PT32, LR 2, Q 11 + Q 9

[February1088]

I wonder if it's okay to ask 2 questions at once? They are from the same tests

For Q11, I don't see how the answer is C. How are having 5 fingers and 6 fingers "equal usefulness"?
and for Q 9, I can see how its D but C and E also look good too

Thanks in advance

[EarlCat]

For Q11, I don't see how the answer is C. How are having 5 fingers and 6 fingers "equal usefulness"?

Because the premise says so and the premise is always true.

The task is to find the statement that strengthens the argument, which is that humans would be just as content with six fingers because they are of equal usefulness. If it were true that humans are always equally content with two things of equal usefulness, then the argument gets pretty darn strong.

and for Q 9, I can see how its D but C and E also look good too

C and E both fail to hit the heart of the argument--that shellfish is not necessarily bad because of the lack of saturated fat. What you missed here (and what you missed in the above question) is the significance of the premise. The premise is the factual basis for the conclusion. When you strengthen an argument, the best answers tie the existing premise(s) to the conclusion. Of course, C and E both give us a reason we might suspect that Shellfish is not necessarily bad--its got less cholesterol than known bad foods and/or the typical portion size is smaller--but those statements don't touch the logical structure of the argument in question.

In other words, you're not so much trying to add support to the conclusion as you are trying to make the existing support stronger by bridging the gap between the premise and the conclusion.

[February1088]

For Q11, I don't see how the answer is C. How are having 5 fingers and 6 fingers "equal usefulness"?

Because the premise says so and the premise is always true.

The task is to find the statement that strengthens the argument, which is that humans would be just as content with six fingers because they are of equal usefulness. If it were true that humans are always equally content with two things of equal usefulness, then the argument gets pretty darn strong.

and for Q 9, I can see how its D but C and E also look good too

C and E both fail to hit the heart of the argument--that shellfish is not necessarily bad because of the lack of saturated fat. What you missed here (and what you missed in the above question) is the significance of the premise. The premise is the factual basis for the conclusion. When you strengthen an argument, the best answers tie the existing premise(s) to the conclusion. Of course, C and E both give us a reason we might suspect that Shellfish is not necessarily bad--its got less cholesterol than known bad foods and/or the typical portion size is smaller--but those statements don't touch the logical structure of the argument in question.

In other words, you're not so much trying to add support to the conclusion as you are trying to make the existing support stronger by bridging the gap between the premise and the conclusion.

Thank you so much for this, not only have I realized what I've done wrong but you might have helped me take a new perspective on strengthen problems

[EarlCat]

Thank you so much for this, not only have I realized what I've done wrong but you might have helped me take a new perspective on strengthen problems

Cool. Same idea for sufficient assumption, principle justify, and weaken: the answer has to touch on the link between the premise and the conclusion.