- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:00 am
#72953
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (A).
One of the most challenging questions in this section, this one is a great example of how a Strengthen answer doesn't have to help very much in order for it to be correct. The stimulus tells us that white glass and Han purple are made with the same chemicals and in similar processes, and that white glass was fairly common. It also tells us that there is some mystery as to how Han purple was made. The author concludes, based on the similarity of ingredients and processes, that Han purple was probably discovered by accident during the production of white glass.
There are some obvious prephrases available, mostly based on causal reasoning. It would help, for example, if we knew that the relationship was not reversed - white glass production predates the existence of Han purple, for example, proving that white glass could not have been the secondary, possibly accidental discovery in this relatinoship. It would also strengthen if we could say there was not an alternate cause for the creation of Han purple - an answer that somehow indicates that Han purple was not made intentionally. If any answer looked like one of these prephrases, this question would be much easier. Sadly, none of the answers are quite that clear, and students may find themselves initially crossing out all five answers. When that happens, reset and come up with a new prephrase.
While the Negation Technique is intended for use only on Assumption questions, when considering a Strengthen question it can be helpful to consider the opposite effect. What would hurt this argument? If we can eliminate that problem, removing that objection, the argument would be better, if only a little bit. One potential weakness here is the possibility that white glass and Han purple were found in very different places. Think of that as "the cause is present and the effect is absent," or "the cause is absent and the effect is present." With that in mind, the correct answer becomes much more obvious.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Putting all of the white glass and Han purple production in the same small radius can be viewed as "where the effect is present, the cause is also present." This answer eliminates the possible objection that the two things were produced in different places, distinct from each other, and so increases the odds that one was discovered while making the other. It certainly does not prove the discovery was accidental, and it does nothing to reduce the chances that Han purple was made before white glass, but the standard for a Strengthen answer is only that it help, even if just a little, and more than any other answer. This is the case with answer A, one of the weakest Strengthen answers you are ever likely to see.
Answer choice (B): The uses of the two products is irrelevant to how they were each discovered, and does nothing to tell us about the order of discovery or how Han purple came to be made. This answer also does nothing to eliminate a potential objection to the argument.
Answer choice (C): This answer may draw you in, but the fact that only a few people knew how to make Han purple tells us nothing about its discovery. Did those people also know how to make white glass? How did they learn the process? Did they come up with it independently, and intentionally, or by accident? Did they learn how to make it before they made white glass, or after? This answer does not tell us even a little about a cause and effect relationship, and is therefore a loser.
Answer choice (D): The fact that the ingredients shared by the two different products were easily obtainable does not give us any additional reason to believe that one was discovered by accident while making the other. Even if this answer is true, it does not tell us that where the cause is present, the effect is also present, for example, and it does not eliminate a problem with the argument.
Answer choice (E): The fact that more things made of this type of white glass have survived than things made with Han purple tells us nothing about the creation or discovery of the products. Perhaps the objects made with Han purple were more fragile or prone to disintegration (such as cloth) than white glass objects? Perhaps white glass was simply more popular than Han purple? After all, the stimulus did say that this type of white glass was common. This gives us no new reason to believe the claim of accidental discovery, nor does it eliminate any potential objection to the claim.
Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (A).
One of the most challenging questions in this section, this one is a great example of how a Strengthen answer doesn't have to help very much in order for it to be correct. The stimulus tells us that white glass and Han purple are made with the same chemicals and in similar processes, and that white glass was fairly common. It also tells us that there is some mystery as to how Han purple was made. The author concludes, based on the similarity of ingredients and processes, that Han purple was probably discovered by accident during the production of white glass.
There are some obvious prephrases available, mostly based on causal reasoning. It would help, for example, if we knew that the relationship was not reversed - white glass production predates the existence of Han purple, for example, proving that white glass could not have been the secondary, possibly accidental discovery in this relatinoship. It would also strengthen if we could say there was not an alternate cause for the creation of Han purple - an answer that somehow indicates that Han purple was not made intentionally. If any answer looked like one of these prephrases, this question would be much easier. Sadly, none of the answers are quite that clear, and students may find themselves initially crossing out all five answers. When that happens, reset and come up with a new prephrase.
While the Negation Technique is intended for use only on Assumption questions, when considering a Strengthen question it can be helpful to consider the opposite effect. What would hurt this argument? If we can eliminate that problem, removing that objection, the argument would be better, if only a little bit. One potential weakness here is the possibility that white glass and Han purple were found in very different places. Think of that as "the cause is present and the effect is absent," or "the cause is absent and the effect is present." With that in mind, the correct answer becomes much more obvious.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Putting all of the white glass and Han purple production in the same small radius can be viewed as "where the effect is present, the cause is also present." This answer eliminates the possible objection that the two things were produced in different places, distinct from each other, and so increases the odds that one was discovered while making the other. It certainly does not prove the discovery was accidental, and it does nothing to reduce the chances that Han purple was made before white glass, but the standard for a Strengthen answer is only that it help, even if just a little, and more than any other answer. This is the case with answer A, one of the weakest Strengthen answers you are ever likely to see.
Answer choice (B): The uses of the two products is irrelevant to how they were each discovered, and does nothing to tell us about the order of discovery or how Han purple came to be made. This answer also does nothing to eliminate a potential objection to the argument.
Answer choice (C): This answer may draw you in, but the fact that only a few people knew how to make Han purple tells us nothing about its discovery. Did those people also know how to make white glass? How did they learn the process? Did they come up with it independently, and intentionally, or by accident? Did they learn how to make it before they made white glass, or after? This answer does not tell us even a little about a cause and effect relationship, and is therefore a loser.
Answer choice (D): The fact that the ingredients shared by the two different products were easily obtainable does not give us any additional reason to believe that one was discovered by accident while making the other. Even if this answer is true, it does not tell us that where the cause is present, the effect is also present, for example, and it does not eliminate a problem with the argument.
Answer choice (E): The fact that more things made of this type of white glass have survived than things made with Han purple tells us nothing about the creation or discovery of the products. Perhaps the objects made with Han purple were more fragile or prone to disintegration (such as cloth) than white glass objects? Perhaps white glass was simply more popular than Han purple? After all, the stimulus did say that this type of white glass was common. This gives us no new reason to believe the claim of accidental discovery, nor does it eliminate any potential objection to the claim.
