#16- "Good hunter" and "bad hunter" are standard terms in

[jessicamorehead]

Or is most double, while some is single? How do you know which side it goes on if it's a single arrow?

[jessicamorehead]

Sorry I should've posted one question... but more keep coming to me hahaha. Would the correct diagram of answer choice D look like this?


High Ratio <--SOME--> Good Hunter <--SOME--> Domestic Cat

Am I allowed to put that "Good Hunter" connection between the two because they are all "some"?


Additionally, what's wrong with answer choice E? I thought I could connect the two necessary sides of Good Hunter --> Kill Prey and Good Hunter --> High ratio since they have the same sufficient side? Is that incorrect?

[Adam Tyson]

The conditional relationship in the stimulus is this:

Good Hunter High Ratio (not some - ALL good hunters have that high muscle-to-fat ratio)

The remaining claims are based on Formal Logic (some, many, most, etc. - terms that take conditional relationships down a peg from "all"). They are:

Good Hunter Domestic Cats (so some good hunters are domestic and some domestics are good hunters)

Wild Cats Good Hunter (more than half of all wild cats are good hunters, which also implies that SOME good hunters are wild cats)

We can infer a few things from connecting these ideas together. For one thing, we can infer this:

Wild Cat High Ratio (because most of the wild cats are good hunters, all of which have high ratios)

Domestic Cat High Ratio (because at least one domestic cat is a good hunter, which means at least that one domestic cat must have that high ratio)

Why can we not prove answer E? Because that answer is just another way of saying this:

High Ratio Good Hunter

And that is a Mistaken Reversal of the conditional claim in the stimulus. I know that all the Good Hunters (defined as cats that can kill prey that weigh up to half their body weight) have a high muscle-to-fat ratio, but I don't know that all the cats with the high ratio are good hunters. I don't even know that most of them are. The presence of the Necessary Condition does not prove the presence of the Sufficient Condition.

Let us know if that makes sense to you! Thanks for the question!

[Tami Taylor]

Hi PowerScore,

Can you please tell me if my reasoning for eliminating ACs (A) and (E) is correct? I understand why (B) and (C) should be eliminated, and I see why (D) is 100% proven by the facts in the stimulus. I want to make sure I understand why (A) and (E) are not 100% supported.

(A) --> Based on stimulus, we don't know if this MUST be true. From the statement, "All good hunters have high muscle-to-fat ratio," we can't infer anything about cats that have high ratios but aren't good hunters. We don't know if some or all of the cats with high ratios aren't good hunters, for example, as (A) states.

(E) --> Based on stimulus, we don't know if this MUST be true. We're told good hunters can kill prey up to half their body weight. From the statement, "All good hunters have high muscle-to-fat ratio," we can't infer that all cats with high ratios are good hunters, and thus can kill up to half their body weight.

Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Tami,

Yes, you're right on with both answers. Nice job here!

Another way of looking at answer choice (A) is to say that the Mistaken Reversal of a conditional statement is something that COULD be true (it's possible from the stimulus, then, that all high muscle-to-fat ratio cats in fact ARE good hunters, which means that answer choice A doesn't have to be true).

With answer choice (E), you could look at these two conditionals in the second and third sentences from the stimulus:
Good Hunter Can Kill Prey up to Half of Body Weight
Good Hunter High Muscle to Fat Ratio

Any time two conditional statements have the same sufficient conditions, but different necessary conditions, you should observe that you can't necessarily connect the two necessary conditions to each other. In other words, there is no conditional relationship that we can validly infer between "Can Kill Prey up to Half of Body Weight" and "High Muscle to Fat Ratio."

I hope this helps!

[Tami Taylor]

Got it. Thanks a lot, Jeremy!

[lujainaltawarah]

Hi! Could someone explain as to why E is wrong? Is it because GH points to HM2F AND kills up to half it's body weight as opposed to it being diagrammed like this: GH HM2F 1/2 BW (body weight)?

[lujainaltawarah]

Hi! Could someone explain as to why E is wrong? Is it because GH points to HM2F AND kills up to half it's body weight as opposed to it being diagrammed like this: GH HM2F 1/2 BW (body weight)?

Edit: sorry I didn't scroll down far enough and I see the answer to my question. Thank you! I also see my reasoning is incorrect haha.