#15 - Environmentalists who seek stricter governmental

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning-PR. The correct answer choice is (A)

The author suggests that you should put your best foot forward when asking for help, or else risk losing any credibility even if your case becomes stronger later on. In adopting this logic, environmentalists had better have their facts straight when seeking stricter regulations of water pollution, or else the public will not listen to them when dire threats do exist. Similarly, if managers want their companies to hire additional employees, they should only make that request if their case is strong. Otherwise, higher-level managers will refuse to follow their suggestions even when doing so might be a good idea.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. See explanation above.

Answer choice (B): While the language of answer choice (B) is quite similar to that contained in the stimulus, the logic here is quite different — the issue is not having "solid facts" to back up a certain position, but using "dispassionate rhetoric" when making that position. Furthermore, there is no risk of ultimately losing credibility if one fails to follow the author's advice — the danger here is merely causing a backlash that results in a negative reaction towards the proposed position.

Answer choice (C): As with answer choice (B), the logic here is quite different — the issue is not having "solid facts" to back up a certain position, but using persuasive language when making that position. Furthermore, the risk described here is not one of losing credibility; rather, it is simply one of not being persuasive enough. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): Showing a vested interest in the success of a certain proposal is not the same as having strong evidence to support that proposal. Furthermore, the ultimate danger of losing credibility is not addressed here. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): The central issue here is not the strength of the evidence used to support a given proposal, but the manner in which the proposal made. Furthermore, the danger described is not one of losing credibility, but of an outcome that is the direct opposite to the one sought. This answer choice is incorrect.

[piercefreddie3]

Hey there. I was triggered into thinking E because of the way the second part of the answer choice aligned with the severity of the issues. Did I focus on language too much?

Also, could you try and elaborate as to why A is the correct choice? I have a hard time understanding just from reading the explanation

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Piercefreddie3,
It seems that you may have focused on language(tone) too much in Answer E because the logic doesn't match up. You need to focus on matching logic,
which will certainly include tone. You didn't specify what language you focused on, but the tone you were likely matching was the argument's use of words like: stricter, threat, backlash and dire. And that certainly seems to be in line with the tone of Answer E which uses words like: excessive, adversely, fail, and inevitable. But the logic doesn't match, because in Answer E it is using that strong language to focus on the necessity of assigning a high priority to a particular appeal in order to move forward. But in the argument it is not saying that you need to make sure you argument is a high priority in order to move forward, it is saying you need to make sure that your argument is valid before you move forward, because if you don't then you might fail at a later date when your argument actually becomes valid. This leads to Answer A as the correct choice.
Hope that helps!
Malila

[caseyh123]

I chose answer B because, even though I liked the part in answer A that deals with facts and I didn't like that B is more about emotion, I thought an important part of the stimulus is that losing people's confidence on one issue will discredit you for all issues in the future. So I did not like A because it only talked about the one issue of hiring people, and did not say, for example, that if a middle manager is wrong about the need for hiring employees then the higher managers will never take their advice on anything in the future. Is this a misreading of the stimulus?

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Casey! You said,

I thought an important part of the stimulus is that losing people's confidence on one issue will discredit you for all issues in the future

I agree with everything there except for the word "all". The stimulus doesn't suggest that environmentalist will lose credibility on all issues...just environmental ones! (Hopefully their spouses still believe them regarding financial matters, for instance!). So I would change your quote to say, "an important part of the stimulus is that losing people's confidence on one issue will discredit you regarding that issue [or maybe you could broaden this to say "regarding their area of expertise"] in the future".

(A) sufficiently reproduces that important part of the stimulus, by showing that the mid-level managers won't be trusted for hiring decisions in the future if they mess it up now. Your answer choice (B), however, does not reproduce that part of the stimulus. There is nothing to indicate that politicians who use inflammatory rhetoric won't be trusted ever again when it comes to using rhetoric.

Hope that helps!