- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#26212
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
When dealing with two-author stimuli, make sure you look closely at both authors, even when the question stem directs your attention to only one of the authors. Rebecca concludes that the manufacturers claims are not exaggerated. However, you must look back to Camille’s argument to identify precisely what those claims were: they were about the amount of money these faucets can save. This is a very important idea to pin down.
The only support Rebecca offers for her conclusion is that her water bills have been lower since she installed the water-saving faucet. However, she does not state how much lower her water bills are since installing the faucet, nor does she establish how much money the manufacturers claimed would be saved. Why does that matter? Because her main point is that the manufacturers have not exaggerated their claims, i.e. that these claims accurately represent the amount of money one can save by using water-saving faucets. Even though Rebecca may have saved some money, she may not have saved nearly as much as the manufacturers originally claimed. Therefore it is still possible that they exaggerated how much money the faucets save.
Note the wording of the question stem: “The reasoning in Rebecca’s argument is questionable in that she takes for granted that…” While this is a Flaw question, the logical completion of the question stem would be an unwarranted assumption upon which Rebecca’s argument depends (i.e. something that she “takes for granted”). Consequently, we can always approach the answer choices as if they were possible assumptions: applying the Assumption Negation Technique, the logical opposite of the correct answer should weaken Rebecca’s conclusion.
Answer Choice (A): This is a Shell Game Answer. This would be an attractive answer choice if Rebecca concluded that manufacturers did not exaggerate whether water-saving faucets save money. The cost of installation would be an important consideration in determining whether or not those faucets actually save money. However, Rebecca did not make this conclusion. Instead, she argues that the manufacturers did not exaggerate how much money these faucets saved. The cost of installation is irrelevant to this conclusion. Applying the Assumption Negation Technique, even if the costs of installing water-saving faucet were equal to, or greater than, Rebecca’s overall savings on her water bill up to this point, it is still possible that the manufacturers did not exaggerate the amount of money that would be saved. First of all, we do not know exactly what their claims were. Secondly, it is possible that their claims were not exaggerated because the long-term savings may ultimately outweigh the initial cost of installation.
Answer Choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Rebecca did take this for granted. If you are unsure, apply the Assumption Negation Technique: what if Rebecca did not save as much on her water bills as the manufacturers’ claims suggested she would? If this were true, then the manufacturers’ claims were exaggerated, and Rebecca’s conclusion is flawed. Therefore, answer choice (B) states a questionable assumption upon which her argument depends.
Answer Choice (C): Rebecca’s argument does not require that the manufacturers’ claims were consistent with each other. Even if their claims varied, it is still possible that none of the manufacturers exaggerated the amount of money that could be saved by using water-saving faucets.
Answer Choice (D): This answer choice addresses the low volume of water associated with water saving faucets. While this was an aspect of Camille’s argument, it was irrelevant for Rebecca’s argument. Secondly, Rebecca’s conclusion ultimately depends on the amount of money saved, not customer satisfaction with the faucets. Rebecca did not take anything for granted regarding customer satisfaction.
Answer Choice (E): Rebecca’s argument did not require any assumptions regarding multiple faucets and the savings associated with them. It is perfectly valid for Rebecca to rely on her experience with only one faucet.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
When dealing with two-author stimuli, make sure you look closely at both authors, even when the question stem directs your attention to only one of the authors. Rebecca concludes that the manufacturers claims are not exaggerated. However, you must look back to Camille’s argument to identify precisely what those claims were: they were about the amount of money these faucets can save. This is a very important idea to pin down.
The only support Rebecca offers for her conclusion is that her water bills have been lower since she installed the water-saving faucet. However, she does not state how much lower her water bills are since installing the faucet, nor does she establish how much money the manufacturers claimed would be saved. Why does that matter? Because her main point is that the manufacturers have not exaggerated their claims, i.e. that these claims accurately represent the amount of money one can save by using water-saving faucets. Even though Rebecca may have saved some money, she may not have saved nearly as much as the manufacturers originally claimed. Therefore it is still possible that they exaggerated how much money the faucets save.
Note the wording of the question stem: “The reasoning in Rebecca’s argument is questionable in that she takes for granted that…” While this is a Flaw question, the logical completion of the question stem would be an unwarranted assumption upon which Rebecca’s argument depends (i.e. something that she “takes for granted”). Consequently, we can always approach the answer choices as if they were possible assumptions: applying the Assumption Negation Technique, the logical opposite of the correct answer should weaken Rebecca’s conclusion.
Answer Choice (A): This is a Shell Game Answer. This would be an attractive answer choice if Rebecca concluded that manufacturers did not exaggerate whether water-saving faucets save money. The cost of installation would be an important consideration in determining whether or not those faucets actually save money. However, Rebecca did not make this conclusion. Instead, she argues that the manufacturers did not exaggerate how much money these faucets saved. The cost of installation is irrelevant to this conclusion. Applying the Assumption Negation Technique, even if the costs of installing water-saving faucet were equal to, or greater than, Rebecca’s overall savings on her water bill up to this point, it is still possible that the manufacturers did not exaggerate the amount of money that would be saved. First of all, we do not know exactly what their claims were. Secondly, it is possible that their claims were not exaggerated because the long-term savings may ultimately outweigh the initial cost of installation.
Answer Choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Rebecca did take this for granted. If you are unsure, apply the Assumption Negation Technique: what if Rebecca did not save as much on her water bills as the manufacturers’ claims suggested she would? If this were true, then the manufacturers’ claims were exaggerated, and Rebecca’s conclusion is flawed. Therefore, answer choice (B) states a questionable assumption upon which her argument depends.
Answer Choice (C): Rebecca’s argument does not require that the manufacturers’ claims were consistent with each other. Even if their claims varied, it is still possible that none of the manufacturers exaggerated the amount of money that could be saved by using water-saving faucets.
Answer Choice (D): This answer choice addresses the low volume of water associated with water saving faucets. While this was an aspect of Camille’s argument, it was irrelevant for Rebecca’s argument. Secondly, Rebecca’s conclusion ultimately depends on the amount of money saved, not customer satisfaction with the faucets. Rebecca did not take anything for granted regarding customer satisfaction.
Answer Choice (E): Rebecca’s argument did not require any assumptions regarding multiple faucets and the savings associated with them. It is perfectly valid for Rebecca to rely on her experience with only one faucet.