It is virtually certain that the government contract for building the new highway will be awarded to either Phoenix Contracting or Cartwright Company. I have just learned that the government has decided not to award the contract to Cartwright Company. It is therefore almost inevitable that Phoenix Contracting will be awarded the contract.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that Phoenix Contracting will almost certainly get the government contract for the new highway. He supports this by noting that the contract was expected to go to either Phoenix Contracting or Cartwright Company, and the government has decided not to award it to Cartwright Company.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The author draws his conclusion that Phoenix Contracting will very likely get the government contract by using the process of elimination. He notes that the contract was likely going to go to either Phoenix Contracting or Cartwright Company. Then, by claiming that Cartwright Company has been ruled out as a possibility, the author concludes that Phoenix Contracting will almost certainly get the contract.

A
concluding that it is extremely likely that an event will occur by ruling out the only probable alternative

The author concludes that it is extremely like that an event (Phoenix Contracting getting the government contract) will occur by ruling out the only probable alternative (Cartwright Company getting the government contract).

B
inferring, from a claim that one of two possible events will occur, that the other event will not occur

Actually, the author infers, from a claim that one event will not occur, that another event will occur. His claim is about an event not occurring, while his conclusion is about an event occurring. (B) reverses these.

C
refuting a claim that a particular event is inevitable by establishing the possibility of an alternative event

The author doesn’t refute a claim that a particular event is inevitable. Rather, he concludes that a particular event is almost inevitable. Also, he eliminates, rather than establishes, the possibility of an alternative event.

D
predicting a future event on the basis of an established pattern of past events

The author does predict a future event, but he does so by ruling out the only probable alternative, not on the basis of an established pattern of events.

E
inferring a claim about the probability of a particular event from a general statistical statement

By concluding that Phoenix Contracting will almost inevitably get the government contract, the author does infer a claim about the probability of a particular event. But he does this by eliminating the only probable alternative, not based on a general statistical statement.


2 comments

Researchers have found that children in large families—particularly the younger siblings—generally have fewer allergies than children in small families do. They hypothesize that exposure to germs during infancy makes people less likely to develop allergies.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Researchers hypothesize that being exposed to germs during infancy reduces the chance people develop allergies. Their evidence is the fact that children in large families have fewer allergies than children in small families.

Notable Assumptions
The researchers assume that being in a large family generally exposes children to more germs than being in a small family.

A
In countries where the average number of children per family has decreased over the last century, the incidence of allergies has increased.
We need to compare between small and large families where all else is equal. We have no idea what environmental factors relating to allergies were like 100 years ago. Those factors could potentially explain the difference in allergies better than family size.
B
Children in small families generally eat more kinds of very allergenic foods than children in large families do.
This weakens the author’s argument. Exposure to germs isn’t what causes the difference in allergies between children in small and large families. Instead, diet causes that difference.
C
Some allergies are life threatening, while many diseases caused by germs produce only temporary discomfort.
We don’t care about the consequences of allergies and germs. We’re simply trying to strengthen the connection between germ exposure and developing allergies.
D
Children whose parents have allergies have an above-average likelihood of developing allergies themselves.
Irrelevant. This suggests allergies may be hereditary or environmental, given that children may grow up how their parents do. We’re trying to strengthen the connection between germ exposure and developing allergies.
E
Children from small families who entered day care before age one were less likely to develop allergies than children from small families who entered day care later.
Children who were exposed to other children at a young age were less likely to develop allergies than children who weren’t exposed to other children until later. This strengthens the author’s causal claim about germ exposure (from other children) and developing allergies.

49 comments