Q1 - The television star Markus Hermann

[tamaradeniseoki]

[redacted transcript of question]

Is B correct?

[ohthatpatrick]

Hi, there. It seems like you might be a new user to the forum. Welcome!

1. We never actually re-write the question (we're not allowed to by copyright law and more importantly, we don't need to bother with all that typing).

You just look up the problem by Test #, Section #, Question # or by searching keywords.

2. You don't need to come to us for an answer. You can just check your answer key. It's at the back of the test form, right after the score conversion table.

The answer is (A).

==== complete explanation ====


Question type: Sufficient Assumption

Task: Pick the answer choice that, when combined with the Evidence, guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

Argument Core:

conclusion
The Messenger will not interview MH

evidence
two conditional ideas (signified by 'unless' and 'refuses to do anything')

NOT given right approve beforehand --> MH will not grant interview
Compromises editorial integrity --> The Messenger will not do it

analysis
There are no "new ideas" in the conclusion. We've already learned facts about what MH will/won't do and what The Messenger will/won't do.

We just need to link those two ideas together.

What do we know about MH? In order to do an interview, he requires pre-approval.

So how are we gonna prove that The Messenger won't go along with that pre-approval?

Well, we have a rule that says The Messenger won't go along with "anything that compromises editorial integrity".

So we're just missing the idea that
"giving MH pre-approval" would "compromise editorial integrity"

Because Sufficient Assumption questions allow us to sharply pre-phrase the missing link, we don't need to work wrong to right. We can simply look for an answer that says
"giving MH pre-approval" would "compromise editorial integrity".

(A) Okay, sounds good!

(B) In order for this choice to prove that The Messenger won't interview MH, we'd have to add the idea that "if they've never given pre-approval before, they won't do it for MH".

But we DON'T have that idea as a given, so the conclusion is still not proven. I've never before let someone spit in my coffee, but if someone offered me enough money, I would consider doing it.

So (B) offers no guarantee. MAYBE they will make a pre-approval exception for the famous TV star MH.

(C) Who cares about 'most' stars. This argument is purely about MH.

(D) Who cares about what MH usually does? We only care about what would happen with The Messenger. This sounds like a Strengthen idea --- "man, interviewing MH kinda sounds like a headache. He always requires pre-approval and usually demands major changes. I bet The Messenger will not love that."

But we need CERTAINTY that The Messenger will NOT endure MH's demands. This doesn't give us that.

(E) Same as (D). This strengthens the idea that MH won't get interviewed by The Messenger, but it doesn't prove anything.

Again, the way (A) works is that it combines with the evidence to mathematically derive the conclusion.

The Messenger's editors think that Pre-approval compromises editorial integrity.
The M's editors refuse to do anything that compromises editorial integrity.
----------------------------
Thus, The M's editors will refuse to give pre-approval to MH.
MH refuses to grant interviews if not given pre-approval.
-----------------------------
Thus, The Messenger won't be able to interview MH.

[hnadgauda]

This is how I analyzed this question:

Conclusion: Messenger won't interview Hermann. [blank-->~interview H.]

Premise relevant to conclusion: Messenger won't do anything that compromises editorial integrity. [compromise editorial integrity--> ~Do action]

Gap: [compromise editorial integrity -->~interview H.]

Analysis of answers:

A: Same as Gap! Correct.
B: nothing about editorial integrity
C: same as B
D: out of scope
E: out of scope