#26- The government will purchase and install new severe

[Dave Killoran]

Hi PowerScore Staff,

For some reason, I picked E. I read the question in a bit of a rush, and got spun around. If the replacement parts were not reliable, isn't it true that the public would be safer during the weather if the new sirens are used?

Is E an assumption answer?

Thanks

Hey Deck,

No, (E) is not an assumption because it's too specific. "The only available parts are of such inferior quality" isn't something the author absolutely has to rely on since the argument was about difficulty in obtaining parts, not quality.

Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

I have a feeling that A is incorrect but I am having trouble pinpointing why exactly it is so.

A) A doesn't seem to use the information about the local company that D does use and it seems odd that the testmakers would include info in the stimulus and then completely disregard it. They might as a distraction technique but I still can't understand how this is wrong. The newspaper says that safety would be enhanced if new sirens are installed so if the paper is right then you change the probable would to will.

B) we can't know that the local company was correct

C) "in the area" but they could have gotten the sirens from a different place

D) The local company went out of business and for the newspaper to be correct that means that it was difficult for the government to get replacement sirens so they installed new sirens.

E) even if they are less reliable it doesn't necessarily mean that the government won't use them because they could still be replacement versions.

Thank you!

Hi Hassan,

This answer choice highlights the "gap filling" role that Justify answers play with an argument. So, let's first go back to the argument structure as identified above:

• Premise: Replacement parts difficult to obtain Purchase new sirens
  Premise: Purchase new sirens Public will be safer
  Premise: Local company has gone out of business
  Conclusion: Public will be safer

Now, we were to diagram (A), it would appear as: Public will be safer Purchase new sirens

As you may recall from the Justify Formula, you should be able to add the correct answer choice to the premises and thereby obtain the conclusion. So, would that achieve that result? Let's see:

• Premise: Replacement parts difficult to obtain Purchase new sirens
  Premise: Purchase new sirens Public will be safer
  Premise: Local company has gone out of business
  (A): Public will be safer Purchase new sirens

In this case, the combination of elements above does not yield the conclusion that "Public will be safer." You get a double-arrow between purchase new sirens and safer public, but there's no active trigger to make it so new sirens are purchased (whereas (D) has that because of the parts problem).

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[hassan66]

Hi Dave,

I apologize for the late response, I missed the notification but yes, this diagram really clears things up perfectly! Under timed conditions, I worry about taking too long to properly diagram a stimulus so when I went back to review this question, I circled the main ideas/phrases that came up in the stimulus to better identify the "rogue"/"new" ideas that needed to be linked. New sirens (in relation to their installation) and safety/safer (in relation to severe weather storm) both are concepts that appear twice in the stimulus. Replacement parts also came up twice but in relation to different ideas: "difficult to obtain" and come from a business that has "gone out of business" with both only appearing once. This signaled to me that we need to find that link between replacement parts that are difficult to obtain and the company going out of business. Only D mentions both these ideas.