Q11 - When a major record label

[kmewmewblue]

I chose (B).

1: When a major~promotions.(premise)
2:Hence, the band~independently.(premise&con)
3:For this reason, it is only~signed with it."(con)

(B)
1 therefore 2
1 therefore 3.

Not a strong argument, but I felt this made sense.

What am I missing?

I guess I cannot see the strong connection 2 is supporting 3, and that is why I couldn't choose (E).

Any help will be appreciated.

[noah]

I think you got it until you linked up the premises and conclusions incorrectly.

Here's how I see it:

Conclusion: Fair for labels to take a large chunk of profit.
Why?: The band doesn't take on as much risk when using a label.
Why?: Labels pay for all the stuff.

So, the fact that bands don't take on as much risk, as (E) notes, is an intermediate conclusion.

(A) ignores the final conclusion.

(B) ignores the connection between the two conclusions.

(C) mistakes the conclusion for a principle.

(D) is perhaps tempting since there is an explanation of the intermediate conclusion, but there are parts of the argument that are not used to explain the lack of risk - namely the final conclusion!

I hope that helps.

[Aquamarine]

I still don't understand why D is wrong.
Is it ("a band signed with a major label ~~" part from the stimulus) the phenomenon to support the main conclusion?
What's the difference between D and E?
Can anyone explain why D is wrong and E is an answer?

Thanks in advance!

[maryadkins]

Hmm, well first off, I don't like (D) because the "REST OF THE ARGUMENT" is not offering an explanation of this claim! It is used to support the conclusion! The conclusion isn't supporting IT.

If (D) said "a phenomenon that the first part of the argument supports and that is in turn used to support the final conclusion," I would like it.

(E) actually does this.