#3 - Near-Earth objects (NEOs) such as asteroids threaten

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[lathlee]

Hi. even though i agree with everything else with the correct answer, C... I find incredible dangerous "DEFINES A KEY TERM" How do i know this is a Key Term?

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hi Lathlee,

Thanks for the question. The answer to #3 is A, not C. Let us know if you have any further questions.

Thanks!

[itstanaya]

Is the "analogy made in the argument" "and governments fund NEO research for the same reason that people insure their homes?" I guess I'm just not sure how (A) is the correct answer.

[Robert Carroll]

Tanaya,

The argument is one from analogy. The conclusion has to do with government funding of NEO research, and the author brings up the completely different topic of home insurance. The author does this because the author thinks the situations are relevantly similar, i.e., analogous, so a point made about the home insurance situation (it makes good fiscal sense) also applies to the target situation, NEO research funding.

Robert Carroll

[arvinm123]

Hi PowerScore

I am hoping you can clear this up for me. I was stuck between A and D and heres why:

The conclusion of the argument is "Government funding of this research is not a waste of money. ". The analogy is then provided which states "Buying home insurance makes good fiscal sense", which is then connected to the conclusion with the remainder of the sentence "and governments fund NEO research for the same reason that people insure their homes."

Answer choice A) states "It connects an analogy made in the argument to the argument’s conclusion".... To me this seemed like artifice because the statement provided in the question stem was the analogy itself, not the part of the sentence that connected the analogy to the question stem. So I deemed this as wrong and thought answer D) would be a slightly better option since it does seem that "Buying home insurance makes good fiscal sense" is a contrast to the situation that is the main focus of the government "Government funding of this research is not a waste of money"

Can someone please thoroughly delineate why my thought process is incorrect and how I can avoid falling into this trap in the future?

Thank you so much

[katehos]

Hi arvinm123!

I think part of the confusion comes from overthinking answer choice (A). When you consider the analogy in the stimulus, you can see that the author concludes that government funding of NEO research is not a waste of money. To show this, the author uses the analogy of home insurance, which people buy for their homes for the same reason the governments fund NEO research. Additionally, they say that "buying home insurance makes good fiscal sense" which directly links the entire analogy about home insurance to the conclusion by implying that NEO research also makes good fiscal sense (and is thus not a waste of money).

Even though this statement can be considered part of the analogy itself, does that mean the statement cannot connect the analogy to the conclusion? No! It could still be (and is) the bridge between the two. Try to consider what other statement would then connect the analogy to the conclusion? Truthfully, I can't really pinpoint one. This just serves to further show that (A) is correct!

Answer choice (D), on the other hand, says the role of the statement is to provide a "contrast" to the situation at hand. While NEOs and home insurance are certainly different, the point of the home insurance references were to show that the situation is analogous. If this statement were meant to contrast the situation, it would stand in direct opposition or be used as some sort of counterexample. Instead, it's being used to prove the argument because these things are alike, not different! For future questions, perhaps try reconsidering the definition of "contrast" to ensure that's really what the author is doing!

I hope this helps
Kate

[marioncarroll]

Echoing the above... I swiftly crossed out A because "Buying home insurance makes good fiscal sense" is the analogy itself... Furthermore I'm unsure how it could "connect" the analogy, which it actually is, to the argument because there is absolutely no trace of the original argument in the quoted language. Thus no bridge. If the language included "and governments fund NEO research for the same reason that people insure their homes," that would qualify as a connector. I understand the idea of reading into it too much but isn't that what we are being asked to do? It's frustrating when it feels like the test is punishing us for doing what we are instructed to do - be critical and exact.

[Robert Carroll]

marioncarroll,

What answer did you choose instead? I think I would prephrase something like "a premise that is somehow related to the analogy of the argument."

With that in mind:

Answer choice (B) is a non-starter. It's a premise, or involved in a premise, or something - it's not at all the conclusion.

Answer choice (C) doesn't work. It's not defining a term, key or otherwise.

Answer choice (D) is darn near opposite - the argument is from analogy. There's no contrast, but comparison!

Answer choice (E) requires the statement to be some sort of conclusion, if the argument is trying to support it. But it's definitely just a premise.

So, uncomfortable as you might be with answer choice (A), the other answer choices are so clearly bad that there's no way you can pick any of them. Uncertainty is vastly better than picking something provably wrong.

Robert Carroll