- Thu Oct 09, 2025 1:12 pm
#121794
Hi kristina,
The stimulus contains two claims (one from Stallworth and one from Henning) that are incompatible based on the premises. Specifically, we are told that if both claims were true, then the proposal would have received government approval. The fact that the proposal did not receive government approval indicates that at least one of these claims is false. The argument arbitrarily picks Henning and assumes that his claim is false when it is entirely possible that Stallworth's claim is false.
In Answer C, the two claims (one from Kapoor and one from Galindo) are actually not incompatible. It is possible that "the disposal site is located on an unsuitable tract of land" as Galindo claims while it is also true that "the disposal site does not pose an imminent danger to the community" as Kapoor claims. For example, if the disposal site is located very far away from the community, it may not pose an imminent danger to the community even if the site itself is otherwise unsuitable.
Another difference in Answer C is that the argument doesn't arbitrarily pick one of the two claims as true like the stimulus does. The conclusion indicates that "if Galindo is correct, Kapoor's assessment is in error" (my emphasis). This leaves open the possibility that Galindo is not correct.
The fact that the conclusion in Answer C is conditional while the conclusion in the stimulus is not conditional is a good indicator that this answer is not parallel to the stimulus.
