Q7 - Whether one is buying

[clarafok]

hello,

can someone please explain why B is the correct answer? i eliminated thinking that the argument only talked about how long a suit would stay in style in comparison with a trendy hat, but nothing about the length of time one plans to wear it. am i just supposed to assume that 'stay in style for as long as 5 years' means 'i plan to wear it for 5 years'? and same with the trendy hat, am i supposed to assume that 'go out of style in a year or two' is the same as 'i only plan to wear this for a year or 2'?

i just chose A because i eliminated all the other answers and thought 'formal attire' = 'suit' and 'casual attire' = 'hat' was less of an assumption than what i stated above. but now that i look at it, i guess A is more like a fact than a principle...right?

please help!

thanks in advance!

[bbirdwell]

Here's the argument:

stay in style 5 years --> pay more
out of style in a year --> get cheap

We need a general rule that validates this kind of thinking.

(B) does this perfectly. Yes, it's reasonable to infer that the reason we're concerned about how long it will be in style is because we plan to wear it

(A) is wrong for several reasons. One, we don't know whether the hat is casual or formal. More importantly, however, is that this fact does nothing to validate how much we should spend on those things. It simply attempts to restate something already given in the argument (suits last longer than hats). Notice how, if anything, this statement would merely support the given premise, and we need it to validate the logic of the argument as a whole, which includes the conclusion.

[jpchris3]

I'm still a bit unsure about this question:

I chose E. My reasoning was that office attire= classic suit, and casual attire= a trendy hat.

I felt like the leap to say that a trendy hat is casual attire was less than the leap of equating "staying in style for 5 years" for "wearing it for 5 years"

[timmydoeslsat]

This is asking us for a principle that is at work in the stimulus.

Note the language used in the stimulus about how it is worthwhile to pay more for a well-constructed classic suit that can be in style for all of those years. And it is not worthwhile to buy a hat that is trendy due to it not being in style for as long as the classic suit.

So we have a principle working about what one should do in regards to these purchases. The argument has a way in which it is coming up these decisions. This is best shown in answer choice B. If it does not stay in style for a long time, do not spend a lot of money on it. If it does stay in style for a long time, spend the money on it.

Answer choice E is going after a distinction not made in the argument. The argument would actually have no say in regards to office attire in general. The argument would want one to consider whether the office attire is trendy or if it would be in style for a long time. Same with casual attire. This argument calls on us to not spend a lot of money on things that will not be in style for a long time.

[rachel.zuliniak]

At its bare bones the stimulus says this:

- Consider fashion trends;
- Suit = 5 years wear (or so) - pay more;
- Hat = 1-2 years wear (or so) - pay less.

The hat and the suit are almost a bit of a red herring in that they are illustrative of the point the stimulus is making. They are examples of articles the author is using to make their point.

Longer wear - pay more
Shorter wear - pay less

A) Has a number of issues. First and foremost, we don't know anything about what formal attire tends to do. We don't even know anything about formal attire as a whole. The suit is an example. This answer gets you because it uses the word "constructed" from the stimulus and the common sense idea that suit = formal attire. Also, you could easily switch hat and suit around in the stimulus without changing the principle.

B) Admittedly I didn't love this answer the first time around because of the word "proportionate" but it does get the principle dead on (as seen above in bold).

C) This is not said. In fact, the stimulus is telling you there are situations in which you should buy the cheaper garment. Thus, cannot be the principle we're looking for.

D) Misses the point. There is never a comparison between men and women's clothing. Nor can we extract any general principle from that.

E) Similar problem to A in that we cannot definitively say casual vs. formal attire. Also, the stimulus is directly talking about "If you wear X amount pay Z amount". You might spend more on a casual t-shirt because it will be wearable for five years based on what we know from above.

I think the big take away is to be extra careful about making assumptions. Remember for this question you want to take away a general statement, you're not looking for gaps.