Ovocular ?

[goelmohit2002]

Hi All,

Can someone please tell ...in the below question how OA is assumption....

Assumption IMO = Additional evidence that MUST be true....

Here why the visit to rare species habitat is necessary ? Why the normal birds cannot be watched by this new device ?

IMO C strengthens the argument....i.e. person may use....but it IMO is not a mandatory thing for conclusion to be valid ?

Even if we negate the C....still conclusion does not breaks...it just weakens a bit....

Please tell what I am missing here ?

OA = C

=================================================


Advertisement: Avian Oculars are the newest in binocular technology for the professional bird watcher. For a price comparable to that of traditional binoculars, Avian Oculars are specially designed with the features demanded by birding enthusiasts: they are lightweight, compact and extremely durable. So, use Avian Oculars on your next bird watching excursion, and see some of the world’s rarest species in all of their beautiful plumage.


Which of the following is an assumption on which the author of the advertisement relies?
a) Avian Oculars weigh less than traditional binoculars.
b) Avian Oculars should be used only by bird watchers.
c) The reader will travel through the habitats of rare species during his or her next bird watching trip.
d) Avian Oculars are similar in cost to traditional binoculars.
e) Birding enthusiasts often determine the specifications of new products

[RonPurewal]

Here why the visit to rare species habitat is necessary ? Why the normal birds cannot be watched by this new device ?

the denouement of the argument contains the following:

use Avian Oculars on your next bird watching excursion, and see some of the world’s rarest species in all of their beautiful plumage.

this can't happen unless you actually go to the habitat of these rare birds.

the argument doesn't cite seeing "normal birds" as a viable alternative (it says that you will definitely see these rare birds in all their glory), so the objection about seeing "normal birds" instead is not valid.

[avinashsbajaj]

Here why the visit to rare species habitat is necessary ? Why the normal birds cannot be watched by this new device ?

the denouement of the argument contains the following:

use Avian Oculars on your next bird watching excursion, and see some of the world’s rarest species in all of their beautiful plumage.

this can't happen unless you actually go to the habitat of these rare birds.

the argument doesn't cite seeing "normal birds" as a viable alternative (it says that you will definitely see these rare birds in all their glory), so the objection about seeing "normal birds" instead is not valid.

Ok, I am a little confused too about this one.

In my opinion, all the answer options are wrong, including answer option C, because of the following reasons:
(a) The reader will travel through the habitats of rare species during his or her next bird watching trip. Don't you think this is a very assertive statement.
(b) This is a general statement - something like "Die Hard releasing soon at a theatre close to you". Now, they don't actually mean it will release at a theatre close to my house. Right?
(c) If you negate the ans choice, the sentence does not get weakened, i.e. if the reader's next visit may not necessarily be through the habitats of rare species.

Keeping these factors in mind, I chose ans option E - but there are errors there too. This may be an assumption, but it does not link the premises and the conclusion. However, this seemed the lesser wrong answer.

Any comments on this please?!!

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

(c) If you negate the ans choice, the sentence does not get weakened, i.e. if the reader's next visit may not necessarily be through the habitats of rare species.

ok, i see where you're coming from here. you're thinking that there could be other places - such as zoos, perhaps - where the birding enthusiasts could see the rare bird species.

we should probably re-word the question so that it's more precise, i suppose. i'll submit this possible change.

however, if these are birds that only exist in their native habitat (i.e., if they are not kept in zoos etc), then (c) is absolutely a necessary assumption.