Q25 - Jordan: If a business invests

[clarafok]

hello,

can someone please explain why A is the answer and not E? i don't see how A is parallel!

i see how jordan's statement is parallel with his statement in the argument, but i don't see how Terry's statements are.

i thought that in the argument, Terry referred to an external causal factor (consumers demand) but in A, he refers to 'if it doesn't rain' which is one of the two things that jordan said. so i chose E instead thinking that 'no real danger' was the external causal factor from Terry

thanks in advance!

[sbuzzetto10]

The key on this question is to focus on the underlying structure each person's argument and how they relate.

Jordan: One of two things will happen - A or B. If A --negative consequence, but if B--negative consequence
Terry: Proposes a solution/resolves Jordan's argument by addressing how either A or B can happen without the neg. consequence.

passage:
Jordan: either business invests $ and loses market share or it doesn't invest $ and pollutes/wastes
Terry: if consumers demand that all businesses invest $, no one business will lose market share (b/c they all will be doing so) (resolves the issue)

in choice A:
Jordan: either it rains and picnic plans ruined or no rain and garden doesn't get watered
Terry: if it doesn't rain, we can buy a hose and water the garden (resolves the issue)

E is incorrect b/c Terry's response does not resolve the issue

Hope this helps!

[romanmuffin]

I didnt think of Terry was necessarily saying how A (business investing money necessary to implement ecologically sound practices) or B (doesnt implement these practices) could be achieved without negative consequence but rather how an alternative, C (consumers demand environmental responsibility of all bsuiness) could be achieved without negative result. Thus, I chose C....because Terry proposes an alternative to raising and lowering taxes. Can someone help me with this one?

[timmydoeslsat]

I didnt think of Terry was necessarily saying how A (business investing money necessary to implement ecologically sound practices) or B (doesnt implement these practices) could be achieved without negative consequence but rather how an alternative, C (consumers demand environmental responsibility of all bsuiness) could be achieved without negative result. Thus, I chose C....because Terry proposes an alternative to raising and lowering taxes. Can someone help me with this one?

You are close on this one.

The stimulus gives us:

Invest ---> Market share decrease
~Invest ---> Pollutes


What Terry does is tells us that the necessary condition that follows invest does not have to so absolute. She says that even if a business invests, it does not have to be the case that the market share decreases.


In answer choice A we have:

Rain ---> ~Picnic
~ Rain ---> Garden will go without water

Terry tells us that the necessary condition that follows ~Rain does not have to be true. Use a hose to do it she says.


The problem with answer choice C is that we do not have a true dichotomy like the stimulus, that is, we are no dividing the logical world into two split pieces.

We have in answer choice C:

Taxes Raised --->
Taxes Lowered --->

This is not a true binary choice.

If it would have given us: Taxes Raised and ~Taxes Raised, that would be ok. However, what about taxes remaining the same?

This is what Terry brings up. She brings up an entirely NEW SUFFICIENT CONDITION. That does not parallel our stimulus.

[giladedelman]

Very good explanations, you guys.

For what it's worth, the way I read this was: Jordan says if businesses do something, they will suffer. But if they don't do it, it will hurt the environment. So either way, there's going to be a negative outcome.

Terry answers that actually, if all businesses do it, then they should be ok. So one of the possibilities can actually lead to a positive outcome.

(A) matches this because we have the same either/or: Jordan says, either it rains and we can't picnic, or it doesn't rain and the garden gets hurt. But Terry answers that actually, we can water the garden with the hose. So one of the possibilities -- no rain -- can actually lead to a positive outcome (picnic and watering).

(B) is different because Jordan says you have to pick either Y or Z and Terry says, no, you can have both at the same time. This doesn't match the original.

(C) is out for the reason mentioned in the above post: it presents a third possibility, leaving taxes unchanged. But the original argument is clearly an either/or scenario. Sneaky!

(D) starts going off the rails in Jordan's portion: he is talking about remodeling the house the whole time -- we need him to start talking about NOT remodeling the house if this is going to match up.

(E) is kind of tempting, too, but Terry's response doesn't really match. He just says, well, let's pick this option. He doesn't explain how that option can actually work without any negative consequences.

Nice discussion!

[wguwguwgu]

I picked E for exactly the same reason as the first poster:
Terry is suggesting a non-negative outcome based on a CONDITIONAL assumption about an EXTERNAL FACTOR.

I totally agree with the above explanations that Terry-E is not addressing the lack of negativity in one of the two options as Terry-Stimulus did.

But isn't it also a huge Non-parallel that Terry-A is talking about the lack of negativity based on the choices ITSELF without any external conditions??

Would greatly appreciate it if somebody can specifically address this point! If it is a flaw, how can we decide in test which non-parallel is more serious than which?

many thanks in advance!

[timmydoeslsat]

I picked E for exactly the same reason as the first poster:
Terry is suggesting a non-negative outcome based on a CONDITIONAL assumption about an EXTERNAL FACTOR.

I totally agree with the above explanations that Terry-E is not addressing the lack of negativity in one of the two options as Terry-Stimulus did.

But isn't it also a huge Non-parallel that Terry-A is talking about the lack of negativity based on the choices ITSELF without any external conditions??

Would greatly appreciate it if somebody can specifically address this point! If it is a flaw, how can we decide in test which non-parallel is more serious than which?

many thanks in advance!

I believe I understand what you are saying.

But A does give us that external consideration of using the hose to water.

That is an external consideration that Terry did not include in his argument.

[mahamansoor]

What type of question type is this? And are there other similar question types?

The traditional "parallel reasoning" tricks don't work.

[jwms]

What traditional tricks are you referring to?

I struggle with parallel Qs, but this one seemed to be in line with them: match the logical structure of the argument.

[rinagoldfield]

Hi All!

This is definitely an unusual question type. Usually “matching” questions focus on one argument rather than a disagreement. However, we can still apply the normal strategies for matching questions to this more unusual question.

First, we should “strip” the disagreement of its subject matter to see the logical structure:

Jordan: Binary options of X and ~X.
Conditional 1: X --> Y
Conditional 2: ~X --> Z

Terry: The necessary part of one of the above conditionals can be avoided.

We can use parts of this “stripped down” argument to make eliminations. Let’s start with Jordan’s part. Scan the answer choices for binary options followed by condition statements.

(A) Is ok
(B) Is out – no conditionals
(C) Is out -- no binary. We could keep the taxes at the same level.
(D) Is out – remodel vs. remodel is not a binary.
(E) Is ok

Using the strategy of taking parts of an argument to eliminate wrong answer choices, we’ve narrowed our options down to (A) and (E). Now we can use Terry’s argument to make the final elimination. Remember, Terry casts doubt on one of the conditionals offered by Jordan.

(E) is incorrect. This answer choice offers a recommendation (what the most “prudent” policy is), which the original argument does not. (E) also does not show how one of the necessary conditions can be avoided. It tells us “there’s no real danger of the dam’s bursting,” but does not tell us how we can avoid that bursting.

(A) is a match. It casts doubt on one of the original conditional statements, namely that no rain leads to an unwatered garden.

In sum, don’t get thrown by wrinkles in LR question types. The basic steps are consistent. Those steps are:

1. strip the original argument to its logical structure
2. use chunks of the argument to make eliminations
3. Confirm the right answer

[513852276]

Just to briefly explain B, the health-conscious people not necessarily have a long life. Hence, what Terry suggests is not one can retain one result (long life) while avoiding the negative result (not enjoyable life) accompanied from not choosing the opposite.

[WesleyC316]

I've never encountered a Parallel Question like this one.

Stimulus:
Jordan: If A (implement practices), then B (market share decrease).
If not A, then C (environment polluted).
Terry: If D (consumers demand environmental responsibility), then we could have A and not B.

Basically, Jordan made two statements, and Terry contradicted one of them.

Answer choice A did just that.