Cromartie wrote:LR 2 - 1
No. 4, chose E instead of D. Still not convinced about this one either. The reason I picked E is that it would appear that Ray has presupposed that only his interpretation/conclusion is valid.
Okay, so I always find the "presumes the truth of the claim...etc" answers to be tricky. Obviously the argument is claiming something to be true (by definition). The one note I would make about these answers is that in the 20-25 PTs I have taken, there has been 1 LR question where this was the correct answer. However, in this case it seems to me that Ray is coming to a conclusion that Cynthia is mistaken, not presuming that she is mistaken to prove his point. Subtle difference, and quite frankly I think the biggest reason I never considered E was because that has rarely been the correct answer when given as an option in my experience.
The reasoning for D is stronger than the reasoning against E. This is just an answer where you can turn it into a "Weaken" question. Ray's claim basically states that there is a reason for the trunk popping open, but that reason is NOT that Cynthia hit a pothole. Therefore, if you hold that there could be more than one reason for the opening of the trunk to be true, it would weaken Ray's claim that hitting the pothole could not be the cause.
I'm not sure if that was the best explanation (it's almost 1 here, so who knows), so let me know if you have any other questions. I'll be on here for probably just a little bit longer.
Regarding the difficulty of getting a -0 on LR. I have never gotten a -0 for the test as a whole. I've had -0 sections, but never two of them on the same test. As opposed to the many -0s on LG. Although, I struggle with RC (which is frustrating), so I find that equally difficult to get a -0.
Copied and pasted from one of my previous posts. How would you rebut my argument below?
Any thoughts on LR2 no. 4? I chose E instead of D. I eliminated D because Ray is not saying that there is only one possible cause for the trunk's popping open. In fact, he does not suggest any cause at all. He simply says that contrary to and regardless of what Cynthia says, the trunk's opening could not have been due to the car hitting a pothole. This appears to be more in line with E rather than D. To further support my contention, let's try negating D and say that Ray acknowledges that the popping of the trunk could have been caused by many different things. Even if this were true, Ray's argument still stands. For instance, Ray could say that a gnome hiding in the trunk could have popped it open on one of the previous occasions, a spring/locking mechanism could have snapped on another occasion, etc. And then, he could claim that this time around, it was the gnome or the spring, or some other thing that caused the trunk to pop open, just not the pothole. Anything but the pothole. So, he successfully denies Cynthia's claim while at the same time acknowledging that the event could have been caused by any of a number of different things.
Finally, if I were to simplify Ray's argument, it would run something like this.
Ray: Cynthia's car hitting the pothole was not the cause of her car's trunk popping open. Me: How do you know this?
Ray: Because something else must have caused her car's trunk to pop open.
Me: How do you know this?
Ray: Because several times in the past, her car's trunk popped open even when her car didn't hit a pothole, so something else must have caused her car to pop open then; and if something else caused her car's trunk to pop open then, something else (and not the pothole) must have caused it to open this time.
Me: But the trunk popped open at the exact time the car hit the pothole.
Ray: It wasn't the pothole. It was something else.
And with that, I am off to sleep