- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:45 pm
#71241
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel, Sufficient and Necessary. The correct answer choice is (D).
The abstract structure of the argument is that the author makes a conclusion recommending against a course of action ("the mayor shouldn’t adopt her rival’s controversial proposal"), on the basis of two conditional premises. One of those premises states the (possible) negative consequence that follows "if" the proposal "succeeds." The other premise states the (certain) negative consequence that follows "if" the proposal "fails." Key to the argument is that the conditional statements in the premises address the two possible mutually exclusive outcomes (either success, or failure) that could follow from adoption of the proposal.
Answer choice (A): The conditional premises are the clearest sign of a mismatch here. They do not begin from mutually exclusive sufficient conditions, as the premises of the stimulus did. For example, to match the premises of the stimulus, since the first premise began from a sufficient condition that says what happens "if he stops," the second premise would have to begin from a sufficient condition that says what happens "if he does not stop."
Answer choice (B): As in answer choice A, the premises of answer choice B do not set up mutually exclusive sufficient conditions. Rather, the first premise is not a conditional statement, and does not set up what happens in one of two circumstances that could occur from Joni self-publishing the novel.
Answer choice (C): The premises in answer choice C are not conditional, and this is enough to reject it as a structural mismatch for the stimulus argument.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. As in the stimulus, the conclusion recommends against a course of action (Alvin should not submit his paper). The premises state the negative consequences that follow from either of two mutually exclusive outcomes of Alvin submitting. If the paper is accepted, there's a chance of one negative consequence (not meeting a deadline). If the paper is rejected, there's a certainty of another negative consequence (Alvin's losing confidence in it altogether).
Answer choice (E): While some students might reject this answer because it makes a positive rather than a negative recommendation in the conclusion, that is not sufficient reason to reject the answer choice. Rather, there's a more subtle reason answer choice E is wrong. One of the two necessary conditions in the premises in the stimulus was certain to occur (the mayor "will get blamed"). In answer choice E, both of the necessary conditions in the premises of the argument are uncertain ("she risks not being able to go," and "she will likely still be able to negotiate"). This makes the validity of the conclusion slightly less secure than in the stimulus, and renders answer choice D a better match.
Parallel, Sufficient and Necessary. The correct answer choice is (D).
The abstract structure of the argument is that the author makes a conclusion recommending against a course of action ("the mayor shouldn’t adopt her rival’s controversial proposal"), on the basis of two conditional premises. One of those premises states the (possible) negative consequence that follows "if" the proposal "succeeds." The other premise states the (certain) negative consequence that follows "if" the proposal "fails." Key to the argument is that the conditional statements in the premises address the two possible mutually exclusive outcomes (either success, or failure) that could follow from adoption of the proposal.
Answer choice (A): The conditional premises are the clearest sign of a mismatch here. They do not begin from mutually exclusive sufficient conditions, as the premises of the stimulus did. For example, to match the premises of the stimulus, since the first premise began from a sufficient condition that says what happens "if he stops," the second premise would have to begin from a sufficient condition that says what happens "if he does not stop."
Answer choice (B): As in answer choice A, the premises of answer choice B do not set up mutually exclusive sufficient conditions. Rather, the first premise is not a conditional statement, and does not set up what happens in one of two circumstances that could occur from Joni self-publishing the novel.
Answer choice (C): The premises in answer choice C are not conditional, and this is enough to reject it as a structural mismatch for the stimulus argument.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. As in the stimulus, the conclusion recommends against a course of action (Alvin should not submit his paper). The premises state the negative consequences that follow from either of two mutually exclusive outcomes of Alvin submitting. If the paper is accepted, there's a chance of one negative consequence (not meeting a deadline). If the paper is rejected, there's a certainty of another negative consequence (Alvin's losing confidence in it altogether).
Answer choice (E): While some students might reject this answer because it makes a positive rather than a negative recommendation in the conclusion, that is not sufficient reason to reject the answer choice. Rather, there's a more subtle reason answer choice E is wrong. One of the two necessary conditions in the premises in the stimulus was certain to occur (the mayor "will get blamed"). In answer choice E, both of the necessary conditions in the premises of the argument are uncertain ("she risks not being able to go," and "she will likely still be able to negotiate"). This makes the validity of the conclusion slightly less secure than in the stimulus, and renders answer choice D a better match.