#12 - Advertisement: When you need a will, consulting a

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[mjb514]

Can you please explain why C is incorrect. Thank you.

[Claire Horan]

Hi mjb514,

C is about whether people are satisfied with the results of DIY software, but the conclusion does not mention anything about satisfaction. The conclusion is that a lawyer's expert advice is worth paying for. You can use the assumption negation technique on C to show that it is wrong. Negate it: Not many people who use DIY are unsatisfied. Does this challenge the conclusion? No. It's irrelevant. Remember that differences in language are very important, so we can't assume that worth is equivalent with people's satisfaction.

Here I'll offer some advice that I've given many times: While studying, spend more time on why the right answer is right and only a little time on why the wrong answers are wrong. A very thorough understanding of the right answer will usually help you avoid the wrong answers in the future. With that in mind, let's consider the correct answer: B.

If we negate B, the statement says that DIY software can tailor a will to specific needs as well as a lawyer's advice can. If that is true, it attacks the conclusion that the lawyer's expert advice is worth paying for because of the premise that what you pay a lawyer for is the tailoring. Consider how much cleaner that connection is than the statement in answer choice C.

I hope this explanation helps!

[VamosRafa19]

Hi I was 99% sure the answer was B, but could not eliminate E as quickly on my first pass through. I thought maybe it was defending the premise, in this case the analogy used as a premise. On a second read, I see that this is already baked into the premise. The premise reads "when you're ill, you aren't satisfied with simply getting a valid prescription or other; what you pay your doctor for is for the doctor's...". The analogy includes the fact that you already went to the doctor to get a prescription, but the main reason you're paying for is the advice. Therefore you don't need to say that there's some way for an ill person to get a prescription without a doctor, eliminating E. Is this line of thinking correct?

[Adam Tyson]

That's one problem with E, VamosRafa19, and one problem is all you need to find in order to eliminate a bad answer. Good work!

Another reason to cross it out is that even if there is some way to get a valid prescription some other way, that doesn't do any harm to the claim that a lawyer's advice is worth paying for. The negation of that answer doesn't do any damage to the argument (because, as you pointed out, the advice is the real issue, not the scrip, just like just having a valid will is not the real issue in the argument), and so it cannot be a necessary assumption.

[VamosRafa19]

That makes sense. Thanks Adam!