Q23 - Kira: It would be unwise for you

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Procedure

Stimulus Breakdown:
Kira
Conclusion: It would be unwise for Binh to buy the insurance policy.
Evidence: The policy is designed to make money for the company. The prices are set to ensure profits.

Binh
Yes, the insurer makes money. But that doesn't mean it's unwise to buy the policy.

Answer Anticipation:
Binh's response accepts the truth of Kira's premise but disagrees that it proves Kira's conclusion. Binh doesn't assert that Kira's conclusion is false, however: only that it doesn't logically follow from her premise.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
(A) No additional facts are mentioned. Eliminate!

(B) Binh doesn't deny Kira's premise, nor suggest her conclusion is highly unlikely. Eliminate!

(C) The first half sounds good, but Binh doesn't state that Kira's premises point strongly toward her conclusion being false. Eliminate!

(D) A perfect match for our prephrase! If you didn't prephrase this, you might have to replace the abstract language in the answer with concrete language from the stimulus: conceding that the policy is designed to make money without denying that it is unwise to buy that policy, while asserting that it being unwise to buy the policy doesn't follow from the policy being designed to make money.

(E) Binh accepts the premises as true, but that's not the same as observing that they support the conclusion. What's more, there's no inconsistency mentioned. Eliminate!

Takeaway/Pattern:
When a Procedure question presents two speakers, you need to zero in on what part of the first speaker's argument the second speaker addresses. Does speaker two attack the truth of the premises, the truth of the conclusion, the logic that connects them, or some combination of the three? Do they bring in any new evidence to make their case, like an objection the first speaker overlooked, or an alternative the first speaker failed to consider, or do they simply dispute the argument as written?

#officialexplanation