Q24 - Advertisement: In today's world

[lorrainebaer]

I understand why B is correct (it is the contrapositive of the advertisement's claim), but I'm having trouble understanding how E is incorrect.

Isn't saying "almost no one would fail to recognize" the kind of person who owns the SKX the same as saying the message of the SKX is unambiguous?

[Shiggins]

I understand why B is correct (it is the contrapositive of the advertisement's claim), but I'm having trouble understanding how E is incorrect.

Isn't saying "almost no one would fail to recognize" the kind of person who owns the SKX the same as saying the message of the SKX is unambiguous?

I had trouble eliminating E as well, but I hope my thoughts can help.

It does state that the message is unambiguous, which means the message is understood and clear.

Choice E says "Almost no one" which means not all but some would fail to recognize the kind of person...

Doesn't that goes against the advertisement. If the advertisement is clear then I believe it is safe to assume, it will not be misunderstood.

And yes B is the contra-pos of the condition that explains the owner.

I hope I helped, and if anyone could add, or correct me, much appreciated.

[nmop_apisdn2]

I hope I helped, and if anyone could add, or correct me, much appreciated.

I'll add my approach to this question:

The facts:
1) You make a statement about the person you are by the car you own.
2) The mesage of the SKX Mach-5 is unambiguous: THe owner is Dynamic, Aggressive, and Successful.

Which one must be true?

(A) is incorrect because this answer is simply way too aggressive (pun intended). This answer choice is going way out of scope by trying to correlate to traits with another by saying that anyone who has X and Y traits, also has Z trait. But the stimulus doesn't talk about anything like this.
(C) is incorrect because sure, the person who buys the SKX Mach-5 is aggressive because, well, they're buying an aggressive car and according to fact 1), this person is making a statement about the type of person they are. We simply do not know how aggressive other car buyers are. Therefore, this statement is too strong.
(D) is incorrect because we don't know, based on the stimulus, anything about what another car announces on behalf of the owners - which makes this answer choice out of scope.
(E) is incorrect, but tempting, simply because of the word in the stimulus unambiguous. Unambiguous means "not open to more than one interpretation". If you chose this answer, you probably that that unambiguous meant that "if someone saw a person in this car, they would know right off the bat, explicitly, what the owner was about. This answer choice really relies on your knowledge of the stated term. Moreover, this answer choice states that "no one would fail to recognize the kind of person driving this vehicle", which is not necessarily true because what if they don't recognize what type of vehicle this is in the first place? It would be true that anyone who knows what type of vehicle this represents would know what the owner was about. This answer choice definitely plays on your knowledge about the word unambiguous.


Lastly, our correct answer choice is (B) because it must be true, since we must assume that the statements are true (as prefaced by the question stem) that if you buy this car, you are representing yourself as Dynamic, Aggressive, and Successful, which would mean that if you are not any of these things, then you would necessarily be misrepresenting yourself by buying this car. Hope that helps.

[nflamel69]

the key reasoning here is definitely the definition of unambiguous and the phrase fail to recognize. Like above posters, I believe the stimulus establishes a conditional statement: mach owner-> those qualities. However, just because those qualities are certain doesn't mean that most people would recognize or comprehend that.

[bbirdwell]

Great thread. Tough question! I agree with the last two posters. We must accept it as true that one who owns the car is making the statement "I am X, Y, and Z."

Therefore, if we are not those things, we are mis-representing ourselves by owning the car.

(A) we cannot prove this

(B) Yep!

(C) "More aggressive"? No evidence for that -- this kind of comparison is a very common trap answer theme.

(D) Again, a common trap -- the argument does not say that this is the *only* car to announce that its owner is successful.

(E) Close! Wrong for reasons suggested above -- the concept of recognition.

[efd628]

Can someone give any pointers on how to quickly recognize the conditional statement in this question. I get why B is right. But why

SKX MACH 5 ---> D A S

and not

D A S ---> SKX MACH 5

[christine.defenbaugh]

Good question, efd628!

Often times we can rely on conditional language triggers (if, when, then, only if, unless, always, never, etc). However, sometimes no traditional triggers are used, but a clear conditional relationship still exists. In these situations, it's best to return to the fundamental meaning of a conditional statement - it's a promise, or a guarantee of something. There's always one element that is getting promised (the necessary), and one element that is how you know the promise is in play (the sufficient).

We can actually turn all kinds of normal sentences into conditional statements if we look at them this way - it's just not always all that useful to do. For instance, if I tell you that my shoes today are blue, then it's true that If something is my shoe today, then it is blue. Or if I say that chocolate tastes sweet, then it's true that if something is chocolate, then it is sweet.

Here, we know that the message of the SKX Mach-5 is Dynamic-Aggressive-Successful. This doesn't tell me that no other car has that message - maybe lots of other cars have that message also. All I really know is that THIS car has that message. The car is the thing that lets me know what the message is - so if I know the car, then I know the message.

If you have an SKX-Mach 5, then the statement your car makes about you is that you are Dynamic, Aggressive, and Successful.

Does that help clear it up a bit?

[efd628]

"This doesn't tell me that no other car has that message - maybe lots of other cars have that message also."

Thanks Christine! it definitely helped!

[economienda]

(E) can also be eliminated because it says, "recognize the kind of person who would CHOOSE to own an..."

The SKX Mach-5 makes a statement about the person you are IF you own it; but does not make any statement about you before you own it or would choose to own it (would choose to own it= hypothetical, so at that period in time, you don't own the SKX Mach-5)