23. Candidate: The government spends $500 million more each year promoting highway safety than it spends combating cigarette smoking. But each year many more people die from smoking-related diseases than die in highway accidents. So the government would save lives by shifting funds from highway safety programs to antismoking programs.The flawed reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the candidateís argument?(A) The government enforces the speed limit on freeways much more closely than on tollways. But many more people die each year in auto accidents on freeways than die in auto accidents on tollways. So the government would save lives by shifting funds from enforcement of speed limits on freeways to enforcement of speed limits on tollways.:enforcement--x--shifting funds?(B) A certain professional musician spends several times as many hours practicing guitar as she spends practicing saxophone. But she is hired much more often to play saxophone than to play guitar, so she would increase her number of playing engagements by spending less time practicing guitar and more time practicing saxophone.:several time=more time(C) Automobiles burn more gas per minute on highways than on residential streets. But they get fewer miles per gallon on residential streets. Therefore, gas would be saved by driving less on residential streets and more on highways.:per minute---x---per gallon (D) The local swim team spends many more hours practicing the backstroke than it spends practicing the breaststroke. But the teamís lap times for the breaststroke are much better than its times for the backstroke, so the team would win more swim meets if it spent less time practicing the backstroke and more time practicing the breaststroke.:lap time---x---much bettre---x---less time(E) Banks have a higher profit margin on loans that have a high interest rate than on loans that have a low interest rate. But borrowers are willing to borrow larger sums at low rates than at high rates. Therefore, banks would be more profitable if they gave more loans on low rates and fewer loans at high rates. :banks---x---borrowersNow look at the consistency of stimuls and line of args; if not consistent, it should not be in paralle
I thought this was a hard question. But the only difference that I saw between answer choice B and D was in the second sentence.Stimulus: But each year many more people die from smoking-related diseases than die in highway accidents.Answer B: But she is hired much more often to play saxophone that to play guitarBoth of these have a reason as to why one of them is better than the other.Answer choice D just merely states that the the teamís lap times for the breaststroke are much better than its times for the backstroke, and does not mention why one is better than the other until the conclusion.If Answer choice D said " But the team wins more often using the breaststroke than using the backstroke, so the team would win more swim meets...This is just my reasoning as how I would differentiate between the right and wrong answer. I'm sure there are other things wrong with answer D that I am probably not seeing either.In any case, I hope this helps a little.
the order of why one is better than the other is irrelevant. what matters is that evidence is there.to me, B and D look the same:B: G>SG<S=> G<SD: BA>BRBA<BR=>BA<BRthe direction action movement from one to another (including the conclusion) is also the same.
Quotethe order of why one is better than the other is irrelevant. what matters is that evidence is there.to me, B and D look the same:B: G>SG<S=> G<SD: BA>BRBA<BR=>BA<BRthe direction action movement from one to another (including the conclusion) is also the same. The structure of the argument between answer B and D are different. Stimulus - many more people die...would save lives by shifting In your analysis of answer B, G<S, you are missing the key component. why G<S? Because she is hired much more often to do that. Now this in turn is used to support the conclusion, G<S.Structure - Hired more much often...she would increase the number of her playing engagementsIn comparing this to answer D, your analysis only reveals that BA<BR in the second sentence. There is no explanation why BA<BR. But in the conclusion, the reason mysteriously pops up which is winning.Structure - lap times are better...team would win more swim meets.Better lap times does not equate to more team wins.The direction and movement from one to another is similar, but the key components making up the structure leading to the conclusion is different.
I think in the mind of the author better lap times = more team wins.otherwise, if Better lap times does not equate to more team winsthen how can you equate thatgovernment would save lives by shifting funds from enforcement of speed limits on freeways to enforcement of speed limits on tollwaysis the assumption that the author is making. Saving lives does not have to happen if the government will shift funds. The trend could get reversed and more people would die in highway accidents than from smoking related diseases. Smoking related diseases could have other triggers, etc...