#26- The government will purchase and install new severe

[Dave Killoran]

Hi PowerScore Staff,

For some reason, I picked E. I read the question in a bit of a rush, and got spun around. If the replacement parts were not reliable, isn't it true that the public would be safer during the weather if the new sirens are used?

Is E an assumption answer?

Thanks

Hey Deck,

No, (E) is not an assumption because it's too specific. "The only available parts are of such inferior quality" isn't something the author absolutely has to rely on since the argument was about difficulty in obtaining parts, not quality.

Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

I have a feeling that A is incorrect but I am having trouble pinpointing why exactly it is so.

A) A doesn't seem to use the information about the local company that D does use and it seems odd that the testmakers would include info in the stimulus and then completely disregard it. They might as a distraction technique but I still can't understand how this is wrong. The newspaper says that safety would be enhanced if new sirens are installed so if the paper is right then you change the probable would to will.

B) we can't know that the local company was correct

C) "in the area" but they could have gotten the sirens from a different place

D) The local company went out of business and for the newspaper to be correct that means that it was difficult for the government to get replacement sirens so they installed new sirens.

E) even if they are less reliable it doesn't necessarily mean that the government won't use them because they could still be replacement versions.

Thank you!

Hi Hassan,

This answer choice highlights the "gap filling" role that Justify answers play with an argument. So, let's first go back to the argument structure as identified above:

• Premise: Replacement parts difficult to obtain Purchase new sirens
  Premise: Purchase new sirens Public will be safer
  Premise: Local company has gone out of business
  Conclusion: Public will be safer

Now, we were to diagram (A), it would appear as: Public will be safer Purchase new sirens

As you may recall from the Justify Formula, you should be able to add the correct answer choice to the premises and thereby obtain the conclusion. So, would that achieve that result? Let's see:

• Premise: Replacement parts difficult to obtain Purchase new sirens
  Premise: Purchase new sirens Public will be safer
  Premise: Local company has gone out of business
  (A): Public will be safer Purchase new sirens

In this case, the combination of elements above does not yield the conclusion that "Public will be safer." You get a double-arrow between purchase new sirens and safer public, but there's no active trigger to make it so new sirens are purchased (whereas (D) has that because of the parts problem).

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[hassan66]

Hi Dave,

I apologize for the late response, I missed the notification but yes, this diagram really clears things up perfectly! Under timed conditions, I worry about taking too long to properly diagram a stimulus so when I went back to review this question, I circled the main ideas/phrases that came up in the stimulus to better identify the "rogue"/"new" ideas that needed to be linked. New sirens (in relation to their installation) and safety/safer (in relation to severe weather storm) both are concepts that appear twice in the stimulus. Replacement parts also came up twice but in relation to different ideas: "difficult to obtain" and come from a business that has "gone out of business" with both only appearing once. This signaled to me that we need to find that link between replacement parts that are difficult to obtain and the company going out of business. Only D mentions both these ideas.

[AJITSHARMA880]

Hello,

For this question, I am confused as to why we do not use the conclusion " if the news paper is correct, the public will be safer during severe weather in the future" and evidence "The newspaper claims that public safety in the event of severe weather would be enhanced if new sirens were to be installed." Instead, we used Mismatched concepts in the chain of evidence to find the correct answer. I thought the author had overlooked the possibility that there could be other ways to obtain the siren or that the government had already purchased a siren, making A the correct answer because the conclusion is also conditional.

[Amber Thomas]

Hi AJITSHARMA880!

Let's start by breaking down our conditional relationships here:

Replacement Parts Difficult to Obtain --> Install New Sirens

Newspaper: Install New Sirens --> Enhanced Public Safety

This gives us the chain: Parts Difficult to Obtain --> Install New Sirens --> Enhanced Public Safety

We know that the local company that supplies replacement parts for the current sirens has gone out of business. So, if the newspaper is correct, the public will be safer during severe weather in the future.

Our conclusion implies that: Local Parts Supplier Out of Business --> Enhanced Public Safety

Therefore, we need to connect Local Parts Supplier Out of Business to the front end of our chain to allow this conclusion to logically follow. This is exactly what Answer Choice C does.

Answer Choice C states: "The local company from which replacement parts for the old sirens were purchased last year was the only company in the area that sold them."

We can equate this to Parts Difficult to Obtain-- sure, the government could get them elsewhere, but that would presumably be more difficult than getting the parts from the local shop. So, Answer Choice C gives us the chain:

Local Parts Supplier Out of Business --> Parts Difficult to Obtain --> Install New Sirens --> Enhance Public Safety

Local Parts Supplier Out of Business --> Enhance Public Safety

Answer Choice A states: "If public safety in the event of severe weather is enhanced next year, it will be because new sirens have been purchased," or the chain Enhanced Public Safety --> Install New Sirens.

This is a mistaken reversal, swapping the necessary and sufficient conditions.

I hope this helps!

[AJITSHARMA880]

Hi AJITSHARMA880!

Let's start by breaking down our conditional relationships here:

Replacement Parts Difficult to Obtain --> Install New Sirens

Newspaper: Install New Sirens --> Enhanced Public Safety

This gives us the chain: Parts Difficult to Obtain --> Install New Sirens --> Enhanced Public Safety.

We know that the local company that supplies replacement parts for the current sirens has gone out of business. So, if the newspaper is correct, the public will be safer during severe weather in the future.

Our conclusion implies that: Local Parts Supplier Out of Business --> Enhanced Public Safety

Therefore, we need to connect Local Parts Supplier Out of Business to the front end of our chain to allow this conclusion to logically follow. This is exactly what Answer Choice C does.

Answer Choice C states: "The local company from which replacement parts for the old sirens were purchased last year was the only company in the area that sold them."

We can equate this to Parts Difficult to Obtain-- sure, the government could get them elsewhere, but that would presumably be more difficult than getting the parts from the local shop. So, Answer Choice C gives us the chain:

Local Parts Supplier Out of Business --> Parts Difficult to Obtain --> Install New Sirens --> Enhance Public Safety

Local Parts Supplier Out of Business --> Enhance Public Safety

Answer Choice A states: "If public safety in the event of severe weather is enhanced next year, it will be because new sirens have been purchased," or the chain Enhanced Public Safety --> Install New Sirens.

This is a mistaken reversal, swapping the necessary and sufficient conditions.

I hope this helps!

Hi Amber, Thank you!

This is the part I am lost at: "Our conclusion implies that: Local Parts Supplier Out of Business --> Enhanced Public Safety." I am not able to deduce this from the stimulus.

Best

[Amber Thomas]

Hi AJITSHARMA880!

Let's break down the stimulus:

Premise 1: If replacement parts for the old siren are difficult to obtain, the government will install new sirens.
Premise 2: The newspaper claims that if new sirens are installed, public safety in severe weather events will be enhanced.
Premise 3: The local company that the government bought replacement parts from last year went out of business.
Conclusion: Therefore, if the newspaper is correct (that installing new sirens will enhance public safety during severe weather events), the public will be safer in the future.

So, Premise 1 sets up the following: Replacement Parts Difficult to Obtain --> Install New Sirens. Premise 2 establishes that: Install New Sirens --> Enhance Public Safety. We can link these two chains together to form:

Replacement Parts Difficult to Obtain --> Install New Sirens --> Enhance Public Safety

Our conclusion tells us that if the newspaper is correct that Install New Sirens --> Enhance Public Safety, then the public will be safer during severe weather in the future. However, in order to establish that, we need to establish that new sirens will, in fact, be installed. We can establish this if Replacement Parts Difficult to Obtain is true, because that condition being met is sufficient to guarantee Install New Sirens, which is in turn sufficient to guarantee Enhance Public Safety.

So, our answer choice needs to establish the truth of Replacement Parts Difficult to Obtain, which Answer Choice C does perfectly!

I hope this helps!