|
Hmm. I thought so too but apparently, Kaplan doesn't agree with us.
PT 44, Section 2, #25
This was their explanation for the answer...
25. (E) Flaw Instantly turn “X only if Y” into “If X then Y,” and watch for arguments that misapply the terms. The author asserts that, “If technology is accepted, then it coheres with society’s values.” That’s fine. But by pointing to the bicycle’s disappearance after an initial embrace as indicative of a change in values, she is making the classic error of negating the terms; we cannot assume that if technology is rejected (as the bicycle was), then it must not cohere with society’s values. The author ignores any number of reasons— other than value-related ones—that the bicycle could have disappeared for 30–40 years, among them the unreliable workmanship of the first models, the prohibitive cost of manufacturing and hence of purchasing them, laws passed against them, and the popularity of alternative means of locomotion. (E) cogently points out this flaw.
|