The terminology! Simplify! Here is how I would approach the question, from beginning to end. I hope this helps and doesn't confuse you...cavalier2015 wrote:can someone help me understand PT54.Section2.Question6.
I got this right because of POE but i am going through all the LR questions and typing up notes on them and am unsure how to break this one down.
Is it because the conclusion is a conditional and with no conditional chains. Thus, when this happens we want to protect the necessary condition (not sure what this even means but remember reading it somewhere in the powerscore bible)
EDIT: can someone double check my analysis on this question?
T: Necessary Assumption
C: If writing paper made from recycled paper replaces other types of writing paper → need to use more filler
Thoughts: This is an Assumption question with a conditional conclusion AND with no conditional premises. Therefore, we want to look for an answer choice that protects the necessary condition
AC:
A. Negation version does not destroy the argument
B. Out of scope to core
C. Correct because if grayish paper will be acceptable alternative to white paper than there is no need to use more filler (more filler = more white).
D. Premise booster. When negated this tells us more filler = more white. No effect on conclusion
E. Out of scope to core.
Okay, so this is a necessary assumption question. For NA questions, I'm looking for the assumption that is required for the argument to hold. That's it. That simple. So, I'd break down the argument into conclusion and support.
Conclusion: If recycled paper replaces all other papers, then paper manufacturers will need to use more filler to whiten. (THE WHAT)
Support: Recycled paper requires more filler to whiten it than does non-recycled paper. (THE WHY)
In my opinion, the question is only confusing because the stimulus provides a pretty sound argument, in which two necessary assumptions are already acknowledged. The author concedes to possible criticism in part; he removes the possibility of two potential counter-arguments that can be made to protest his conclusion: (1.) "What if a better filler were developed that produced the same effect with less?" and (2.) "What if we found a way to whiten without using fillers at all?" Those two ideas are, essentially, necessary assumptions. If (1.) better filler is developed, then the conclusion does not hold. If (2.) new, non-filler whiteners are invented, then the conclusion also does not hold. Hence the author's use of the word "barring."
But there is one more assumption that is necessary for the argument: (3.) That manufacturers cannot just produce grey-ish paper and call it a day. I mean, if grey-ish recycled paper is fine, no more filler is needed to whiten, and the conclusion once again crumbles.
(Note that interpreting the above two counter-arguments is completely unnecessary to answer this question correctly. You don't need to understand them at all. They are not a part of the conclusion, they do not provide support, and so they are irrelevant to your task. Push them aside. All that is important is that you recognize that they are unimportant.)
Again, I hope this helps. I studied LR using Manhattan and The Trainer, so my approach specifically mimics theirs.
