#25 - Chef: This mussel recipe's first step is to sprinkle

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E)

Chefs use cornmeal to clean the sand out of mussels. The chef thinks it pointless to do so, because
the mussels available at seafood markets contain no sand. He is assuming, of course, that the mussels
he is using did come from a seafood market. If they did not, his mussels might contain sand and
therefore require cleaning.

Because this is an assumption question, the answer you select must contain a statement upon which
the argument depends, i.e. a statement that is necessary for the conclusion to be true.

Answer choice (A): Whether they clean out farm-raised mussels before they reach seafood markets
has no bearing on whether the chef should clean the mussels he is using. We know from the stimulus
that mussels purchased at seafood markets do not require cleaning.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice may seem attractive, because it lends further credibility
to the claim that the chef need not bother cleaning his mussels. However, just because a statement
supports the author’s conclusion does not mean it is necessary for the conclusion to be true. Apply
the Assumption Negation Technique: what if mussels do contain contaminants other than sand? The
chef conclusion would still be valid, because—as far as we know—cornmeal only works against
sand. The chef can still skip this step, therefore, although he might need to take other precautionary
measures to ensure that his mussels are free of contaminants.

Answer choice (C): Whether cornmeal affects the taste of mussels has no bearing on whether or not
the chef should use it to clean them out. Do not introduce new information into the argument when
answering Assumption questions!

Answer choice (D): As with answer choice (C), this answer choice presents an extraneous and
irrelevant consideration. Even if the recipe were written after farm-raised mussels became available,
the chef’s conclusion would still be valid.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Try the Assumption Negation Technique:
if the mussels the chef is using for the recipe did not come from a seafood market, it is possible that
they do contain sand. Therefore, the chef should probably not skip the step of cleaning them out.

[karen_k]

Hi! I originally picked B as my answer choice. I see why E is correct but do not necessarily understand why B is wrong.

[Anthony Esposito]

Hi Karen,

Great Assumption question! Let's take a look at why answer choice (B) is incorrect.

First of all, is answer choice (B) an unstated premise of the argument. Remember, that's all an assumption is - an unstated premise of an argument.

An assumption can also been seen as the foundation of the argument - a statement that the premises and conclusion rest upon. Does this argument need for "Mussels contain no other contaminants than sand?" What if they did? What if they didn't? Does it matter to this argument?

Secondly, I think this is where the Assumption Negation Technique comes in handy. Remember, what we'll do is first logically negate the answer choice and if the negated answer choice attacks the argument, then it's the correct answer choice. Let's apply this here.

Answer Choice (B): Mussels contain no other contaminates than sand.

Let's negate that: Mussels contain lots of other contaminates than sand.

Does that attack or weaken the argument in the stimulus that the chef can skip the sprinkle cornmeal step? No, it doesn't. It doesn't really tell us anything about whether or not the chef can skip that step. However, if you were do the Assumption Negation Technique on correct answer choice (E), that would definitely attack the chef's conclusion.

Hope this helps,
Anthony

[karen_k]

Thank you, Anthony!

[mN2mmvf]

Are we to assume that, when the stimulus says "the cornmeal is used to clean them out" that that is the *exclusive* purpose of the cornmeal? I understand the rationale for choice (E), but I got trapped first by (C). I reasoned that, regardless of the cornmeal's value in removing sand, the chef might also be using cornmeal as an ingredient as part of the recipe. Negating (C), I thought that if the cornmeal did affect the taste of the mussels, then the chef couldn't simply skip the step merely because the sand didn't need to be removed...the cornmeal was still necessary for the taste. That would weaken the argument.

[Adam Tyson]

That analysis requires an extra step on your part, mN2mmvf! You are correct that the argument assumes that there is no other essential purpose to the cornmeal, and an answer that said that would be a good one. Answer C, though, doesn't say that - it says only that cornmeal doesn't affect the taste. Think about the negation of C - what if the cornmeal does affect the taste? Does that mean it affects it in a good way, or that it does so in a way that is important to the recipe? You are assuming that the impact on taste is one that is important to the recipe, rather than just a side effect that may or may not be desired or even desirable. Perhaps the chef is excited to be able to skip that step, because the impact on taste is unpleasant, and he wants a better taste?

Just because it might affect taste is not enough to say that effect is a required element of the recipe. That's the extra step you took, and the answer shouldn't need that much outside help. Either the negation hurts the argument or else it doesn't, all on its own without any additional help. The negation of E destroys this argument, while the negation of C should still leave us wondering whether the argument was good or not.

Don't help the authors of this test! They are doing a good enough job of messing with us all on their own!

[mN2mmvf]

Yep, you're right (again!). Thank you!

[deck1134]

Hi PowerScore,

Anthony said:

First of all, is answer choice (B) an unstated premise of the argument. Remember, that's all an assumption is - an unstated premise of an argument.

An assumption can also been seen as the foundation of the argument - a statement that the premises and conclusion rest upon. Does this argument need for "Mussels contain no other contaminants than sand?" What if they did? What if they didn't? Does it matter to this argument?

So am I correct in concluding that (B) is wrong because, while it is an assumption it is not required for the argument. I read (B), realized it was an assumption, and stopped there. But while (E) is also an assumption, the argument makes no sense without it.

Is that correct? Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

Actually, Deck, answer B is NOT an assumption of the argument! Mussels might contain lots of other contaminants! Maybe they have lead, and mercury, and all sorts of gunk and junk. The thing is, the stimulus never said that cornmeal removes other contaminants, just sand, so if the mussels are already sand-free it is still possible that cornmeal is not needed, notwithstanding other contamination. We'd love to get that other stuff out of the mussels, but if sand has nothing to do with that, then skipping the cornmeal won't be a problem!

Think about the negation of answer B - what if mussels DO have other contaminants besides sand? So what? What impact would that have on "we can skip the cornmeal"? None at all, unless we were to assume (without justification) that cornmeal is also required to clean those other things out.

[ToadKing]

Hi,

I negated (E) and did not fully understand why it is necessary. My reasoning was that the chef could have just put the instruction into the recipe as an added precaution, in which case their mussels would not necessarily come from the seafood market. Sort of like how a chef might use prewashed lettuce, but write a recipe where they instruct others to wash their lettuce beforehand because the chef does not know what kind of lettuce they have on hand/it wouldn't hurt to wash it again.

Thanks for the help!