PT 56, S2, Q9 - Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for

by **bbirdwell** Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:30 am

Question Type: Determine the Function

Rifka concludes that we do not need to stop for directions, because we’d only need to do that if we were lost. The implication is that we are not lost. Craig states that we are, in fact, lost, and that we therefore need to stop for directions. Craig arrives at a different conclusion than Rifka does (stop vs. don’t stop) but does not disagree with Rifka’s reasoning (we need to stop only if we’re lost). Rather, Craig uses Rifka’s reasoning to arrive at the opposite conclusion by countering Rifka’s assumption that we are not lost. Imagine Craig saying "I agree that we would only need to ask for directions if we are lost _ and since WE ARE LOST, we should stop and ask for directions!" This remark does not contradict Craig’s actual statement, and, as (B) notes, suggests that Craig agrees with Rifka’s reasoning but disagrees with her facts.

(A) is incorrect because Craig does offer a reason _ "that we are lost."
(C) is an attractive choice, but can be eliminated by examining its parts more closely. While Craig does reject Rifka’s conclusion, and likely accepts the truth of Rifka’s reasoning, he does not imply that Rifka’s argument is invalid. An invalid argument has a structural flaw. From what we can see, it is likely that Craig thinks Rifka’s argument, "that we only need to stop if we are lost" is totally reasonable. Craig merely states that we are lost, while Rifka apparently thinks we are not.
(D) is similar to saying "notes an exception to Rifka’s rule." This is not what occurs. The "rule" or generalization that Rifka makes is that they only need to stop if they’re lost. Craig does not say "or if we’re hungry, or if we need to go to the bathroom." He counters, "Right! So let’s stop, because we are lost!"
(E) is wrong because Craig is not noncommittal about Rifka’s conclusion. He overtly opposes it.