Post
by alphagamma » Sat May 22, 2010 12:25 pm
Sec 2, #18 - Okay, the question asks which answer most supports the argument. You could say that A supports the argument by building a stronger correlation between violence and violent TV, but B goes one step further by proving that violent TV is a cause of violence, not an effect. In other words, answer A could be taken either way. Places with low violence could be that way because they have less violent TV, but they could also have less violent TV because they have low violence. Answer B gets rid of that uncertainty.
Sec 3, #14 - This question says that the tax reduction package will cut story hours, which will inconvenience parents. Therefore, it will not be adopted. But why won't it be adopted? Because it would inconvenience parents, you say? But the argument doesn't say that, does it? So that's probably the assumption answer. And, in fact, D says just that (that no tax plan will be adopted if it inconveniences parents). B is wrong because it is not an assumption required by the argument. The argument already states that cutting story hours will inconvenience children.
Sec 3, #25 - Yeah, this question is written to confuse. But it's only asking for the conclusion. So even if everything sounds convoluted, if you can pinpoint the conclusion, then nothing else matters. Paraphrasing might help in this case. What is the argument trying to prove? It says that the end of an action is the intended outcome, not the byproducts. It then says that some ends are not good enough, etc., but nothing besides an end will justify the action. The last part is the conclusion. It's what the whole argument is working up to. C restates the conclusion in slightly different terms, so it's correct.
I chose (b) since any tax reduction that would force the library to discontinue stroy hours would cause parents inconvenience
