Q23 - Insurance industry statistics demonstrate

[b91302310]

In this question, I could eliminate (B). However, could anyone explain how to make selection from answers (A),(C),(D),and (E)?

Thanks

[bbirdwell]

These questions are much more manageable if you identify the flaw in the original before looking at the choices.

p: Cars with anti-theft devices more likely to be stolen
C: Anti-theft devices to not protect against theft.

It's hard to articulate, perhaps, but clearly it hinges on using a piece of "relative" evidence (likelihood) to support a more "absolute," and negative, conclusion (do not protect).

(A) p: communities with libraries are better educated
C: good schools are found in those communities
With the introduction of another element in the conclusion (schools), we can eliminate this one immediately.

(B) p: most libraries contain lots of fiction and little reference
C: most libraries intended to serve casual reader
Not even close!

(C) p: users of libraries purchase more books per year
C: using libraries does not reduce the number of books people buy

This is it! Put in the language of the original, this says "library patrons purchase more books than others; using a library does not reduce the number of books that patrons purchase."

Even if you don't totally understand the match when you see it, if you focus on structural cues rather than the details, it's easier. Note the "relative" evidence and the "absolute" and negative conclusion.

(D) p: youngsters who read more are more likely to have defective vision
C: children who do not read have perfect vision
Close, but the "perfect" is not a good match. This would be a better choice if the conclusion was something more like "reading does not enhance vision."

(E) Too many elements. Not even close. The conclusion alone is not a good match: it's not negative, and it's a persuasive recommendation ("should"), which the original is not.

Hope that helps!

[WaltGrace1983]

I thought (D) was the most tempting out of all of them. Let me take a stab at this one.

Original Argument:
Antitheft devices more likely stolen/broken into
⊢
Antitheft devices do not protect cars against thieves

As Brian said, the problem with this argument is that it gives a relative premise and an absolute conclusion. Maybe the cars with antitheft devices are more likely to get stolen/broken into, so what? Does this mean that they do nothing? Absolutely not! Maybe having an antitheft device deters 25% of criminals but the actual rates of getting stolen/broken into are still very high! This is the problem.

Answer Choice (D):
Those who read are more likely to have defective vision than those who don't read very much
⊢
Children who don't like to read usually have perfect vision

There are a few problems with this upon a closer inspection.

(1) We go from talking about those who ~(read) to those who ~(like to read). Sure we may be able to ignore this if this is clearly the best answer choice but I am a bit skeptical.

(2) In the original argument we are comparing (antitheft devices) to ~(antitheft devices). It says that (antitheft devices) are more likely to be X and then proceeds to conclude that (antitheft devices) do not protect.

However, in (D) we are comparing (read) to ~(read). It says that (read) is more likely to be X and then proceeds to conclude something about ~(read). This is a problem because this fails to parallel the original argument. It would have been better had the argument said something like "...it follows that children who read..."

(3) The original conclusion makes an absolute statement ("do not protect") while (D) makes a weak statement ("usually have...")

I got a little tied down with (C) because the original argument deals specifically with percentage-based evidence ("more likely") while the correct answer deals specifically with numbers-based evidence ("purchase more"). However, everything else matches fairly well.

[JinW326]

Here are my two cents on this question:

The key things I picked up from the stimulus are that
1) a comparative relationship where X is more likely to ___ than Y although X has something that protects against ___. In the context of the stimulus, the words to be filled in the blanks are "get stolen" and "theft".
2) a conclusion that the something does not fulfill its objective

Based on the reasoning above, we can immediately eliminate A and B, since their conclusions do not parallel to 2), which states that something does not fulfill its objective. We are left with C, D, and E at this point.

E is a squishy argument that contains "should", which is recommendation language that can not be found in the original stimulus. Thus, E is eliminated.

Lastly, the final elimination comes down to between C and D. The premise of D fulfills 1), which refers to the existence of a comparative relationship. However, the conclusion of D does not fulfill 2) because the subject should not be about "children who do not like to read usually have perfect vision". It should be about "reading voraciously ____" if it were to parallel 2).

C is a good choice because it has a comparative relation and the subject in its conclusion is "using libraries", which parallels with 2).