59 LR One Question 22
- « 59 LR One Question 21
- 1852 of 3815
- 59 LR One Question 23 »
Comments
Receiving breakfast and eating breakfast are two different things?
Are we implying that B could have eaten something at home by themselves?
Isn't A saying that they did eat breakfast?
1. Receiving breakfast and eating breakfast are two different things?
No, I don't think so given the context here. It would certainly be implausible by commonsense standards to try to say that they are.
2. Are we implying that B could have eaten something at home by themselves?
I don't understand this question.
3. Isn't A saying that they did eat breakfast?
(A) says that few of them did so, which helps since we already know that they were less productive.
feel like this was a trick question, since receiving and consuming are treated as different things. BC it did clearly say B did not receive breakfast, which if you thought they were synonymous wouldn't that rule out A entirely?
I chose B bc i thought i WAS addressing that sampling error by confirm that if they both worked similar shifts, and controlled the difference time of the day would have on a person's productivity, then it somehow made the samples more representative and thus strengthening the claim about their productivity difference
I see what you're saying about (B), and I totally agree that it offers some small amount of support for the argument, in exactly the way you've mentioned. That could make the argument more difficult.
However, it never troubled me because (A) was so direct in articulating the necessary assumption (this is probably a good example of my structural reading getting rewarded).
Sure, there's a denotative difference between receiving and consuming breakfast, but I think this context renders that distinction moot. The workers in Plant A weren't offered breakfast, nor given the opportunity to eat. They received breakfast every day. Is it possible that some of them did not eat the breakfast they received? Sure. But this wording doesn't give us any reason to think that this would happen in any large number; why would the workers receive the breakfast and then not eat it? Remember, we're not to make any assumptions that are implausible by commonsense standards.
So we know that Plant A got free breakfast and Plant B did not.
Well, I didn't get free breakfast this morning. Does that mean I didn't eat? Of course not.
I bet you didn't get free meals yesterday. I bet you still ate.
In other words, receiving breakfast implies eating it, but not receiving it does not imply that you didn't eat. And that is the problem with the argument.
This whole argument depends on the assumption that if Plant B didn't get free meals, then they just didn't eat.
(A) asserts that assumption in classic, expected fashion.
And while (B) may offer some very slight support (productivity wasn't affected by different start times), it isn't nearly so direct, powerful, and pertinent as (A).
I see why you struggled here, but don't let this one exception (where the right answer is not only correct, but also more strengthening than a wrong answer) screw with you. Our general rules are still in place, and almost always, the right answer is the only one that strengthens. In the rare instance where you choose between two answers that both seem to you to strengthen an argument, choose the one that does the most work, and don't worry any more about it.
I think the reason I got this one wrong is because of the word Few in choice A. Wouldn't that suggest that SOME from Plant B DID have breakfast and in turn hurt the argument?
Yes, you're right that (A) certainly says that some number (a "few") people from Plant B did have breakfast.
That helps the argument; Plant B was less productive, and most people at Plant B did not eat breakfast. By contrast, Plant A was more productive, and the people there did eat breeakfast.