Q21 - Game show winners choosing

[jennifer]

I was down to C and E and choose the incorrect answer (C), and unfortuntly I still can not see the pattern that makes (E) the correct answer.

[americano1990]

Original argument

When choosing btwn desirable items:
1. more expensive
or
2. more familiar

Conclusion: since #2 doesnt hold # 1 must be the case

Answer choice (E)

When avoiding predators
1. double back
or
2. flee nearby

Conclusion: since #2 cant hold #1 must be the case

Now...why (C) is wrong.
I wont go too far into it since the basic explanation is that it doesnt fit the pattern above. As soon as i saw words like ONLY, UNLESS I sensed that it is a crap answer, and plus, the conclusion does not match AT ALL. Conclusion must be that since one of the two possibilities will not hold, the remaining one must hold. But (C)'s conclusion compares things...BLEH

[amil91]

Original argument

When choosing btwn desirable items:
1. more expensive
or
2. more familiar

Conclusion: since #2 doesnt hold # 1 must be the case

Answer choice (E)

When avoiding predators
1. double back
or
2. flee nearby

Conclusion: since #2 cant hold #1 must be the case

Now...why (C) is wrong.
I wont go too far into it since the basic explanation is that it doesnt fit the pattern above. As soon as i saw words like ONLY, UNLESS I sensed that it is a crap answer, and plus, the conclusion does not match AT ALL. Conclusion must be that since one of the two possibilities will not hold, the remaining one must hold. But (C)'s conclusion compares things...BLEH

I think C is wrong because it has a reasoning flaw that the stimulus does not have.
The first statement in C can be translated to: If -affect -> eccentric, or If -eccentric -> affect.
C then tells us that Y is affected, but we don't know what happens if something is affected, only if something is NOT affected or NOT eccentric.

[christine.defenbaugh]

amil91, you are completely correct that (C) is flawed in a way that the original argument is not. But, as a strategic point, in a timed environment you shouldn't even be getting to that level of analysis on (C).

Translating all the mucky conditional logic in (C) is a pain, and it eats up time. So don't do it unless you have to! In this situation, the original argument has a critical either/or setup. Any answer choice that doesn't contain that is an automatic out!

americano1990's breakdown is pretty on target for thinking both structurally and strategically. The pattern looks like this:

PREMISES
Group will do X or Y.
Can't do X.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, will do Y.

In the original argument, the group is game show winners, X = picking more familiar, and Y = picking more expensive.

In (E), the group is rabbits, X = flee for nearby cover, and Y = double back.


More Clash than Match
(A) We have an either/or, but here the second premise is that we HAVE X (and therefore not Y). This doesn't match to NO X (therefore Y).
(B)Again, we have a positive X premise, followed by a conclusion that brings up weird new info.
(C) No either/or at all!
(D) We start with an either/or, but Miyoko bails on the binary altogether.

Don't get sucked into a full, in-depth analysis of every answer here unless you must. A quick recognition that an answer choice is missing a critical element (like an either/or) can save you significant time.

I hope this helps clear things up a bit!

[mimimimi]

does anyone else have a problem with (E) "... so it will try to double back..."

i know this is minor, but doesn't this introduce some uncertainty that the stimulus did not have, namely "he will thus choose A"?

[erikwoodward10]

does anyone else have a problem with (E) "... so it will try to double back..."

i know this is minor, but doesn't this introduce some uncertainty that the stimulus did not have, namely "he will thus choose A"?

I agree, and made the same mistake. I eliminated E for this reason. However, if you really understand the stimulus (which tells us that we select one of two NCs through denying the possibility of the other NC) it is clear that the overall structure of E matches better than any other choice. Now, if there was an answer F that matched the structure AND matched the future tense "will" instead of "try", then that would be correct. Lesson here is to match argumentative structure first, and then if you still have remaining options go to the specifics. Note that the stimulus says "most similar", not "exactly similar".

[nhahoyt]

How did you all eliminate (A)?

Is it because the stimulus is talking about a choice, and (A) doesn't? Because that seems to be the only difference - the logic is the same (of two options, if one doesn't hold the other must).

Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yup, that seems to be what Christine said in her explanation:

"(A) We have an either/or, but here the second premise is that we HAVE X (and therefore not Y). This doesn't match to NO X (therefore Y)."

In your words:
"Is it because the stimulus is talking about a choice, and (A) doesn't? Because that seems to be the only difference - the logic is the same (of two options, if one doesn't hold the other must)."

(A) has a choice, but the logic is not the same.

The original argued
"of two options, if one doesn't hold, then we can conclude the other must"

(A) is saying
"of two options, if one DOES hold, then we can conclude the other DOESN'T"