Q13 - Charles: During recessions uneployment

[jiyoonsim]

My answer was E, but the correct answer was C. I tried to figure out why C is right and E isn't, but to me the difference between them seems pretty subtle. I'll share my analysis here, and it would be great if you can comment on it while going over the question in general. Thanks in advance!

So imo:
C) is the right answer, because Darla doesn't really dispute Charles's conclusion itself. Instead, Darla gives another view, based on the same given stiuation - which actually weakens Charles's argument.

D) isn't quite right, since Darla doesn't really attack Charles's conclusion itself. And Darla doesn't clearly present her own argument. Darla just challenges Charles's conclusion and assumption by giving a different side of the issue.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I'd say you're pretty much there.

Darla is presenting something that Charles failed to consider. And this consideration makes it less likely that Charles' evidence supports his conclusion - best expressed in answer choice (C).

Answer choice (E) would suggest, as you say, that Darla presents a new argument - which she doesn't, exactly right.

Let's just look at some of the other answer choices:

(A) is not something done by Darla. She doesn't attack a premise, she provides an additional consideration.
(B) may be tempting in that it is an "additional claim." But it's never presented as a condition that would be false, if the conclusion were true.
(D) is false. Darla does not argue that Charle's conclusion is true.
(E) is false. Darla does not present an argument showing the absurdity (inconsistency) of Charle's evidence.

Hope that helps!

[RyanT361]

Hello,

I too had difficulty with this question. I narrowed it down to B and C. I chose B, but I see now see how C is correct. However, I have trouble ruling out B). How could the answer choice B be phrased in order for it to be correct (e.g. her's being true and Charles' false), in terms of an example?

Thank you,

Ryan

[smiller]

Apologies for our slow response. A few questions slipped by us recently.

When reviewing a difficult LR question, rewording an incorrect answer to make it correct can be a great way to better understand that answer choice. That being said, it's not always easy to do this, and not always the best way to understand an incorrect answer. Some answers are so vague or convoluted that it's really difficult to make them correct!

I think that's the case here. A better approach is to think, "what 'additional claim' of Darla's does answer choice (B) refer to?" Compare each of Darla's statements to Charles' conclusion and think, "can this statement of Darla's only be true if air pollution from automobile exhaust does not decrease during a recession?"

Darla claims that fewer people can afford new cars during a recession. Can that only be true if air pollution from automobiles does not decrease? No, it's possible that fewer people can afford new cars regardless of what happens to air pollution.

Darla claims that older cars emit more pollutants. This also can be true regardless of whether or not air pollution from automobiles decreases.

We can say that choice (B) is not accurately describing Darla's statement at all, and that's why it's incorrect.

[LizaK873]

E) seems to actually say:

"It presents an argument showing that the premises in Charle's argument support an absurd conclusion that he has overlooked"
==
"If Charle's premises are true, then this other absurd thing would also happen"


An example of this is:
John: This signature is real because this ink is only owned by one person, my dad.
Sarah: If this ink is only owned by your dad, you are saying he either created an ink that nobody else has ever created, or that an entire company made a unique ink just for him. (absurd) Former is near impossible, and the latter is improbable.

(Another one I thought of:)
John: I ate lunch with my dad yesterday.
Sarah: That means you met him. But that's ridiculous, I know he's in Japan.