Q10 - Helen: Reading a book is

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Analyze Argument Structure (Describe Response / Technique)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Helen's Conclusion: reading a book is, intellectually, like investing money.
Evidence: To read a book is to invest time in such a way that you hope that the opportunity cost of the time you spend reading the book will be compensated by more opportunities than you would have had without reading the book.

Randi's pushback: When you read vocational books, you're hoping for that sort of value (increased opportunities). When you read fiction, it's like watching a sitcom -- "wasted" time, since you're not doing it for any further end than the enjoyment you get out of doing it.

Answer Anticipation:
Describe the Procedure / Technique / Response is really just a task of "Which answer choice matches what happened?" We're normally trying to characterize the evidence or reasoning in abstract terms (counterexample, analogy, implications of logic, ruling out alternatives, defining a term, etc.) I would prephrase that Randi made a distinction between two types of reading. Randi is saying, "Helen, what you're talking about applies to THIS type of reading, but not to THAT type of reading."

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Randi does not question how Helen's evidence was gathered (Helen's evidence is just some claims, so it's not even the type of empirical evidence one might 'gather').

(B) Yes! Randi's pushback is simply saying "Helen, your spiel only applies to VOCATIONAL books, not to fiction." So she does dispute the scope of Helen's analogy, and she does so by presenting another analogy (reading fiction is analogous to watching a sitcom)

(C) No, Randi doesn't think Helen's conclusion is absurd, just too broad.

(D) There was no example presented by Helen.

(E) extreme = "DENYING". And there was no example presented by Helen.

Takeaway/Pattern: Helen's analogy was "reading a book is analogous to investing money". Randi says "that's true, for vocational books, but reading fiction is more analogous to watching a sitcom".

#officialexplanation

[sumukh09]

Here we have a conversation between two people, Helen and Randi, and we're asked to identify the argumentative technique that Randi uses to counter Helen's argument. Helen's argument is that reading books are the intellectual equivalent to investing money because the time invested in reading a book is time invested towards something that might pay off later given what was learned by reading a particular book.

Randi says that Helen's argument would only apply to vocational books and not fictional books since fictional books are just like watching a sitcom - a waste of time.

Answer choices:

A) Randi doesn't question how Helen gathered her evidence. Eliminate.

B) Ah, this works. Randi limits Helen's use of the term "books" by suggesting that only some types of books offers the advantages conceded by Helen. Not all. Randi then says fiction books are like sitcoms in that both are a waste of time as nothing valuable could be learned in either activity.

C) is wrong because Randi doesn't say Helen's reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion.

D) Randi does draw an analogy, but not to an example presented by Helen. Further, what example has Helen presented? None. Eliminate.

E) is incorrect because Randi doesn't deny the relevance of Helen's premises

[tommywallach]

Hey Sumukh,

Perfect explanation of this question. We generally refer to this type of prompt as a "Procedure" question. Your description of the stimulus itself and of the answer choices was spot on. Well done!

-t