Q21 - The amount of electricity consumed

[skapur777]

How is (A) correct here? Isn't that an example of flawed logic?

(A) says that the amount of supplies is proportional to number of students. Since 20 percent more students overall enrolled last year than the year before, more art supplies were used last year.

But if 20 percent more overall enrolled, does that mean after people have possibly dropped out and everything? Because I was thinking, just because 20% more enrolled, doesn't mean that say 60% of the previous class dropped out! Thus meaning less art supplies since less classrooms.

?!

[bbirdwell]

Original:
electricity proportional to humidity.
avg humidity was higher this august than last, more electricity used

(A)
supplies proportional to enrollment
enrollment higher this year than last, more supplies used

That's a great match. They both make the assumption you pointed out, though, and it's not necessarily "flawed," as every argument has some conceivable assumption. The argument that "The sky is blue today," assumes that there is a "sky," that "blue" exists, and that "blue" is something that the sky can "be."

The assumption you point to in (A) is also in the original -- what if a disaster wiped out 90% of the town? Sure, in that case, probably didn't consume as much electricity.

(B)
courses proportional to # of enrolled students
same # of sculpture classes each term
more painting than sculpture courses

Way off!

(C)
enrollment proportional to advertising
if want to increase enrollment --> increase advertising

This may be true, but it is not a match!

(D)
fees paid proportional to number of classes
# of students is increasing...

This one is a bad match already, by introducing a third element (fees, classes, and students). The original has only two (electricity, humidity)

(E)
instructors proportional to classes and also students

Bad match!

Your job on these questions is simply to find a match, whether the logic is flawed isn't really relevant.

[johnadamsbird]

I got this one wrong (choosing D) after fixating on the shift from "electricity" to "energy" in the original argument (what if consumption of forms of energy other than electricity, say natural gas/heat, was way down?). I was short on time and went looking for another shift, which I thought I found in D ("classes" to "students").

I understand why A is correct now, but just wanted clarification on why D is wrong. Even if the shift from "electricity" to "energy" was significant enough to be a flaw, would this not match D because the corresponding terms aren't also shifting? (In D, fees, which corresponds to electricity, does not shift.)

Lastly, was I wrong to be searching for a flaw if the question stem didn't mention one? Do matching questions containing flaws always explicitly say so, or could they just ask for a match?

Thanks,
Johnny

[maryadkins]

I understand why A is correct now, but just wanted clarification on why D is wrong. Even if the shift from "electricity" to "energy" was significant enough to be a flaw, would this not match D because the corresponding terms aren't also shifting? (In D, fees, which corresponds to electricity, does not shift.)

You're right that this is also still not a match in your hypothetical, yep!

Lastly, was I wrong to be searching for a flaw if the question stem didn't mention one? Do matching questions containing flaws always explicitly say so, or could they just ask for a match?

Right. If it doesn't ask for a paralleled flaw, don't look for a flaw to parallel, just look to match the structure of the argument. That structure may have a flaw or it may not. If it does, that gives you an extra piece to try to match up!

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Argument:



X is porportional to Y



Y is higher this year than it was last year



----------------------------------------------------------



X is higher this year than it was last year.



(A) Bingo.

(B) Premise mismatch. The second premise differs from the one in the original argument. Further, the comparison in the conclusion compares two different things whereas the one in the original argument compares one element over time.



X is proportional to Y

Z is always the same.

------------------------------------------

X is usually higher than Y



(C) Missing a premise, and the conclusion is not comparative, it's conditional.



(D) Is wrong because it has a premise mismatch. The first premise talks about student fees being directly proportional to the number of classes a student takes. But the second premise talks about the number of students increasing which has nothing to do with the first comparative statement in the first premise. D would be better if it said the number of classes taken by each student was increasing.





(E) Premise mismatch, the comparison in the first premise is comparing three things instead of two. It's also missing a second premise.

[a8l367]

Please explain

Argument:
Electricity consumption on any day is proportional to humidiy on that day
Since average humidity is higher, so total electricity consumption is higher

Clearly false IMHO
For example:
Distribution of the Prize fund on any day was proportional to the results of the athlete on that day
Since average results of the athlete are higher, so Prize fund is higher.

But Prize fund could be the same and still distributed propotionaly to the results.

I mean in the argument "proportional" is used in the meaning of the higher day humidity the larger SHARE of monthly electricity (probably stable) used
But in A "proportional" means the higher A the higher B

Please explain.