Wide dissemination of wireless networks

[shantascherla]

Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses. Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.

Which of the following would most likely be cited by a supporter of the argument?

Urban areas do not pose additional problems for the effective operation of wireless networks.
Wireless networks work far better where population density is low.
Iceland, a very rural country, successfully uses wireless networks.
The expenses of wireless transmission in areas with large buildings is much higher.
Poor neighborhoods have less access to cable internet than do educators or businesses

The answer is A.
In my analysis the most support for the argument "rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks" comes from b rather than a

Can somebody please explain this

[jnelson0612]

Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses. Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.

Which of the following would most likely be cited by a supporter of the argument?

Urban areas do not pose additional problems for the effective operation of wireless networks.
Wireless networks work far better where population density is low.
Iceland, a very rural country, successfully uses wireless networks.
The expenses of wireless transmission in areas with large buildings is much higher.
Poor neighborhoods have less access to cable internet than do educators or businesses

The answer is A.
In my analysis the most support for the argument "rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks" comes from b rather than a

Can somebody please explain this

shanta,
The conclusion of this argument is: Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses.
The premise of the argument is: Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.

Thus, we are concluding that wireless networks will meet the needs of cities because they have met the needs of rural communities. The assumption we must make is that rural areas and cities are comparable in terms of our ability to implement these networks and make them work.

We are asked to choose an answer choice that strengthens the argument. A supporter of the argument will affirm this assumption. Answer choice A does this nicely.

Answer choice B actually goes AGAINST the conclusion--it says that wireless networks work much better in areas where population is low. Thus, it casts doubt on the idea that wireless networks will be a good solution for cities.

[shantascherla]

Thanks got it

[tim]

:)

[rte.sushil]

Although i marked the correct answer choice but i got myself some unexpected doubt :(


the question says:-
Which of the following would most likely be cited by a supporter of the argument?
means i need to find an option which strengthen the conclusion:
Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses.


as per your notes:
We are asked to choose an answer choice that strengthens the argument. A supporter of the argument will affirm this assumption. Answer choice A does this nicely.


So my unexpected doubt is this question is strengthen based or assumption based?
usually the strengthen question comes as "which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument" so the options are actually assumptions?
Am i right?

and specifically for assumption questions, there is no strengthen or weakening, the conclusion holds true.
IS my understanding correct?

just confirming for my unconscious mind:) so that i can fasten the process.


Thanks!!

[jnelson0612]

Good question! Strengthen questions are part of the assumption family of questions. Generally when we strengthen a conclusion we are just affirming that an assumption is true.

For example, here's an easy argument.
Chocolate contains antioxidants. Therefore, chocolate is good for your health.

Conclusion: Chocolate is good for your health.
WHY?
Premise: Chocolate contains antioxidants.
Assumption: Antioxidants are good for your health.

Notice that the assumption is something that we are *assuming*. We do not know if this assumption is true or not.

To strengthen, we support the assumption. For example, a good strengthen answer would be:
"Antioxidants have been shown to improve cardiac functioning."

This answer shows that the assumption is true: antioxidants are in fact good for your health.

[mcmebk]

How do define the conclusion in this argument?

It seems to be reasonable enough to think the later part of the sentence is the actual conclusion, in that case, answer D strengthens the argument.

If wireless network is practical in urban cities, and now that it costs even less for signal transmission in rural communities, it supports the findings that the usage of wireless network is reliable and cheaper.

Any comment?

[jlucero]

How do define the conclusion in this argument?

It seems to be reasonable enough to think the later part of the sentence is the actual conclusion, in that case, answer D strengthens the argument.

If wireless network is practical in urban cities, and now that it costs even less for signal transmission in rural communities, it supports the findings that the usage of wireless network is reliable and cheaper.

Any comment?

Keep in mind that a conclusion must be an opinion. And by that token, the second sentence can't be the conclusion:

Rural communities have found that...

You can't argue about what rural communities have found. You can argue about whether or not this is actually true, but you can't argue with the statement that they have found something.

[JbhB682]

Hi Tutors - why isnt this a possible conclusion when i read this argument

Argument : Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses.

[my interpretation of above, was COVERAGE of the networks was wide enough to meet the needs of the city households / schools / businesses


Reason i thought this was the term "wide dissemination" which i thought refers to wide coverage

Premise : Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.


my interpretation was " okay...its also cheap for rural areas too ....this must mean the concept of wide coverage works in rural areas as well.... it also bodes with my understanding of rural areas where density of population is not as high compared to density of urban areas ...so the concept of wide coverage is good in rural and urban areas

Conclusion : hmm so i believed as long as network coverage is wide, its sufficient for both urban and rural areas (be it cost / demands for needs) ..... anything that talks about wide coverage -- should be the answer

Because of my conclusion above, didnt think B was right as B has nothing to do with coverage (chose C)

Any suggestions on what i should have done differently ?

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

First of all, it's really important just to analyze (or "deconstruct") the argument. As Jamie pointed out above, the first sentence is the conclusion (the main claim) of the argument, and the second sentence is support for that claim. Any uncertainty here, take a look at the CR strategy guide chapter 1.

Second, be clear about the meaning of the word "dissemination". Sure, it means coverage in the sense of how widely something is used. But that's different from coverage in terms of how far your Wifi stretches. And, since that sentence is the conclusion, it's a claim, not a fact. So the first sentence isn't telling us that wireless networks work well in cities, it's suggesting that they would be a good solution. Clearly, that raises some questions: sure, they work fine in rural areas, but would they really work well in cities? What if there were something different about cities? That's a weakness in the argument, and answer A addresses that weakness.