Q8 - The result of attempting to whip cream...

[Carlystern]

Can someone explain how to arrive at the correct answer for this question?

[rinagoldfield]

This is an inference question, so let’s go through what we know. Conditional logic may help us out here.

The stimulus can be summarized like this:

Use blender to whip cream --> not enough air to whip effectively --> Thick, velvety substance results

^the above statement is true in all cases, even when fancy attachments are added to the blender

Let’s go to the answer choices! Our correct answer should be supported by the information above

(A) is tempting. Yet we’re talking about a specific example of ineffective whipping: the kind of ineffective whipping that happens when not enough air is added to the cream. So we don’t know if ineffective whipping "generally" creates a thick, velvety substance. We only know it does so in this circumstance.

(B) follows from our information. We know that using a blender to whip cream ALWAYS results in ineffective whipping. A fancy attachment is not enough to change that. (B) is supported, and the correct answer.

(C), (D), and (E) are unsupported. We’re not given enough information in the stimulus to draw any of these conclusions.

[wj097]

Thanks for the great explanations.

I almost fell to (A), but eventually made it to (B).

And after reviewing the question, I am sure why (A) can't be the right answer. But what if the answer choice was

(A) Cream that has been whipped ineffectively from lack of air generally becomes a thick, velvety substance rather than fluffy whipped cream.

Could this be a correct answer?

Here what I am trying to know is, in the case of Must Be True questions, if the stimulus is about one situation and it states a reason for that situation (A is because of B), are we safe to deduce from this that B generally leads to A?

Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, I think with that tweak, you could have a correct answer.

When I read Inference, I actually read for three types of language
- conditional
- causal
- quantitative

Phrases like "due to" / "this allows" / "this makes possible" / "this is because" / "this leads to" are great Causal tip-off language.

Frequently, if you see that language, the correct answer finds a safe way of connecting cause and effect.

"Generally" is still a red-flag word because it's a little strong, but the first sentence doesn't hedge its wording. Using a blender RESULTS in thick velvet not fluffy cream. If that's because you don't have enough air, then you have enough ammunition to support your modified version of (A).

== other answers ==

(C) too extreme - "ALWAYS" and fake comparison "FLUFFIER" ... we know that an attachment CAN help somewhat, not that it ALWAYS makes it fluffier.

(D) out of scope - "reducing the amount of air required"? It's more likely that the attachment helps by letting in some more air, not by changing the physics of how air is involved in whipping cream.

(E) out of scope / extreme - "the most common way"? Who knows what the most common way is.

[hanhansummer]

"Generally" is still a red-flag word because it's a little strong, but the first sentence doesn't hedge its wording. Using a blender RESULTS in thick velvet not fluffy cream. If that's because you don't have enough air, then you have enough ammunition to support your modified version of (A).

Can I understand this point in this way ? - If we use different ways to approach an effect, the final outcome would still be different. Like, in this case, whipping ineffectively due to the poor air will have a different outcome with whipping ineffectively due to other causes.

But I still get confused when I look at the logical chain:

using blender --> not enough air --> not whip effectively --> thick and velvety

Why can't we cut part of the chain and have "not whip effectively --> thick and velvety"?

And I make a following analogy:

driving after drinking --> drive faster --> not safety --> more accidents

So, we cannot say generally "not safety -->more accidents"?

Can you help me on this?