- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:55 pm
#32788
Complete Question Explanation
Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (B).
In this stimulus we find no argument, just a set of facts, and that setup usually leads us to a Must Be True question, which is what happens here. Our answer must be based entirely on the facts given in the stimulus with no outside information allowed, and our answer must be either absolutely certain based on those facts or, in the case of a "most strongly supported" question stem (a subset of Must Be True), have more support from the stimulus than any other answer choice. Those "most strongly supported" answers tend to be highly likely, while the wrong answer typically have no support at all.
What do we know from the stimulus? We know that Jablonski was concerned and wanted to do some good. Her motives were, therefore, at least partly altruistic. She might have had a hidden motive, too, but since the stimulus doesn't bring that up, we won't consider it. We know that she took action on those altruistic feelings - she donated cars. Finally, we know that she derived some benefit from doing so, whether she intended to get that benefit or not. That benefit is that some people have bought cars from her.
A good prephrase here might be "sometimes good things happen to good people" or "sometimes, when you do something entirely for someone else, you might get some benefit yourself." We know these are supported ideas because that is what in fact happened in this case.
Answer choice (A): This is not supported by the stimulus. Not only do we not know that driver education is the only way to reduce traffic accidents, we don't know if it has that effect at all! The stimulus never said that Jablonski's plan would actually help, but only that she wanted to help and felt that this was one way to do so. We cannot prove that driver education helps at all, and we definitely cannot prove that nothing else would help.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This answer matches the above prephrase nicely. We know that altruistic actions, like Jablonski's, sometimes have positive consequences for the person who did them, because "sometimes" means "at least once", and at least this one time that happened. Jablonski acted altruistically (for the benefit of another rather than for oneself) and she ended up benefiting (she sold some cars).
Answer choice (C): This is unsupported by the stimulus. We have no information about who tends to benefit from driver education, or if anyone in fact does benefit. This brings in new information and must be rejected.
Answer choice {D): We have no information in the stimulus about what "usually" happens. It happened one time, and that's all we know about. We don't even know if this worked out to Jablonski's overall best interests - maybe she donated 10 cars and sold just 2, taking a loss to the tune of 8 cars?
Answer choice (E): We don't know if Jablonski's action was successful, we don't know how broad the support was for it, and we don't know about any similar actions, just this one. Maybe some actions are successful with narrow support, or even none?
Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (B).
In this stimulus we find no argument, just a set of facts, and that setup usually leads us to a Must Be True question, which is what happens here. Our answer must be based entirely on the facts given in the stimulus with no outside information allowed, and our answer must be either absolutely certain based on those facts or, in the case of a "most strongly supported" question stem (a subset of Must Be True), have more support from the stimulus than any other answer choice. Those "most strongly supported" answers tend to be highly likely, while the wrong answer typically have no support at all.
What do we know from the stimulus? We know that Jablonski was concerned and wanted to do some good. Her motives were, therefore, at least partly altruistic. She might have had a hidden motive, too, but since the stimulus doesn't bring that up, we won't consider it. We know that she took action on those altruistic feelings - she donated cars. Finally, we know that she derived some benefit from doing so, whether she intended to get that benefit or not. That benefit is that some people have bought cars from her.
A good prephrase here might be "sometimes good things happen to good people" or "sometimes, when you do something entirely for someone else, you might get some benefit yourself." We know these are supported ideas because that is what in fact happened in this case.
Answer choice (A): This is not supported by the stimulus. Not only do we not know that driver education is the only way to reduce traffic accidents, we don't know if it has that effect at all! The stimulus never said that Jablonski's plan would actually help, but only that she wanted to help and felt that this was one way to do so. We cannot prove that driver education helps at all, and we definitely cannot prove that nothing else would help.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This answer matches the above prephrase nicely. We know that altruistic actions, like Jablonski's, sometimes have positive consequences for the person who did them, because "sometimes" means "at least once", and at least this one time that happened. Jablonski acted altruistically (for the benefit of another rather than for oneself) and she ended up benefiting (she sold some cars).
Answer choice (C): This is unsupported by the stimulus. We have no information about who tends to benefit from driver education, or if anyone in fact does benefit. This brings in new information and must be rejected.
Answer choice {D): We have no information in the stimulus about what "usually" happens. It happened one time, and that's all we know about. We don't even know if this worked out to Jablonski's overall best interests - maybe she donated 10 cars and sold just 2, taking a loss to the tune of 8 cars?
Answer choice (E): We don't know if Jablonski's action was successful, we don't know how broad the support was for it, and we don't know about any similar actions, just this one. Maybe some actions are successful with narrow support, or even none?