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!
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!
Greenwall: But many of those customers could easily be lying because they are too embarrassed to admit that they don’t exercise anymore.
Faden: You have no way of showing that customers were lying. Your objection is absurd.
Summarize Argument
Faden concludes that Greenwall’s objection, that many of Faden’s customers could be lying about still using their year-old exercise machines, is absurd because Greenwall doesn’t have a way to prove the objection.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Faden asserts that since a survey shows most of his customers claim to still use their year-old exercise equipment, most of their machines are still in use after a year. Greenwall points out that many of those customers could be lying, and Faden argues that Greenwall’s objection is absurd because Greenwall has no way to prove the objection.
A flaw in Faden’s reasoning is that Greenwall’s objection isn’t necessarily absurd just because Greenwall can’t prove the objection. An objection can lack evidence and still have merit.
A flaw in Faden’s reasoning is that Greenwall’s objection isn’t necessarily absurd just because Greenwall can’t prove the objection. An objection can lack evidence and still have merit.
A
Greenwall takes for granted that many customers have stopped using the equipment but are too embarrassed to admit it.
Greenwall doesn’t argue or imply that the customers have stopped using the equipment. He just points out that many of the customers could be lying about using the equipment.
B
Greenwall presumes, without giving justification, that most people are dishonest about their personal habits.
Greenwall doesn’t make a claim about most people’s personal habits. His statement only addresses the possibility that customers could be lying about using their equipment.
C
Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the more conclusive the evidence is for a claim, the less believable the claim becomes.
Faden doesn’t make the case that people are less likely to believe a claim as stronger evidence is presented to support that claim.
D
Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the evidence for a claim has not been undermined unless that evidence has been proven false.
This is a flaw in Faden’s reasoning. Faden presumes that his argument hasn’t been undermined because Greenwall hasn’t definitively disproved that argument. However, an objection to an argument can hold weight even if that objection doesn’t totally disprove the argument.
E
Greenwall ignores the possibility that some people stopped using the equipment but were not embarrassed about it.
Greenwall isn’t concerned with the possibility that some people stopped using their equipment but aren’t embarrassed about it. Greenwall only makes the case that some people may be lying about still using their equipment because they’re embarrassed to admit they stopped.
Summary
For both C and S, if a prisoner tries to escape from their sector, C and S must leave their respective stations to pursue the prisoner.
If they are not pursuing an escaped prisoner, C and S cannot leave their stations until their replacements have arrived.
On May 11 at 9pm, C and S finished a four-hour shift and their replacements arrived at the end.
C had violated the rules described. S had not violated the rules described.
If they are not pursuing an escaped prisoner, C and S cannot leave their stations until their replacements have arrived.
On May 11 at 9pm, C and S finished a four-hour shift and their replacements arrived at the end.
C had violated the rules described. S had not violated the rules described.
Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference to draw, because there are many ways in which C could have violated the rules and S would not violate the rules. Let’s use process of elimination to identify what must be false.
A
Chelas and Stelma were at their respective stations at 9 P.M.
Could be true. C could have violated the rules by leaving his station and coming back before the end of the shift. Or C could have violated by failing to pursue a prisoner. S could have stayed at her station the whole time. Or she could have pursued an escaped prisoner.
B
Stelma left her station before 9 P.M. but Chelas did not.
Could be true. S could have left to pursue an escaped prisoner. And C could have violated by failing to pursue that escaped prisoner.
C
Chelas left his station before 9 P.M. but Stelma did not.
Could be true. C could have violated by leaving the station even though a prisoner wasn’t trying to escape. S could have followed the rules and stayed at her station.
D
A prisoner attempted to escape from Chelas and Stelma’s sector at 7 P.M. and neither Chelas nor Stelma left his or her station before 9 P.M.
Must be false. If a prisoner tried to escape from the sector at 7pm, S had to leave her station to pursue the prisoner, because we know she followed the rules.
E
A prisoner attempted to escape from Chelas and Stelma’s sector at 7 P.M. and both Chelas and Stelma left their stations before 9 P.M.
Could be true. S could have followed the rules by chasing the escaped prisoner. C could have violated the rules by leaving the station but for some other reason besides chasing the prisoner.