Q20 - Game show host: Humans are

[jlz1202]

I narrow down to B and E, why E is incorrect?

I reread the stimulus and find the definition of "good at investing" is qualified by the later half of the first sentence: "...a better return ...on investment...". I analyze the difference between B and E as follows:

This qualified definition has nothing to do with whether investors understand or reason before investment--it only concerns who get more money back, so we may consider B as irrelevant to the definition and the stimulus--the correct answer of the "flaw EXCEPT" question.

We could not rule out E as according to the definition in the stimulus, comparing long term investment return between chimp and human could determine who's better at investing, therefore E demonstrates one of the flaws in the stimulus.

I am not sure whether the way I convince myself is correct--Anyone please help and any thought on the understanding above?

Thanks in advance!

[noah]

You got it! Nice work.

And, for the record, here's my thoughts on this one:

The conclusion is that apes are at least as good as people at investing. Why? Because one ape made more money than each of five people after a month of investing the same amount of money.

There are lots of flaws in this argument - there has to be since it's a flaw EXCEPT question!

(A) can we draw a conclusion about apes from what one ape does?

(C) can we draw a conclusion about humans from what five humans do?

(D) can we draw a conclusion about investing by looking simply at one month's returns? What happens after a year? Would that chimp be able to manage my retirement fund?

(E) is saying the same thing as (D) basically.

(B) is irrelevant - even if chimps couldn't understand what they were doing, they still might be better at investing since better investing is defined as attaining "a better return."