Q17 - Advertiser: There's nothing wrong

[clarafok]

hello

can someone please explain why the answer is D and not E?

so i was thinking, the argument says if you use the versatool, you will need additional tools less often that you would using any other multiple-function tool. so i chose E thinking that maybe the versatool doesn't have a tool that i use often, so i would have to use single-function tools. is this wrong because the conclusions says 'multiple-function tool' instead of 'single-function tool'?

thanks in advance!

[dtangie23]

This one got me as well. I chose (E) instead of (D). Here's how I'm now looking at it now...

The Versatool can perform more functions than any other tool.

So, if you use it, you'll need additional tools less often than if you were using any other multi-function tool.

Well, just because the Verstool can perform the most functions overall does not necessarily mean that it can perform the functions that most frequently need to be performed.

If it cannot perform the functions that most frequently need to be performed and another multi-function tool can (even though this other multi-function tool can't perform as many functions as the Versatool overall), then we would appeal to this other multi-function tool more often, which would undermine the conclusion.

This flaw is addressed perfectly in answer choice (D).

[bbirdwell]

Great explanation, dtangle. And as for (E), it addresses how well the Versatool performs a function rather than how many, which is what the conclusion is really about.

[alinanny]

With this question my difficulty was eliminating A.
If you need less tools when you use VersaTool but some of the tools included are never needed then I would have to use other tools.
I chose D because it was more specific but any additional information on how to approach A are appreciated.
Thank you

[bbirdwell]

If you need less tools when you use VersaTool but some of the tools included are never needed then I would have to use other tools.

Not quite. What this means is that those tools are never NEEDED. You don't "have to use other tools," because there's nothing to do with them.

What (A) is getting at is this:

The Versatool has more tools than any other tool. Let's just call it 13.

On the basis of this fact, the author concludes that you will need additional tools LESS often.

(A) says, in effect, "you will never need to use 3 of those tools." If this is true, then the conclusion is now questionable. Why? Because now there is a possibility that somewhere out there is a multi-tool (let's call it Supertool) that contains the same USEFUL tools that the Versatool has, and lacks the 3 USELESS tools that it does have.

So does the conclusion hold? Not necessarily. The owner of the Supertool will need additional tools EQUALLY often as the owner of the Versatool.

So, sure, the Versatool is like the Swiss army knife with a cheese shredder and a leather punch. But you're never gonna use that knife to shred cheese or punch leather, so you might as well have the smaller knife that has all the good tools and lacks the cheese shredder and leather punch, and an argument for the big knife on the basis of "number of tools" fails.

See what I mean?

[alinanny]

Got it! BTW, I loved the swiss army knife example. LOL!

[zhanga]

If you need less tools when you use VersaTool but some of the tools included are never needed then I would have to use other tools.

Not quite. What this means is that those tools are never NEEDED. You don't "have to use other tools," because there's nothing to do with them.

What (A) is getting at is this:

The Versatool has more tools than any other tool. Let's just call it 13.

On the basis of this fact, the author concludes that you will need additional tools LESS often.

(A) says, in effect, "you will never need to use 3 of those tools." If this is true, then the conclusion is now questionable. Why? Because now there is a possibility that somewhere out there is a multi-tool (let's call it Supertool) that contains the same USEFUL tools that the Versatool has, and lacks the 3 USELESS tools that it does have.

So does the conclusion hold? Not necessarily. The owner of the Supertool will need additional tools EQUALLY often as the owner of the Versatool.

So, sure, the Versatool is like the Swiss army knife with a cheese shredder and a leather punch. But you're never gonna use that knife to shred cheese or punch leather, so you might as well have the smaller knife that has all the good tools and lacks the cheese shredder and leather punch, and an argument for the big knife on the basis of "number of tools" fails.

See what I mean?

Given your explanation, then doesn't A also make for a good answer? Or is D just a better answer?

[goriano]

If you need less tools when you use VersaTool but some of the tools included are never needed then I would have to use other tools.

Not quite. What this means is that those tools are never NEEDED. You don't "have to use other tools," because there's nothing to do with them.

What (A) is getting at is this:

The Versatool has more tools than any other tool. Let's just call it 13.

On the basis of this fact, the author concludes that you will need additional tools LESS often.

(A) says, in effect, "you will never need to use 3 of those tools." If this is true, then the conclusion is now questionable. Why? Because now there is a possibility that somewhere out there is a multi-tool (let's call it Supertool) that contains the same USEFUL tools that the Versatool has, and lacks the 3 USELESS tools that it does have.

So does the conclusion hold? Not necessarily. The owner of the Supertool will need additional tools EQUALLY often as the owner of the Versatool.

So, sure, the Versatool is like the Swiss army knife with a cheese shredder and a leather punch. But you're never gonna use that knife to shred cheese or punch leather, so you might as well have the smaller knife that has all the good tools and lacks the cheese shredder and leather punch, and an argument for the big knife on the basis of "number of tools" fails.

See what I mean?

Given your explanation, then doesn't A also make for a good answer? Or is D just a better answer?

No, (A) is still wrong because the conclusion is about how OFTEN you'll need additional tools, not which one is more compact/easier to carry around. If VersaTool has 5 never needed tools but encompasses all the tools that a multiple-function tool has, you would still need additional tools just as often regardless of which tool you're using.

[kyuya]

The argument is essentially stating that because the VersaTool can perform more functions than any other tool, you will therefore require the use of other tools less often.

What is the assumption here? It assumes that all functions on a given tool are created equally, which is not true. Perhaps functions A and B are highly common when people use a tool and therefore are desirable - and functions C through H are all quite uncommon - but are nonetheless the sole functions of the VersaTool.

What does this mean? This means that if the VersaTool could not do functions A and B (common ones) but could do all of the uncommon ones, in addition to having more functions than a standard tool, it will still make the VersaTool relatively useless. More doesn't mean better. More can simply mean that - more. More uselessness!

(A) Includes SOME functions that are infrequently or never needed? This is not inconsistent with the potential reality of the VertsaTool also having highly common and useful functions, which does indeed mean it could be a better tool than other tools. For example, as (A) suggests it could unclude some functions that are rarely or never needed, but it could also still be able to perform all of the other highly common functions needed of a tool. Therefore, the versatool is still a fine choice of tool to use. Since this isn't a a good criticism, eliminate it.

(B) Similarly with (A), this is consistent with the idea that the VersaTool has many useful functions. The fact that it incldes functions that are difficult to perform with any tool does not mean the VersaTool couldn't still be much better than any other tool on the market. Eliminate.

(C) This is probably the more irrelevant answer choice. It being more expensive doesn't matter. We are only concerned with it having useful functions. Perhaps it is more expensive because it is just that impressive of a tool.

(D) Here is the correct answer choice. As alluded to above in my breakdown of the argument, more doesn't equal better. If it has more functions, but performs fewer often needed functions than some other tools, it stands to reason the VersaTool is likely not better than other tools on the market! This captures the flaw perfectly.

(E) This isn't really an issue. Even if the versatool doesn't perform some functions as well as single tools, it doesn't mean the versatool isn't a better tool. Perhaps the convenience of not having to switch tools is enough to make the VersaTool better.