Law School Discussion

These ?s are killing me

These ?s are killing me
« on: November 22, 2009, 09:04:12 PM »
Hi guys its me again I had trouble with these problems and seriously am stuck between 2 answers for both questions any help would be greatly appreciated

A number of seriously interested amateur astronomers have tested the new exodus refractor telescope. With it they were able to observe in crisp detail planetary features that were seen only as fuzzy images in their 8 inch (approximately 20 centimeter) Newtonian telescopes, with their wider appertures, gather more light than the 4 inch (approx 10 centimeter) Exodus. Given these amateur astronomers' observational findings any serious amateur astronomer ought to choose the exodus if he or she is buying a telescope for planetary observation.

Which one of the following most seriously weakens the arg?

B) image quality is only one of several different factors that taken together should determine the choice of a telescope for planetary observation

C) many serious amateur astronomers have no intention of buying a telescope for planetary observation

The correct answer is B--but how is c wrong? if they have no intention of buying it how could they as the conclusion says be compelled to choose it.



Motor oil serves to lubricate engines and thus retard engine wear. a study was conducted
to assess the effectiveness of various brands of motor oil by using them in taxi cabs over a 6k mile test period. all the oils did equally well in retarding wear on pistons and cylinders, the relevant parts of the engine. Hence, cheaper brands of oil are the best buys.

Which one of the following most weakens the argument

b) tests other than the ability to reduce engine wear also can reliably gauge the quality of motor oil

e) ability to retard engine wear is not the only property of motor oil important to the running of the engine

Hi guys--this one is a killer because I really thought B was the right answer...please help me--e was the right answer

Re: These ?s are killing me
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2009, 11:30:58 PM »
Thank you - but for the second one specifically answer choice B (tests other than the ability to reduce engine wear also can reliably gauge the quality of motor oil)- I actually understood that as meaning they missed accounting for something.

I thought B weakened this because if tests to see if they could retard wear proves that cheaper motor oils are the best buys--then what about other tests to check the efficiency of another area that helps determine which oil is better....? Can a lack of considering something be a good weakener in other weaken ?s I think I see this come up pretty often....

River

  • ****
  • 359
    • View Profile
Re: These ?s are killing me
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2009, 02:40:26 PM »
C) many serious amateur astronomers have no intention of buying a telescope for planetary observation
 But some still buys. Plus they do not have to BUY! Borrow from you and use or lease them!!!!


Motor oil serves to lubricate engines and thus retard engine wear. a study was conducted
to assess the effectiveness of various brands of motor oil by using them in taxi cabs over a 6k mile test period. all the oils did equally well in retarding wear on pistons and cylinders, the relevant parts of the engine. Hence, cheaper brands of oil are the best buys.

Which one of the following most weakens the argument

b) tests other than the ability to reduce engine wear also can reliably gauge the quality of motor oil
=test for its ability can prove qits quality.

e) ability to retard engine wear is not the only property of motor oil important to the running of the engine
Why do you need to buy the cheaper ones? because its ability. But e) says there are other reasons for your purchasing it fi you will and there are other elements for you to consider to buy it.
Then the arg for MO is not complete for your choice.