PT 63 S3 Q20 Forum

[rbrown0824]

I was looking for some insight into this one. Under timed PT I actually got it right, but now that I'm looking at it, I can't decipher the difference between A and E, other than the fact that A looks like it may have an additional element in the conclusion. I know something is different, but I just can't put my finger on it. Thoughts?

[Christine (MLSAT)]

Well, that new element in the conclusion of (A) is a pretty big red flag!

The original argument is constructed like this:

• PREMISE: Most [CL-endorsed proposals] have been [city-passed]
  CONCLUSION: The next [CL-endorsed proposal] will probably be [city-passed]

In order to match this structure, we need the same essential pattern of:

• PREMISE: Most A have been B
  CONCLUSION: The next A will probably be B

We want to match not only the shift in verb tense from past to future, we also need to keep the quantifiers the same ('most', etc), and the arrangement of elements.

(E) does that precisely:

• PREMISE: Most [stone artifacts] have been [domestic tools]
  CONCLUSION: The next [stone artifact] will probably be [a domestic tool]

(A) completely alters the conclusion structure.

• PREMISE: Most [Vasani grants] have been [academic biologists]
  CONCLUSION: If most [Vasani grants] are [academics], then most [Vasani grants awarded to academics] will probably be [biologists]

We'd need the conclusion to say something like "The next [Vasani grant] will probably be [an academic biologist]" to match the stimulus. We not only have an additional element in (A)'s conclusion, we also have a 'most' quantifier in BOTH the if-cause AND the then-clause of the conclusion.

What do you think?

[rbrown0824]

Makes sense! Thank you! I knew something was off but I couldn't nail it down