- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue May 31, 2016 4:54 pm
#25823
Complete Question Explanation
Assumption—CE. The correct answer choice is (A)
In this stimulus, a spokesperson touts the “rousing success” of the city’s recent “Clean City” campaign, based on the fact that the amount of trash on the city’s streets today is significantly lower than when the “Clean City” campaign began.
The spokesperson’s conclusion is causal and, as is the case with all causal conclusions in the Logical Reasoning section, is flawed. Here, the argument is flawed because the evidence supports only the conclusion that there is a correlation between the “Clean City” campaign and a reduction in the amount of trash on the city’s streets. While it may be the case that the campaign reduced the amount of trash on the streets, the conclusion goes too far in definitively claiming causation.
This question stem indicates that this is an Assumption question. The absence of new or “rogue” information in the conclusion, and the presence of flawed causal reasoning, drive your prephrase that this is a Defender Assumption question, in which the correct answer choice will eliminate ideas or assertions that would undermine the causal conclusion. Without wasting time trying to guess precisely what idea the correct answer will eliminate, head into the answer choices, on the lookout for information that would directly impact the idea that the campaign, and nothing else, caused the reduction in trash.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, because it raises the idea that the perceived effect, i.e., the reduction in the amount of trash on the streets, was underway prior to the beginning of the campaign. If this were the case, then the causal conclusion would be destroyed, since the cause must occur before the effect. By inserting the word “not” in this choice, such that the amount was “not declining at the same rate or faster,” this answer defends the conclusion against an attack on its weak causal conclusion.
Answer choice (B): This choice is not required for the conclusion to be valid, because while the knowledge level of the naysayers may affect their credibility, it does not affect whether the conclusion concerning the actual success of the campaign is valid.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice contains extreme language that is not required for the conclusion to be valid. It is not necessary for the campaign to have been more successful than any other campaign in the past in order for it to be a rousing success.
Answer choice (D): While this information may be helpful, in that it implies the spokesperson is not touting the success of the campaign due solely to some financial motivation, it is not required for the conclusion to be valid.
Answer choice (E): Since the conclusion regarding the success of the campaign made no claims regarding the pace of the trash reduction, this information is not required for the conclusion to be valid. If you were tempted by this choice, try applying the Assumption Negation Technique to test what happens when you logically negate it. The logical negation would be: “the amount of trash on the city’s streets has not declined steadily throughout the course of the campaign.” Hopefully, this negation elicits a “so what” response. Since information concerning the pace of trash reduction was not required for the conclusion to be valid, learning that the pace was not steady has no effect on the conclusion.
Assumption—CE. The correct answer choice is (A)
In this stimulus, a spokesperson touts the “rousing success” of the city’s recent “Clean City” campaign, based on the fact that the amount of trash on the city’s streets today is significantly lower than when the “Clean City” campaign began.
The spokesperson’s conclusion is causal and, as is the case with all causal conclusions in the Logical Reasoning section, is flawed. Here, the argument is flawed because the evidence supports only the conclusion that there is a correlation between the “Clean City” campaign and a reduction in the amount of trash on the city’s streets. While it may be the case that the campaign reduced the amount of trash on the streets, the conclusion goes too far in definitively claiming causation.
This question stem indicates that this is an Assumption question. The absence of new or “rogue” information in the conclusion, and the presence of flawed causal reasoning, drive your prephrase that this is a Defender Assumption question, in which the correct answer choice will eliminate ideas or assertions that would undermine the causal conclusion. Without wasting time trying to guess precisely what idea the correct answer will eliminate, head into the answer choices, on the lookout for information that would directly impact the idea that the campaign, and nothing else, caused the reduction in trash.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, because it raises the idea that the perceived effect, i.e., the reduction in the amount of trash on the streets, was underway prior to the beginning of the campaign. If this were the case, then the causal conclusion would be destroyed, since the cause must occur before the effect. By inserting the word “not” in this choice, such that the amount was “not declining at the same rate or faster,” this answer defends the conclusion against an attack on its weak causal conclusion.
Answer choice (B): This choice is not required for the conclusion to be valid, because while the knowledge level of the naysayers may affect their credibility, it does not affect whether the conclusion concerning the actual success of the campaign is valid.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice contains extreme language that is not required for the conclusion to be valid. It is not necessary for the campaign to have been more successful than any other campaign in the past in order for it to be a rousing success.
Answer choice (D): While this information may be helpful, in that it implies the spokesperson is not touting the success of the campaign due solely to some financial motivation, it is not required for the conclusion to be valid.
Answer choice (E): Since the conclusion regarding the success of the campaign made no claims regarding the pace of the trash reduction, this information is not required for the conclusion to be valid. If you were tempted by this choice, try applying the Assumption Negation Technique to test what happens when you logically negate it. The logical negation would be: “the amount of trash on the city’s streets has not declined steadily throughout the course of the campaign.” Hopefully, this negation elicits a “so what” response. Since information concerning the pace of trash reduction was not required for the conclusion to be valid, learning that the pace was not steady has no effect on the conclusion.
