Both of these are identify the flaw questions in section 3 of PT 33. Can someone please explain to me how D is the correct answer to 5 and how C is the correct answer to 17?
In question 5, I guessed D based on process of elimination but I don't understand how the argument is flawed because its doesn't consider than the longer and more often one is exposed to radiation, the more one absorbs and the more seriously one is harmed. The conclusion in the stimulus states, we can conclude the radiation absorbed by members of commercial airline flight crews will also do them neglible harm. The conclusion isin't talking about how much harm they will get, it is just stating they will recieve some neglible harm so I don't understand why you would have to consider how much harm they will recieve for the argument not to be flawed.
In question 17, it seems like B C and E are good answers. I would just like someone to explain to me why C is the best answer. It says a family business will be the surest road to financial prospertity because they pay lower wages, which reduces operation expenses, making profits higher. Is E wrong because it talks about success and you cant imply that success is the same as financial prosperity? B seems like a good answer because the argument presumes that businesses that pay the lowest wages have the lowest operation expenses, thus highest profits.
Thanks ahead in advance!
PT 33 LR #5 #17 Forum
-
NaturalLawyer
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am
Re: PT 33 LR #5 #17
Regarding #5:
One thing to notice is that the conclusion states that "the radiation absorbed by members of commercial airline flight crews will also do them negligible harm."
It is reasonable to think that members of commercial airline flight crews go on many commercial airline flights and so can absorb a lot of radiation. Perhaps going on a flight once may not result in great harm, but going on many flights surely can.
Regarding #17:
(C) does clearly point out a flaw in the argument since the low wages are being paid to the family members and we are discussing the prosperity of that particular family to which those family members belong.
(B) is incorrect because the argument doesn't actually presume "that businesses that pay the lowest wages have the lowest general operating expenses and thus the highest profits." Notice that the argument never uses superlatives like "lowest" or "highest".
(E) is incorrect because of two reasons. The first reason is the one you pointed out. The argument only speaks of "financial prosperity" and not success. But the the second reason, which is actually the more important reason for rejecting (E), is that it claims that the argument presumes having "low general operating expenses" is a necessary condition for success. The argument does not say that at all.
I hope that helps!
One thing to notice is that the conclusion states that "the radiation absorbed by members of commercial airline flight crews will also do them negligible harm."
It is reasonable to think that members of commercial airline flight crews go on many commercial airline flights and so can absorb a lot of radiation. Perhaps going on a flight once may not result in great harm, but going on many flights surely can.
Regarding #17:
(C) does clearly point out a flaw in the argument since the low wages are being paid to the family members and we are discussing the prosperity of that particular family to which those family members belong.
(B) is incorrect because the argument doesn't actually presume "that businesses that pay the lowest wages have the lowest general operating expenses and thus the highest profits." Notice that the argument never uses superlatives like "lowest" or "highest".
(E) is incorrect because of two reasons. The first reason is the one you pointed out. The argument only speaks of "financial prosperity" and not success. But the the second reason, which is actually the more important reason for rejecting (E), is that it claims that the argument presumes having "low general operating expenses" is a necessary condition for success. The argument does not say that at all.
I hope that helps!
