#8 - One should not confuse a desire for money with a desire

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[fendrick]

I was torn between B and C, but ended up choosing C because the statement "One should not confuse... for material possessions" seemed to support the statement containing the word "moreover"

Can someone please clarify. Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

fendrick,

The "moreover" means that the sentence containing it will almost certainly have to have a direct relation to the sentence coming right before it, because that word indicates the author is continuing a discussion or expanding a discussion. If that sentence is the conclusion, so that the first sentence is a subsidiary conclusion (as answer choice (C) is claiming), then the role of the second sentence should be a pure premise - a claim that supports another, but for which no support is provided. But if that's the case, the second sentence would have to support the first, if answer choice (C) is true. There is no way to explain the use of "moreover" in that case, so answer choice (C) can be rejected on that basis.

If you're between two answers and you have a definitive proof, as here, that one is incorrectly describing the role, you can definitely eliminate that answer.

None of that explains why answer choice (B) is correct, of course. Look at the statement made in the first sentence - it's telling us that no one should confuse two things. Why not? What if those things are similar or even identical? Then it's not a confusion to equate them! So either the author is just presenting this statement with no basis or the author will go on to explain why it's true. In this case, the author is explaining why the two desires are distinct. Both the other sentences do this. So those sentences are explaining the first. If they both are explaining the first sentence, neither of them can be the conclusion, so the first sentence must be the conclusion.

Robert Carroll

[fendrick]

thank you!

[itstanaya]

I have a question about the wording of the stimulus - does the fact that the conclusion begins with "One should not" affect whether or not it is a conclusion? I.e. does the logical strength (the fact that it is a mere suggestion) affect whether or not it can be classified as a conclusion?

[Robert Carroll]

Tanaya,

Conclusions making weaker statements than absolutely necessary happen all the time. In fact, the "Parallel the Conclusion" test in Parallel Reasoning/Parallel Flaw questions requires matching the strength of statement in the conclusion in the stimulus to that of the conclusion in the correct answer choice, and rejecting answers that don't match that strength.

Here, though, the conclusion is as strong as possible: one should not do something. This isn't any more a suggestion than any other opinion-type statement. It's merely making a statement of what the author thinks is imperative.

Robert Carroll