#23 - Businessperson: Because the parking area directly in

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi,

I chose B for this question.
I thought B is correct because to see whether the Businessperson is lying or not, comparing with others who were in the situation would be helpful.
Is this wrong because it's asking to evaluate the reasoning rather than the truth of his argument?

Thank you

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi mokkyukkyu,

This is largely correct. We don't care about whether others were also late for the meeting because of difficulty in finding parking. Maybe they weren't because they got there a lot earlier, or knew of the planned maintenance. To evaluate the reasoning in the businessperson's argument, we need to know if it really takes 15 minutes to find an available parking space in the vicinity. This is why answer choice (C) raises a relevant consideration, and is therefore correct.

Hope this clears it up!

Thanks,

[lsat]

Hi,
I am confused as to why knowing the parking patterns in the building's vicinity on the days when the parking area in front of the building is open would be helpful in evaluating the reasoning the business person gives for being a late on a day when the parking area in front of the building is closed. Is it because if we know the patterns on the days when the parking area is open we can then determine if it usually takes 15 minutes to find an available spot? And if that's the case we can accept his reasoning? I am find myself asking what if a bunch of parking areas were closed this day....But I don't think I can bring that in to the test. Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

You're right on about why we care about the normal parking patterns, and also right not to bring in too much outside info about whether there might be other closings or impediments. Our author asserts that if the maintenance had not been happening that day, then he would not have been late. If it normally takes 15 minutes or more to find a spot, then his argument would fall apart, but if it normally is much faster and easier than that, then his argument would be good. Not perfect, mind you, but good.

That's what we want with an Evaluate the Argument question - we want to know some new piece of info that would, on the one hand, strengthen (but not necessarily prove) the argument, and which would, on the other hand, weaken (but not necessarily destroy) it.

Good work! Keep it up!

[AM4747]

Hi,

Just a quick question with regard to answer choice D.

Given the fact that this answer is incorrect, I assume that a "tendency" to be late does not qualify as an alternate cause. For if it did, then such question would seem helpful. Is it perhaps because this answer choice is too broad? Let's say that the person does have a tendency to be late. Knowing this would not be relevant as to whether on that specific day, the cause of his lateness was the maintenance.

Am I on the right track?


Thanks,
All best

[Brook Miscoski]

AM4747, you are correct. We are trying to determine whether the business person would have been on time for that one meeting if the lot had not been closed for maintenance. Therefore, the business person's tendency to be late is irrelevant, because a probability doesn't explain what happened that one time.

Another way to look at it is that the business person could have a tendency to be late because of a failure to anticipate problems like the parking lot being closed for maintenance. It could fit into the person's tendency to be late, but the businessperson could still be completely correct that keeping the lot open would have allowed timely attendance at the meeting.

[Moukieroo]

Can we not infer that the parking patterns on the days when the lot Is open aren't really relevant because if the lot is close it is going to impact parking in an unpredictable way.

For example if when the lot is open, there are 100 available spots in the buildings vicinity (including the lot).
On all days the lot is either full or empty
When the lot is closed there are now 50 available spots
this will significantly change the availability of cars : spots, regardless of not knowing the amount of cars available.

E seems like the best answer because it references 'this meeting' and if we know yes it was important then the Businessperson has another good reason to be on time thus strengthening the argument a bit and if it is not important for them to be on time then this weakens the argument a bit.

Obviously I know that C is the correct answer for a reason I am just not grasping. I have read the above posts and they don't address this impacted ratio problem I am dealing with.

help!

[Zach Foreman]

Moukieroo,
You are on the right track. Remember, to evaluate whether the answer is correct, we want to give two extreme answers and see if that effects the argument. You gave one answer, but I want you to give two that are extreme. So, let's say that on normal days, there are 95 spaces available in the lot and 5 in the nearby area. Closing the lot would have a great effect on finding parking. But, let's take the other extreme. What if there are 5 spaces in the lot and 95 spaces in the nearby area. Closing the lot would have little effect. So, we can confirm that asking this question "What are the parking patterns in the building’s vicinity on days when the parking area in front of the building is open?" is an important one to ask.
Let's try it with E. Let's say that he would lose his job if he was late. Or lets say that no one cares. Neither changes his argument That the closing of the lot was responsible for his lateness. Sure, it might weaken the alternate cause that he was late because he wasn't motivated to be there on time, but there are hundreds of other alternate causes that might make him late, from traffic to his alarm not going off to him spilling his coffee on himself.

[queens21]

Hello,

Could answer choice (D) also be considered incorrect because of ad hominem - attacking the person directly does not discredit his/her argument?

Thanks in advance for the help!