- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:00 am
#36389
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen—Principle. The correct answer choice is (E)
Statistically, this was one of the easiest questions on the test. The nylon industry spokesperson argues
that since nylon is made mainly from petroleum and nitrogen—both of which are derived from
natural resources—nylon is in fact natural (the conclusion of the argument is stated in the phrase
“some people have the mistaken notion that cotton is natural and nylon is not.”).
The argument seems weak to most readers. The spokesperson’s reasoning plays fast and loose with
the common sense meaning of “natural” because the author admits that it is the “main” components
that come from natural products, and no mention is made of the processes to which these substances
are subjected. However, the question asks you to strengthen that position, so you must fi nd a
response that helps proves that anything made mainly from “natural” sources can be called “natural.”
And remember, because this is a principle question the correct answer need not mention “nylon” or
cotton” but can instead just generally encompass ideas that will assist the author’s position.
Answer choice (A): The stimulus did not discuss the function a substance serves, only its
components. Thus this answer cannot assist in strengthening the argument.
In addition, note that this answer is in the form of a conditional statement:
Substance unnatural 
Function it serves unnatural
Contrapositive:
Function it serves natural Substance natural
However, you cannot reasonably conclude or know that every use of nylon is natural (and thus you
cannot enact the suffi cient condition), so this response does not strengthen the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): This choice might actually weaken the stimulus because this choice suggests that
we might focus on how nylon is manufactured, and there may be processes applied to create nylon
that are not natural.
Answer choice (C): This response could either strengthen or weaken the argument, so it is incorrect.
On the weaken side, the stimulus allowed for the possibility that nylon might have non-natural
ingredients (“main components”). If the substance can be considered no more natural than its least
natural ingredients, that could make nylon non-natural.
Answer choice (D): The stimulus never concerned which substance was “more natural,” only
whether nylon was “natural.” Thus, this response addresses a different issue than the one in the
stimulus, and it cannot strengthen the reasoning.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The answer is in the form of the following
conditional relationship:
Origins of main components natural Substance natural
Since the main components of nylon are of natural origins, according this relationship we can then
conclude that nylon is natural. Thus, if this principle is valid (and we are told it is by the question
stem), then the argument is strengthened.
By the way, it does not matter no reasonable person will accept the confusion of the sense of natural,
no such person will accept this premise. The question asks you which principle, if valid, justifi es the
response—not whether the principle could actually be valid.
Strengthen—Principle. The correct answer choice is (E)
Statistically, this was one of the easiest questions on the test. The nylon industry spokesperson argues
that since nylon is made mainly from petroleum and nitrogen—both of which are derived from
natural resources—nylon is in fact natural (the conclusion of the argument is stated in the phrase
“some people have the mistaken notion that cotton is natural and nylon is not.”).
The argument seems weak to most readers. The spokesperson’s reasoning plays fast and loose with
the common sense meaning of “natural” because the author admits that it is the “main” components
that come from natural products, and no mention is made of the processes to which these substances
are subjected. However, the question asks you to strengthen that position, so you must fi nd a
response that helps proves that anything made mainly from “natural” sources can be called “natural.”
And remember, because this is a principle question the correct answer need not mention “nylon” or
cotton” but can instead just generally encompass ideas that will assist the author’s position.
Answer choice (A): The stimulus did not discuss the function a substance serves, only its
components. Thus this answer cannot assist in strengthening the argument.
In addition, note that this answer is in the form of a conditional statement:
Substance unnatural Function it serves unnatural Contrapositive: Function it serves natural Substance naturalHowever, you cannot reasonably conclude or know that every use of nylon is natural (and thus you
cannot enact the suffi cient condition), so this response does not strengthen the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): This choice might actually weaken the stimulus because this choice suggests that
we might focus on how nylon is manufactured, and there may be processes applied to create nylon
that are not natural.
Answer choice (C): This response could either strengthen or weaken the argument, so it is incorrect.
On the weaken side, the stimulus allowed for the possibility that nylon might have non-natural
ingredients (“main components”). If the substance can be considered no more natural than its least
natural ingredients, that could make nylon non-natural.
Answer choice (D): The stimulus never concerned which substance was “more natural,” only
whether nylon was “natural.” Thus, this response addresses a different issue than the one in the
stimulus, and it cannot strengthen the reasoning.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The answer is in the form of the following
conditional relationship:
Origins of main components natural Substance naturalSince the main components of nylon are of natural origins, according this relationship we can then
conclude that nylon is natural. Thus, if this principle is valid (and we are told it is by the question
stem), then the argument is strengthened.
By the way, it does not matter no reasonable person will accept the confusion of the sense of natural,
no such person will accept this premise. The question asks you which principle, if valid, justifi es the
response—not whether the principle could actually be valid.
