Inconsistencies in RC section Forum

[gmreplay]

Several times now I've been bitten by what seems to be inconsistent reasoning in the reading sections. Generally one is not supposed to assume any connections which are not spelled out, yet I've caught the passages/questions doing so several times.

For instance, on the October 2008 test (Preptest 55), the answer to question #11 on the article regarding an invasive plant assumes a connection that was never made in the article. The author of passage B references the literature put out by people like the author of passage A, and their claims that the plant is threatening wildlife, but the author of B never explicitly says that he buys into such claims. Such a jump in logic would result in a wrong answer on the LR sections of the test.

Have I missed something, or do the RC sections have a logic all their own?

Sorry if I've violated the forum rule against posting questions by mentioning this. I'm not certain whether this constitutes a violation of policy or not.

[calkel]

you missed something

[skip james]

you missed something

specifically, line 53. 'no bird species OTHER THAN the canvasback...'

this means that the canvasback is a bird species that the author agrees is endangered by purple loosestrife.

[gmreplay]

But it says "no bird species other than canvasback has been identified in the literature as endangered by purple loosestrife"

The literature the author is citing is the very text that he or she is disagreeing with. There is no indication that author B actually accepts that factoid as true.

I could just as well say "no occupation other than plumbers has been identified by the Republican party as being benefited by this law", and no one would assume that I actually believed that plumbers would be benefited by the law.

[blhblahblah]

But it says "no bird species other than canvasback has been identified in the literature as endangered by purple loosestrife"

The literature the author is citing is the very text that he or she is disagreeing with. There is no indication that author B actually accepts that factoid as true.

I could just as well say "no occupation other than plumbers has been identified by the Republican party as being benefited by this law", and no one would assume that I actually believed that plumbers would be benefited by the law.

This statement, taken alone, means that only the plumbing occupation has been identified by the R party as being benefited by the law. Indeed, this implies that the plumbing occupation has been identified as such, though one could argue, strictly speaking, that this is an outcome that has yet to be sufficiently actuated. Are you sure, though, that the context surrounding this statement hasn't suggested that the outcome is what the author really means to suggest?

[gmreplay]

I'd like to post the whole thing, but I'm fairly certain that is against the rules. In any case, the statement about tight regulation and the 30% content are in entirely separate paragraphs. I feel like the authors probably made the connection clear in some original iteration of the piece, but it simply cannot be properly assumed in the current context.

As to my political example: it is indeed true that someone has identified the plumbers as the beneficiaries, but the statement tells us nothing about whether the speaker believes it to be true. The proceeding sentence could have well read "But this claim is entirely false" and no contradiction in claims would occur.