- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:36 pm
#23212
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
To answer this question, first we have to determine how Lee's objection functions in relation to Pamela's argument. Pamela argues that because children will be the customers, employees and managers of the future, therefore business should adopt policies to facilitate parenting. Lee, on the other hand, suggests that this will not be a advantageous strategy when other companies are not doing it, since the children benefited from this company might end up being the customers, employees and managers of other companies, thus this company, in acting alone, will be benefiting other companies with its efforts.
All in all, Lee's objection suggests that the proposed strategy is not advantageous when other people are not doing it, since it will end up benefiting mostly other people, thus wasting one's own efforts and resources. Lee's objection also points out that in order for this program to work, everyone must be part of it.
Answer choice (A): The objection does not suggest that the proposed strategy is not an advantageous one when other people are not doing it. Thus it does not parallel the reasoning of the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The first part proposes that each person should avoid making an effort to avoid polluting the air. The objection, however, suggests that avoiding pollution is not an advantageous strategy when other people are not doing it, since the air one person breathes is affected mainly by pollution caused by others. Thus avoiding pollution when other people are not doing it would merely benefit other people, and waste one's own efforts and resources. This strategy would work only when everyone is part of it. In this way, the objection functions the same way in relation to the argument as Lee's objection is to Pamela's, so it is the correct answer.
Answer choice (C): The objection merely suggests an overlooked side effect of the proposed strategy, instead of suggesting that it is not an advantageous one when other people are not doing it. Thus it does not parallel the stimulus' reasoning.
Answer choice (D): The objection suggests that the proposed strategy might not be necessary since the argument supporting it is flawed — if people always tell lies, then we can indeed know what the truth is, since it would just be the opposite of what people say. Thus the objection argues against the necessity of the proposed strategy, but this is different from the function of the stimulus' objection, thus it is not the correct answer.
Answer choice (E): The objection merely attacks the reasoning of the stimulus — just because the past there has always been change, does not guarantee that there will be change in the future. There is, however, no proposed strategy in the original argument, and the objection does not function the same way in relation to it as the stimulus' objection does. Thus it is not a correct answer.
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
To answer this question, first we have to determine how Lee's objection functions in relation to Pamela's argument. Pamela argues that because children will be the customers, employees and managers of the future, therefore business should adopt policies to facilitate parenting. Lee, on the other hand, suggests that this will not be a advantageous strategy when other companies are not doing it, since the children benefited from this company might end up being the customers, employees and managers of other companies, thus this company, in acting alone, will be benefiting other companies with its efforts.
All in all, Lee's objection suggests that the proposed strategy is not advantageous when other people are not doing it, since it will end up benefiting mostly other people, thus wasting one's own efforts and resources. Lee's objection also points out that in order for this program to work, everyone must be part of it.
Answer choice (A): The objection does not suggest that the proposed strategy is not an advantageous one when other people are not doing it. Thus it does not parallel the reasoning of the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The first part proposes that each person should avoid making an effort to avoid polluting the air. The objection, however, suggests that avoiding pollution is not an advantageous strategy when other people are not doing it, since the air one person breathes is affected mainly by pollution caused by others. Thus avoiding pollution when other people are not doing it would merely benefit other people, and waste one's own efforts and resources. This strategy would work only when everyone is part of it. In this way, the objection functions the same way in relation to the argument as Lee's objection is to Pamela's, so it is the correct answer.
Answer choice (C): The objection merely suggests an overlooked side effect of the proposed strategy, instead of suggesting that it is not an advantageous one when other people are not doing it. Thus it does not parallel the stimulus' reasoning.
Answer choice (D): The objection suggests that the proposed strategy might not be necessary since the argument supporting it is flawed — if people always tell lies, then we can indeed know what the truth is, since it would just be the opposite of what people say. Thus the objection argues against the necessity of the proposed strategy, but this is different from the function of the stimulus' objection, thus it is not the correct answer.
Answer choice (E): The objection merely attacks the reasoning of the stimulus — just because the past there has always been change, does not guarantee that there will be change in the future. There is, however, no proposed strategy in the original argument, and the objection does not function the same way in relation to it as the stimulus' objection does. Thus it is not a correct answer.