Strenthen X LRB P287

[Echx73]

Hi Team,

I have a question with the Strengthen X question on page 287 of LRB 15'. I worked through the problem and narrowed my answers to either C or E. I cannot figure out why E is a better answer than C. The only thing I can tell that is different is E has the addition of - social issues - but just because an answer has more information does not make it more supportive, though. Let me know your thoughts!

Eric

[Robert Carroll]

Eric,

Since this is a Strengthen - Except question, the correct answer will not strengthen. The dispute between the statistician and the financial magazine is about a claim in that magazine that North Americans are more concerned about personal finances than about politics. Answer choice (C) contains information that counters the information of the magazine, and because the statistician wants to show that the magazine's results merit skepticism, contrary evidence would strengthen the author's position.

Answer choice (E) does not strengthen the argument because it provides no basis for doubting the magazine's results. If there is a third thing - social issues - that people also care about, it's irrelevant to the question of whether personal finances are more important to people than politics. The presence of the third concern says nothing either way about the ranking of the other two concerns relative to each other. Thus, answer choice (E) is irrelevant, and it is the one answer choice that does not strengthen the argument. This makes it the correct answer.

Robert Carroll

[avengingangel]

Hello! Thanks, Robert & Eric for this question and helpful response.

I also did choose (C), although, yes, I do clearly see why (E) is the superior answer. I have an additional question about the breakdown of this stimulus. In the book (I'm in v. 2016), it says "Let us take a closer look at the statistician's two premises:"

I noted definitely more than 2 premises. My breakdown is below:

PREMISE: "A financial magazine claimed that its survey of is subscribers showed that North Americans are more concerned about their personal finances than about politics."

PREMISE: "One question was: 'Which do you think about more: politics or the joy of earning money?'"

PREMISE/SUB-CONCLUSION: "This question is clearly biased."

PREMISE: "Also, the readers of the magazine are a self-selecting sample."

CONCLUSION: "Thus, there is reason to be skeptical about the conclusion drawn in the magazine's survey."

^^ Why does the book only indicate that there are only 2 premises? And additionally, am I wrong in my breakdown here??

[Adam Tyson]

The Statistician's two premises are 1) the question in biased and 2) the sample is self-selecting. The other statements that you labeled as premises were more like background information, important to understanding the argument but not themselves parts of the argument. A minor distinction, perhaps, although that might come into play if this were a Method of Reasoning - Argument Part question.

The argument could be broken down like this:

1. Here's some stuff that happened - I just want you to understand what I am about to talk about
2. Here's a problem with what happened - premise
3. Here's another problem with what happened - premise
4. Here's something that I think these premises support - conclusion

I hope that clears up why our explanation said what it said, and more importantly how you might use that info on certain questions in the future. In this case it didn't matter, but in another question that distinction might be essential.

Good luck!

[avengingangel]

Awesome explanation. That's really helpful. I see how it could become a problem, though, in the future. I guess I just get/got thrown off because I feel like in some sample stimuli(?) we're given, some of the premises look a lot like "here is something that happened." Albeit, those were likely stimulus fragments, but I guess I just kind of considered all other background information a premise. But again, your explanation is really really great and I am noting it for my review. Especially when I face a "Method of Reasoning - Argument" question! have not gotten that far in the bible yet.

Thanks again, Adam.