Hi helpers,
Anyone understand this assumption questions? It is regarding emissions from automobiles. I am not sure why (A) is correct, what is wrong with (C)?
pt #11 LR #13 Forum
-
Anaconda
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm
Re: pt #11 LR #13
A is correct because it removes an alternative that would seriously weaken the conclusion. Use the negation test - negate the answer choices. If they weaken the argument than it is the correct answer.
Using the negation test: If reducing automobile use IS MORE EFFECTIVE to reduce emissions than methanol, then how could cleaner burning fuel like methanol be the ONLY effective way to do so? The argument totally falls apart.
C is irrelevant. Consumer preference is not mentioned in the stimulus and is totally out of scope. We're talking about what is effective not what is popular with consumers. Let's try the negation test anyways: If automobile owners would be given a choice, they WOULD select gasoline over methanol. --- Ok, so what? How does that make gasoline a more effective alternative than methanol and other clean fuels? It doesn't address the conclusion in anyway or harm our argument.
B is wrong because methanol doesn't HAVE to be the cleanest fuel - it was just an example of many. (this is tricky, because if you didn't catch that this is an attractive answer).
D is wrong because "the global environment" is out of scope - too broad. We're talking about reducing car emissions - there could be other more serious threats, and yet the argument would still hold fine because we're only talking about car emissions.
E is wrong because it does nothing to link methanol or emissions - it's also out of scope. This one should be an instant cross off from your contenders list.
This is a tricky 3 star problem according to Kaplan, but the negation test is critical once you get it down to 2-3 choices. As you can see once you apply it, it becomes very clear what is correct.
Remember, scope is really important, your answer should only reflect/relate to what is talked about in the stimulus. I'm not that great at assumption questions, but the negation test is a huge help - just have to remember to constantly use it with tricky problems like this one to make them manageable!
Using the negation test: If reducing automobile use IS MORE EFFECTIVE to reduce emissions than methanol, then how could cleaner burning fuel like methanol be the ONLY effective way to do so? The argument totally falls apart.
C is irrelevant. Consumer preference is not mentioned in the stimulus and is totally out of scope. We're talking about what is effective not what is popular with consumers. Let's try the negation test anyways: If automobile owners would be given a choice, they WOULD select gasoline over methanol. --- Ok, so what? How does that make gasoline a more effective alternative than methanol and other clean fuels? It doesn't address the conclusion in anyway or harm our argument.
B is wrong because methanol doesn't HAVE to be the cleanest fuel - it was just an example of many. (this is tricky, because if you didn't catch that this is an attractive answer).
D is wrong because "the global environment" is out of scope - too broad. We're talking about reducing car emissions - there could be other more serious threats, and yet the argument would still hold fine because we're only talking about car emissions.
E is wrong because it does nothing to link methanol or emissions - it's also out of scope. This one should be an instant cross off from your contenders list.
This is a tricky 3 star problem according to Kaplan, but the negation test is critical once you get it down to 2-3 choices. As you can see once you apply it, it becomes very clear what is correct.
Remember, scope is really important, your answer should only reflect/relate to what is talked about in the stimulus. I'm not that great at assumption questions, but the negation test is a huge help - just have to remember to constantly use it with tricky problems like this one to make them manageable!
-
lawschoolisfun2012
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:56 am
Re: pt #11 LR #13
WOW! Thank YOU! Awesome response!
