "However," indicating a turn to the author's argument. He claims, "this infrastructure is likely to appear and grow rapidly." Was that referential phrasing? You know the drill, we need to find what the referential phrase is referring to. The infrastructure is the hydrogen car fuel system. So the author is claiming that the hydrogen car fueling systems are likely to appear and grow rapidly. At this point, we have some hints that this claim is the conclusion. We have a Context Indicator (however) + Referential Phrasing (this infrastructure). As a rule of thumb, many main conclusions of Main Conclusion questions will have both. Knowing this, we can proceed to the next sentences and ask if they support the claim that the hydrogen fuel system will appear rapidly. If they do, then we have found our Main Conclusion.
The author proceeds by giving an example of how there were no gas stations at one point, but they quickly sprung up in response to consumer demand. OK, so the author is trying to claim, "Hey, remember how there were no gas stations at one point, and then they appeared after consumers started wanting them? Well, the same thing will happen with Hydrogen fuel stations." Terrible argument? Absolutely. However, our job is not to evaluate the argument; it's to find the Main Conclusion that is supported by other claims. While the gas station example fails to make the author's argument valid, it does mildly support the claim that hydrogen fuel stations will likely appear and grow rapidly. Bingo, we have found our main conclusion: The national system of hydrogen fuel stations is likely to appear and grow rapidly. Now, all we need to do is find an answer choice that expresses the same idea.
Answer Choice (A) is context. The author used the fact that it is technologically possible to build hydrogen-powered cars to introduce the problem presented in Answer Choice B. She then turned to her argument that the fuel stations would appear and grow rapidly.
Answer Choice (B) is also context. The author used (A) to introduce the fact that there was no fueling system for hydrogen-powered cars. Both (A) and (B) set up her argument that the fuel system would appear and grow rapidly.
Answer Choice (C) may be appealing, but if you picked (C), you likely thought that hydrogen fuel systems were the new kind of technology that was developed. Well, that would fulfill the sufficient condition, and you would get the outcome that the infrastructure needed to support that technology (the hydrogen cars) would quickly develop in response to consumer demands. That kind of looks like our main conclusion, but there are multiple problems. First, our conclusion did not take the form of a conditional. Second, this answer choice is way too broad. Our author limited her argument to the fueling infrastructure for hydrogen-powered cars. (C) talks about new technology in general. Third, the author mentions nothing about consumer demands in the conclusion of her argument. While she does talk about consumer demands in the gas station example, her conclusion has little to do with consumers. So this is no good.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is almost word for word what the author says, but it replaces the referential phrasing “this infrastructure” with "the fuel-distribution infrastructure." We've got it.
Answer Choice (E) would strengthen the argument by making the hydrogen stations more similar to the gasoline station example. However, our job isn't to strengthen the argument. It is to find a paraphrase of the main conclusion.
The question stem reads: The flawed pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most closely parallel to that in the argument above? This is a Parallel Flaw question.
The author states," A species in which mutations frequently occur will develop new evolutionary adaptations in each generation." We can translate this into lawgic to read:
Mutations Frequently Occur -> Develop Evolutionary Adaptations
The author then states the premise and conclusion, "Since species survive dramatic environmental changes only if they develop new evolutionary adaptions (premise), a species in which mutations occur frequently occur will survive drastic environmental changes (conclusion)." Let's translate those into lawgic:
Premise:
Survive Dramatic Environmental Changes -> Develop Evolutionary Adaptations
Conclusion:
Mutations Frequently Occur -> Survive Dramatic Environmental Changes.
We can combine the argument to read:
P1: Mutations Frequently Occur -> Develop Evolutionary Adaptations
P2: Survive Dramatic Environmental Changes -> Develop Evolutionary Adaptations
____________________________________________________________________________
C: Mutations Frequently Occur -> Survive Dramatic Environmental Changes
We can see that the author confused the sufficient and necessary conditions of P2. Evolutionary adaptations are a requirement to survive dramatic environmental changes, but there might be additional requirements, such as having enough food. Let's take the general form of the argument:
A -> C
B -> C
____________
A -> B
By that line of reasoning, we could conclude that all apples (A) are peaches (B) because all apples (A) are fruit (C), and all peaches (B) are fruit (C).
When evaluating an answer choice, we need two sufficient conditions pointing to the same necessary condition. We also need a conclusion that says one of those sufficient conditions is sufficient for the other sufficient condition. Now that we know what we are looking for let's turn to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. The first premise says: properly built -> stones support each other. So the next premise needs "stones supporting each other" for the necessary condition. However, we get: sturdy -> properly built. So we can stop reading there.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. The first premise says: play before a different audience -> never get the same reaction. So the next premise needs to have "never get the same reaction" for the necessary condition. However, we get: play -> always has a different audience. Like (A), we can stop reading there.
Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we discussed. The first premise says: perfectly honest -> always tell the truth. So the next premise needs "always tell the truth" in the necessary condition. The next premise says: morally upright -> always tell the truth. Ok, so that checks out. The conclusion has to say: perfectly honest -> morally upright, which is exactly what (C) says. So (C) is the right answer.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect. The first premise says: garden productive -> soil well drained. So the next premise needs "soil well drained" in the necessary condition. However, we get: soil well drained -> good soil. So we can eliminate (D).
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. The forest premise says: diet healthful -> well balanced. So the next premise needs to have "well balanced" in the necessary condition. However, the next premise says: well-balanced -> includes fruit and vegetables. So we can eliminate (E).