- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:37 am
#23089
Complete Question Explanation
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
The argument is that since the fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn and the last firefighters did not leave until late afternoon, and no-one could have been in the vicinity of such a large fire and yet not noticed it, Thomas must have seen the fire, because he had to go past the Municipal Building this morning.
The argument is definitely flawed. First of all, the firefighters were not necessarily engaged in fighting the fire until late afternoon. It is entirely possible that the fire had been extinguished early in the morning, and firefighters had to remain for other reasons. Thomas might have been obliged to notice either a fire or the aftermath, but it is not certain that he had to notice the fire. Furthermore, noticing a fire is not the same as seeing it. Thomas could be blind, whether or not he happens to go to a library every day.
Since the question does not ask you to identify a flaw, however, you will likely simply point out the process.
Answer choice (A) Since the evidence as a whole does not allow the conclusion to be properly drawn, it is unlikely that each part of the evidence would be sufficient. This choice is incorrect. Furthermore, you can tell that the stimulus presents many bits of evidence that work together.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Even though the reasoning was flawed, the argument attempts to prove that Thomas must have seen the fire by pointing out that he had to walk close enough to the fire's location to notice the fire. You can read "one thing" and "first thing" as "notice the fire," and "another thing" and "second thing" as "walk by where the fire was." Inserting those phrases will help make sense of this answer choice, which is admittedly very abstract. If you have trouble understanding such an answer choice, you could try matching the "things" and so on in the choice with the specifics of the argument, and re-evaluate the choice.
Answer choice (C) Since the stimulus never discussed temptation, or why Thomas makes his claim, this choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (D) The stimulus mentions only information about this one event, and never discusses past events.
Answer choice (E) If the argument made a generalization from specific experience, it would have been obliged to either mention people other than Thomas, or to generalize from his specific experience. Since the argument instead makes a general claim and then uses it to dispute Thomas' assertion about his experience, this answer choice is exactly the opposite of what occurs.
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
The argument is that since the fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn and the last firefighters did not leave until late afternoon, and no-one could have been in the vicinity of such a large fire and yet not noticed it, Thomas must have seen the fire, because he had to go past the Municipal Building this morning.
The argument is definitely flawed. First of all, the firefighters were not necessarily engaged in fighting the fire until late afternoon. It is entirely possible that the fire had been extinguished early in the morning, and firefighters had to remain for other reasons. Thomas might have been obliged to notice either a fire or the aftermath, but it is not certain that he had to notice the fire. Furthermore, noticing a fire is not the same as seeing it. Thomas could be blind, whether or not he happens to go to a library every day.
Since the question does not ask you to identify a flaw, however, you will likely simply point out the process.
Answer choice (A) Since the evidence as a whole does not allow the conclusion to be properly drawn, it is unlikely that each part of the evidence would be sufficient. This choice is incorrect. Furthermore, you can tell that the stimulus presents many bits of evidence that work together.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Even though the reasoning was flawed, the argument attempts to prove that Thomas must have seen the fire by pointing out that he had to walk close enough to the fire's location to notice the fire. You can read "one thing" and "first thing" as "notice the fire," and "another thing" and "second thing" as "walk by where the fire was." Inserting those phrases will help make sense of this answer choice, which is admittedly very abstract. If you have trouble understanding such an answer choice, you could try matching the "things" and so on in the choice with the specifics of the argument, and re-evaluate the choice.
Answer choice (C) Since the stimulus never discussed temptation, or why Thomas makes his claim, this choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (D) The stimulus mentions only information about this one event, and never discusses past events.
Answer choice (E) If the argument made a generalization from specific experience, it would have been obliged to either mention people other than Thomas, or to generalize from his specific experience. Since the argument instead makes a general claim and then uses it to dispute Thomas' assertion about his experience, this answer choice is exactly the opposite of what occurs.
