62 LR One Question 25
- « 62 LR One Question 24
- 2031 of 3815
- 62 LR One Question 26 »
Comments
Could you possibly explain the other answer choices here? Wouldn't knowing that the schools tuition had not increased over the past few years (E) be assumed if she's suggesting that as the only option to improve applicant pool? Or (C) since she's saying it's the only options wouldn't we have to assume it would work?
(B) She's made no claim about the actual quality of the school's education; only about the perception of that quality.
(C) We don't need to know the solution is guaranteed to work in order to try it (performing CPR doesn't guarantee the patient will live; should the paramedics therefore not use it on you?)
(D) As with (C), this one would be necessary if we were claiming that our proposal would be a complete and effective solution. However, nobody's claiming that here.
(E) still doesn't countermand the penultimate sentence of the passage. We don't depend on knowledge of how much we're charging now in order to claim we should be charging more.
But with (C) - she says we need (should) do this, which means that this is like a prescriptive argument. In prescriptive arguments the assumption is that the solution would work - so therefore I chose (C).
That (C) would suffice to prove her conclusion does not make it necessary.
Use your negate test—as I put it above, just because the result isn't guaranteed doesn't mean we shouldn't try it.
The necessary version of this answer would look something like An increase in tuition can result in a larger pool.
(A) says that the proposed explanation obtains in this case.
(D) says that the proposed explanation is the only one that obtains.
Consider this example:
My sister's breath is stinky. Since bad breath can be caused by poor diet, I've told her to watch what she eats. If she'll listen to me, her breath will improve!
This argument has assumed that my sister's breath is caused by her diet (A!). It has not assumed that diet is the only cause of her halitosis (D).
Clearer?
Hello D
I was confused between A and D like others. Actually I easily delete A because (A) says applies but University president said 'need to raise' so if A is true i thought the president had to say we raised tuition and fees then we increased the size. isn't it?
the president only said conditional form 'increase -> need to raise or tuition.' it means we don't know he applies it or not because of conditional form. I thought just mention one possible explanation -> make a conclusion, have to raise fee. I got a flaw what about other explanation can be more suitable for solving this. then I chose D
When I also negate D, there is additional explanation then we don't need to raise the tuition so I chose it.
Actually I don't know where it is wrong.
This argument has assumed that the possible explanation (charging too little) is true in this case (A!). It has not assumed that this possible explanation is the only cause of the problem (D).
Would B be right if it said "perceived quality"?
If it did say that, would A and B be saying the same thing then? Thanks!