Q17 - Poetry journal patron: Everybody who

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: If your magazine did an anthology of its poems, you wouldn't need as much donation money (i.e. the anthology would make you some good money).
Evidence: This other mag, the BWR, does an anthology (they don't have to pay the original writers anything for their poems) and they make a lot of money doing it, and your mag's poems are similar to those published in the BWR.

Answer Anticipation:
This is an argument by analogy/comparison. "Because it works for BWR and because you guys publish similar poems, it would also work for you." The author goes off ONE thing being similar (most poems published in each mag) and concludes that ANOTHER trait would also be similar (an anthology would be profitable). You strengthen these arguments with more relevant similarities and you weaken these arguments with important differences. So we can expect that we'll hear something that makes it seem like BWR and our mag aren't fair to compare.

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This is a similarity. Not what we want.

(B) This feels vaguely weakening. It's a difference: some poems in one mag were NOT in the other. But "many" is a weak quantity. The evidence only claimed that "MOST poems in the two mags are similar", so that leaves plenty of room for the exceptions that (B) describes.

(C) This almost sounds like a difference (maybe BWR pays its poets money, which makes those poets more inclined to accept the terms of the unpaid anthology appearance, whereas our mag doesn't and so we might have a problem getting consent). But we don't know if BWR pays its poets, so it's hard to use that logic.

(D) This is irrelevant to comparing whether our anthology would make money like BWR's.

(E) Yes. This is an annoying answer in the sense that it does NOT tell us for sure that celebrity poets is a difference between BWR and our mag. But it weakens the argument insofar as the author was using a similarity between poems published in the REGULAR EDITIONS of BWR and our mag as her only real evidence. This answer choice gives a strong reason to think that BWR's anthology might make money for reasons that have very little to do with the poems that are usually in BWR. So we could argue that OUR mag won't make money with an anthology because WE don't have fancy celebrity poets. Or we could just say that (E) damages the relevance of the author's evidence, since it suggests that the selling point of BWR's anthology is not its usual style of poetry but rather special famous poets.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is definitely one of those correct answers that people will continue to want to argue against. It definitely does not PROVE anything, but opens up the door to a counterargument and it undermines the relevance of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion.

#officialexplanation

[pinkdatura]

I chose D instead of E. Would you pls kindly walk me through the logic of stimulus and answer choices? Thx

[aileenann]

Hi There!

I'll be glad to help. As far as the stimulus, think of it as below.

This stimulus basically points to one publication's methods for running/funding itself and thus concludes that if my publication did the same it could also fund itself, primarily because the poems I publish are similar to those that the other publication offers.

The question asks us to weaken the argument. The most obvious way I can think of would be to attack the assumption underlying the argument that the similarity of poems is the only/most important issue in figuring out what that publication's methods would translate to my publication. Another assumption is that the process as portrayed here is complete enough to guarantee success.

Now let's take a look at the answer choices.

(A) is out of scope - who cares about donations?

(B) is also out of scope - who cares about their rejections. We are interested in the publication's business model.

(C) is irrelevant too - it doesn't speak to whether the Brick's methods will translate over to my publication.

(D) is relevant but not helpful in either sense. This doesn't contradict the author's claims - and it also doesn't necessarily undermine the conclusion that copy the Brick would help me mostly fund my publication. This is just addressing the part that doesn't get funded through the model of interest.

This leaves us with (E) - the correct answer. This gets to an assumption - that the information we had above was enough to explain the success of the Brick's plan. (E) shows us that there are other factors at work I might not be able to duplicate and, thus, that the Brick's plan may not translate perfectly for my publication.

I hope this helps!

[txtola]

Now let's take a look at the answer choices.

(A) is out of scope - who cares about donations?

I don't think it's really fair to say that. Donations are a crucial part of the argument's reasoning.

The conclusion of the argument, at least as I read it, is: if you did your own anthology, you could depend less on donations (because Black Wall Review pays for half of its expenses from an anthology's proceeds.)

The reason I picked (A) is that it attacks the gap in reasoning between (1) the sales of BWR's anthology pay for half of their operating expenses and (2) therefore, you can depend less on donations if you make an anthology. In my mind, this is a logical leap; if neither magazine depends on donations to cover most of its operating expenses then the fact that they could cover most of their expenses with the sales of anthologies doesn't *necessarily* mean anything.

(A) would be less attractive if the stimulus had said "Because BWR now covers most of its expenses with sales from the anthology, they have substantially reduced their reliance on donations."

I can see why (E) is TCR but I don't think it's so easy to write off (A).

[catie0128]

I see things the same way that txtola does:

I can see why (E) is TCR but I don't think it's so easy to write off (A).

[bbirdwell]

The conclusion of the argument:
if you published an anthology, you could depend less on donations

Evidence:
The Brick Wall makes enough $ from anthology sales to cover most operating expenses

(A) First of all, we already know this about the Brick Wall, so that part doesn't add anything new. As for the other magazine, so what if it doesn't depend on donations to cover MOST operating expenses? The conclusion merely says that selling an anthology would LESSEN dependence on donations.

So if that magazine depends on donations for only 1% of operating costs, the argument still stands. Selling an anthology (a new source of income) COULD lessen that (albeit small) dependency.

[jamiejames]

I thought E was incorrect because in the stim it says the poems are similr, but it doesn't say anything about authors, so for all we know, this other magazine could also publish famous authors in their anthology.

[yuriarc]

I'm not seeing why E is the correct answer, even though I follow why every other choice is wrong. Help?

[bbirdwell]

So in many ways, this is an argument by analogy.

This is the author's essential argument:
"The Brick Wall does it, so you should to!"

Of course "it" refers to publishing an anthology of previously published works.

Now, just recognizing that this is an argument by analogy, there are a number of strategies we can apply for various questions.

To strengthen, we should re-inforce the analogy, add evidence that makes the analogy strong.
To name an assumption, we could say "the analogy is a relevant on."

And, to weaken, we can suggest a way in which the analogy doesn't fit -- something that points out a key difference between The Brick Wall and the other magazine in question.

(E) does this. It says "there's more than meets the eye here... the Brick Wall anthology is full of famous poems."

And now, the original argument comes under fire. Again, the original was this: "Brick Wall publishes an anthology of previous poems and makes lots of money from it. Therefore, if you publish an anthology with previous poems, you'll make a lot of money, too!"

(E) now points out that there's another important consideration. The Brick Wall is not merely an anthology of previous poems, it's also got star power. All of a sudden, the simple idea of publishing an anthology and making money.... has gotten complicated.

And that's the last point I want to make -- correct answers to weaken questions don't have to destroy the conclusion, or make it untrue. They just have to disrupt the logical connections being made in the argument, to make the conclusion less likely based on the given logic.

Hope that helps!

[ca_teran1]

Hello,

I have read this question and answer numerous times. I really have! And what bothers me is that I still don't get why d is thrown out. To me it does undermine the argument because the brick wall review makes sales from selling anthology and if it depends on donations as well for coverage of expenses not covered by anthology sales it's saying to me selling anthologies is not enough to fund itself. So to me it weakens. Also I noted that the conclusion and premise is on a magazine not aBout brick wall so how do I not ignore the most important sentence I think which is " brick wall makes enough money from sales of its anthologies to cover most operating expenses."? I do see e as a better fit, but I stilt think d could work too.

[ohthatpatrick]

Hey, there.
Let's see if we can allay some of your qualms.

You said:
To me it does undermine the argument because the brick wall review makes sales from selling anthology and if it depends on donations as well for coverage of expenses not covered by anthology sales it's saying to me selling anthologies is not enough to fund itself. So to me it weakens.

You're correct in thinking that (D) tells us, "Brick Wall cannot totally fund itself from anthology money."

But why does that weaken the argument? Was it ever claimed that Brick Wall funded itself exclusively from anthology money?

No, it said that anthology money covers MOST operating expenses. Finding out the source of how Brick Wall covers the REMAINING operating expenses doesn't really matter to us. (D) doesn't push back at the facts, and it doesn't call into question the argument core.

Let's use some numbers real quick in case that helps:

Brick Wall -- 80% of its expenses are paid by anthology money, the other 20% of its expenses are paid by donations.

Magazine - 0% of its expenses are paid by anthology money (the argument implies that the magazine doesn't yet have an anthology). We don't know how the magazine pays its expenses, but it's implied that at least part of the expenses are paid by donations.

All this author is suggesting is that if the magazine started an anthology, a new revenue stream, then it would get some revenue from that and would therefore require less revenue from donations.

Why does the author think the anthology for the magazine would be generate revenue? Because the magazine publishes poems similar to those published in Brick Wall's anthology.

The message of (D) is already included in all the facts I've laid out above. It doesn't interrupt the flow of suggesting to the magazine that it create an anthology so that it could make a new revenue stream.

In fact, the only thing that really COULD interrupt the suggestion above is if the magazine's anthology would somehow FAIL to generate revenue. Why would the magazine's anthology FAIL even though Brick Wall's anthology succeeds?

Oh, (E) is pointing to something special/marketable/desirable about Brick wall's anthology that might not apply to the type of anthology the magazine would create. Without that special/marketable/desirable quality, the magazine's anthology could fail to generate revenue. That would hurt the conclusion.

You also said:
Also I noted that the conclusion and premise is on a magazine not aBout brick wall so how do I not ignore the most important sentence I think which is " brick wall makes enough money from sales of its anthologies to cover most operating expenses."?

I'm not sure I followed this question. Why are we ignoring that sentence?

It's part of the background/support for the ultimate recommendation that the 'magazine' publish a similar anthology.

It's also helpful for realizing that (D) doesn't tell us anything damaging. It's totally compatible with that sentence.

Let me know if you have residual questions about any of this.

[alena21century]

Answer E most weakens the argument. The only evidence that is provided in the stimulus about similarity between The Brick Wall Review and your magazine is that you and Brick Wall Review publish very similar poems in your magazines. (note that magazines and anthology are not the same in this context). However, in order to depend less on donations, you need to sell enough anthologies (not regular issues of your magazine). Answer E tells us that there is a new element contained in anthologies by Brick Wall Review - poems by famous poets not published in the regular issues. So, your anthologies are not very similar to Brick Walls Review's anthologies. Thus, there is no guarantee that you will be as successful as Brick Wall's Review in selling your anthologies to depend less on donations.

Answer D is neutral since the stimulus says "... you could depend less on donations." The answer would weaken the argument if the stimulus said "... you would not depend on donations at all."

[cck2_waikato]

the original was this: "Brick Wall publishes an anthology of previous poems and makes lots of money from it. Therefore, if you publish an anthology with previous poems, you'll make a lot of money, too!"

(E) now points out that there's another important consideration. The Brick Wall is not merely an anthology of previous poems, it's also got star power. All of a sudden, the simple idea of publishing an anthology and making money.... has gotten complicated.

I picked (E). I did this prep test timed, and when I did this question, I saw only the above reasoning, nothing else. It was the only reasoning I got (I was trying to go very fast) but was good enough for me to pick (E). The Brick Wall made a lot of money from their anthology for other reasons.

I did wrong to right, and quickly eliminated (B) and (C). And (E) was the best available answer because it was the closest to my reasoning above. I guess when you try to go very fast, you just can't drill deep to get a perfect reasoning, and just have to pick the best available answer.

[andrewgong01]

Would it be incorrect to call this a corr/causation argument? My prehphase was corr/causation that an anthology leads to high profit (less donation dependence) and then "E" points out a potential other cause for the correlation , it is not because the publication republishes poems but because it has celebrity poets, pointing out a unique difference between the two cases.

This logic overall seems similar to your logic from above but I approached it as a corr/cause instead of seeing it as a comparison based argument.

[mswang7]

Premises: If you publish a poem in BWR you have agreed for it to be reprinted without pay in anthology.
BRW makes enough $ from anthology sales to cover expenses
Poems published in BRW are similar to your magazine
Concl: If your magazine did the same thing you can expect you will also make enough $ to cover costs -> depend less on donations.
Prephrase: Even tho poems are similar, expenses/ audience/ business model can be different

A. out of scope - we are trying to prove that you could depend less on donations, doesn't matter if you do or don't currently
B. This tries to attack the last premise but we already established and must accept the poems are similar
C. This is a weaker in disguise. The argument discusses $ the magazine makes, not poets make.
D. This is an anti premise - we already established the $ they make from anthology sales is wnough
E. Matches to my prephrase, the draws the dissimilaries between BWR (not all poems in anth in regular) & the "business model that would work" bc the latter only includes poems already published