Prep 31. June 2000. Section 2. Question 21 Forum

[eternallearner]

Can someone please explain why (C) is the right answer? Actually, can someone explain the flaw in question stem. I certainly don't see any logic fallacy.

I have been quite good (getting them correct) on this type of question and am a little confused.

Thank you.

[blsingindisguise]

Mind posting it?

[waxecstatic]

Can someone please explain why (C) is the right answer? Actually, can someone explain the flaw in question stem. I certainly don't see any logic fallacy.

I have been quite good (getting them correct) on this type of question and am a little confused.

Thank you.

I took that PT today and got that question wrong. I chose A) because it is absolutely critical that an increase in muscle mass would lead to an increase in strength. However, it is basically implied rather than assumed that muscle strength leads to muscle mass. The argument suddenly shifts its focus and says any athlete looking to increase muscle strength should not consume engineered foods. This makes one wonder why the fact it does not increase muscle strength is sufficient reason to nullify someone who wants to gain muscle mass to take it altogether. What if, for instance, it provides added energy and endurance? It it does, that could indirectly lead to increased muscle mass. This is the missing link where an assumption must be made.

And that assumption is C) if an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.

The part you have to remember with these type of questions is linking the reasoning of the premises to the conclusion. An increase in muscle strength may lead to an increase in muscle mass, but the conclusion goes further in saying that they should be avoided by people who wish to gain muscle strength because there is no derivative benefit from consuming these substances as stipulated in answer choice C).

HTH

[eternallearner]

Regarding the muscle question, I got that question right.

However, I was referring to the bank deposits-3pm-Alicia question. Could you explain that one, please?

Thank you

[blsingindisguise]

Found it - it's a necessary/sufficient problem.

"X only if Y" means Y is necessary to X, not the other way around. In other words, "Bank deposits are credited on the date of the transaction ONLY WHEN they are made before 3pm" means "If a bank deposit was credited on the date of the transaction, you know that it must have been made before 3pm." Being deposited before 3pm is NECESSARY to a deposit being credited on the same day, but it's not SUFFICIENT information to tell you that a deposit will be credited the same day.

It does NOT mean what Alicia said; you can't flip necessary and sufficient.

Same with C: "George will be promoted only if Helen resigns" means Helen's resignation is NECESSARY to George's promotion, but not sufficient.

[waxecstatic]

Regarding the muscle question, I got that question right.

However, I was referring to the bank deposits-3pm-Alicia question. Could you explain that one, please?

Thank you

Oh okay, I just realized you said section 2. I got this question right, hah. How ironic. Anyway, the stimulus is a mistaken reversal and the added element is the idea of "knowing" something to be done under certain conditions makes it clear that the outcome must have been done under those specific conditions. So the answer is C) which basically is ingrained with all the aforementioned traits of the stimulus. Don't forget on questions like these that are among the hardest in the section there is also a word slipped in there to make the answer choice less obvious. In this case, it is the person "knowing" something.

HTH

[blsingindisguise]

Let me try a simpler illustrative example:

Let's say Harvard's website says:
"You can get into Harvard only if you have two letters of recommendation"

and I think "Well then, I'm going to get into Harvard, because I have two letters of recommendation!"

Make sense?

[eternallearner]

Awesome replies group! Thank you very much!