Q19 - Sales Proposal Rejected if not Re-written

[agersh144]

Can someone break this down for me - I was agonizingly stuck between A and C on test day and still deeply troubled by A - I can clearly see why C is right now but I just don't get why A is wrong

Thanks for your consideration

[christine.defenbaugh]

You raise an excellent question agersh144! These two answer choices are extremely similar - so much so that without giving yourself a barebones outline, the difference would be extremely difficult to catch.

For Matching questions, since we need to insure that each piece matches the structure, giving a very quick shorthand to the side can be extremely useful. This has the benefit of distilling the true structure into bare bones pieces, as well as giving you a reference point to compare each answer choice (so you don't find yourself re-reading the entire stimulus 5-6 times!). This is fairly similar to breaking out the core on Assumption family questions, but this time we're not going to ponder the gap too much. The stimulus can be broken down like this:

PREMISES
Expert: if proposal not rewritten -> proposal rejected
Expert is reliable
proposal won't be rewritten
CONCLUSION
Proposal probably rejected

So we have an expert giving an if/then, the author tells us he's reliable, then the author gives us the starter fact for the if/then. Conclusion is the probable result of the if/then.

Let's see how that compares to (C):

PREMISES
Expert: if data accurate --> med is safe
Expert is reliable
data is accurate
CONCLUSION
Med is probably safe

Once again, we have an expert giving an if/then, the author tells us he's reliable, then the author gives us the starter fact for the if/then. Conclusion is the probable result of the if/then.

This matches exactly!

Now, let's compare (A) in the same way:

PREMISES
Expert: data is accurate
Expert is reliable
if data is accurate --> med is safe
CONCLUSION
Med is probably safe

In this case, we have all the right pieces, but the starter fact was given by the expert, while the if/then was given to us directly by the author! This switch is what makes it not parallel.

This is a tricky distinction, and one that is incredibly easy to miss while simply reading. A very quick shorthand to the side of the stimulus and answer choices can really help when it comes down to subtle structural shifts like these.


The remaining answer choices may not require diagramming to identify their mismatches:

(B) The first red flag is "prove" - the original conclusion is merely "probably". There are also only two premises: an if/then, and the trigger for the if/then. There's no establishment of the expert's reliability. Also, the claim that the expert makes ends up being the conclusion; in the stimulus, the claim of the expert was a conditional, which lead to the conclusion once triggered.

(D) The first red flag is that the expert claims two things: a conditional, and a "probably" fact for the trigger. The stimulus had the trigger fact coming from the author directly (and without the "probably" qualification.)

(E) Similar to (B), the expert's claim becomes the conclusion. Also, the expert's claim includes "probably". Finally, there are no if/then statements to be found anywhere in the argument!


Please let me know if this completely answers your question!

[staradevi]

Thanks, Christine -- I arrived at C, but through different (and maybe incorrect?) reasoning. I broke down the parts, as well, but ultimately picked C over A (and the others) because "the science journal is rarely wrong" in this choice vs "generally" or "fairly" reliable. I don't completely understand the logic you used to arrive at A: how do you know that it's the Author positing the starter for the "if/then" in the prompt rather than the expert (as you indicated was the case in choice A)?

One more thing: while the answers all talk about the accuracy of company data, and connect this to the medication being safe, none of them addresses the data saying that the medication is safe. Is this something to avoid being hung up on? Or could you explain?

Apologies if this is a basic question, I'm just rather confused!

[collustro]

Hello mods.

Whenever i see these types of problems i skip it first...
I usually spend 1:20 on each question but these questions i spend 2:30-4 mins... I usually skip them
How do you tackle these long "parallel reasoning" or "find a similar reasoning" that are many lines long without spending forever on it?



Thanks

[collustro]

Should i write down premise conclusion diagrams like yours on the question, then on each choice?

I feel like that would take forever...

[magic.marshall]

Initially I skipped this question. Reviewing this question here is what I found.

The difference in reliability.

Given Argument: "very reliable"
A: generally reliable
B: concluded..., would not have done so had the manufacturer's data not proven...
C: rarely wrong
D: fairly reliable
E: fairly reliable


The difference who claims vs who is reliable
Given Argument:Juarez thinks...proposal rejected if not rewritten. Juarez very reliable.
C: Journal states...med is safe if the data is accurate. journal is rarely wrong,
A:Argument author states if the data is accurate, med must be safe. journal generally reliable.

Argument structure similar.
(these all look pretty close, a lot to break down.)
Given Argument:1. Juarez thinks...proposal rejected if not rewritten. 2. Juarez very reliable. 3. proposal not rewritten, will probably be rejected.
C:1. Journal states...med is safe if the data is accurate. 2. med probably safe. 3. journal rarely wrong, & data is accurate.
A:1. data of medication are accurate. 2. journal generally reliable. 3. medication probably safe, _____?_____...if the data is accurate, med must be safe.

"C" is the correct answer.
Hope this helps.

[ShiyuF391]

Trying to provide another perspective,

in the question stem, premises never use word that indicates uncertainty. But in the conclusion, 'probably' is mentioned.

For answer choice B, D, and E, the word 'probably' is mentioned in the premises, so eliminated.

For answer choice A, the premise uses the word 'must', which is too extreme, so eliminated,

Hope this helps.

Thx.