by ohthatpatrick Mon Aug 12, 2013 7:06 pm
The second one doesn't quite do it; we have to be very explicit when we're dealing with Sufficient Assumptions.
An airtight argument looks like
A is B
B is C
Thus, A is C
Notice that everything in the conclusion has already been mentioned in the premise. In fact, everything here is mentioned twice. That's what airtight arguments look like.
If I said
A is B
B is C
Thus, A is D
We would KNOW that "D" must be in the answer choice. What is it going to be linked to? "C", because "C" was the end of the A-->B-->C chain ... plus, C is only mentioned once.
We're trying to prove that
C: ThinkCo is responsible for the creation of a new product category.
In order to prove that claim, I have need info about
"ThinkCo"
and
"is responsible for creation of a new product category"
The premise tells me
P: The recent release of ThinkCo's micro-laptop computer has resulted in an unprecedented frenzy of media coverage about what may be the first device in a new product category.
So I have some info about "ThinkCo" (they released a micro-laptop which resulted in a media frenzy)
But I don't have any info about "Who is responsible for creation of a new product category?".
Therefore, the sufficient assumption MUST include that wording (or something logically equivalent).
(A1): (The company that generates an unprecedented frenzy of media coverage about a device that may be the first in a new product category is responsible for the creation of that new category.)
This choice gives me that wording, and attaches it to an idea that I know applies to ThinkCo.
(A2): (ThinkCo is the first company to release a micro-laptop computer and deserves the unprecedented media frenzy surrounding the product release.)
This doesn't give me that wording. I still have no way to prove that anyone/anything is "responsible for creation of that new category". That wording ONLY appears in the conclusion.
You may have been thinking, "Yeah, but don't we just KNOW that they created a new category? The premise says that their new micro-laptop may be the first product in that new category."
A couple problems:
1. It MAY be the 1st product in a new category. Nothing says it is. Even the assumption that says it's the first micro-laptop doesn't say that "micro-laptop" is a new category.
2. You could be responsible for the first product in a new category but still not be responsible for the creation of the new category.
For instance, I could create the category of "watermelon-scented wrist watches". But maybe I never do anything to create such a product, so when Time For Melon, Inc. debuts its new Seedless 3000, it provides the first product in this new category even though it did not create the category.
Hope this helps.
