Q9 - An easy willingness to

[tzyc]

I'm not sure why the answer is (A)...
I chose (B) originally but I think I did not get the stimilus well, so could anyone rephrase what the stimulus says?

Thank you

[rinagoldfield]

Here’s my rephrasing of the stimulus:

The best sign of self-confidence is the ability to tell jokes about yourself.
The ability to tell jokes about yourself is an even better sign of self-confidence than laughing when other people tell jokes about you.

Another way we can think about the stimulus:

Person tells jokes about him/herself and can laugh at him/herself --> Person is probably confident

This is an inference question, and we’re looking for the "most provable" inference.

(A) offers the contrapositive of the conditional statement above. (A) isn’t a 100% provable inference, but it is the "most provable" of the five answer choices. True and proper conditional statements are guarantees, but here we only know that someone who tells self-deprecating jokes is probably self confident. However, if telling self-deprecating jokes is "the surest mark" of self confidence, then it follows that someone who lacks self-confidence likely doesn’t tell such jokes.

(B) and (E) are similarly out of scope. The stimulus talks about "jokes about oneself," not "jokes about others" or "jokes about people."

(C) is also out of scope. The stimulus doesn’t concern the joke-teller’s intentions.

(D) is unsupported. We know that telling jokes is a better sign of self-confidence than listening to them, but we don’t know whether "most people" prefer telling or listening to jokes.

[kdp615]

Hi, could someone explain what "A is the evidence/mark of B" means?
I think it will feel better if it means no A --- no B, so B --- A.
or it can be understand as A ---B and B---A ?

Thanks in advance.

[JinZ551]

Hi, could someone explain what "A is the evidence/mark of B" means?
I think it will feel better if it means no A --- no B, so B --- A.
or it can be understand as A ---B and B---A ?

Thanks in advance.

Let's try to make it straightforward with an analogy.

Consider we are in a party, and we have a premise that "Ada's presence is the EVIDENCEof Ben's presence in the party"
In this scenario, we know that if we see Ada in the party, then Ben must be in the party, too.
which can be translated into logic as:
Ada ---> Ben

However, from "Ada's presence is the EVIDENCE of Ben's presence in the party", we cannot infer whether Ben is in the party or not from Ada's ABSENCE.

Hope this help