Can someone try this LR problem?

[TrojanChispas]

A certain experimental fungicidecauses no harm to garden plants, though only if it is diluted to at least 10 parts water to one part fungicide. Moreover, this fungicide is known to be so effective against powdery mildew that it has the capacity to eliminate itcompletely from rose plants. This fungicide, as long as it is sufficiently diluted, provides a means of eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants that involves no risk of harming the plants.

which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a. there is not an alternative method, besides application of this fungicide, for eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants without harming the plants.

b. when the fungicide is sufficiently diluted, it does not present andy risk of harm to people, animals, or beneficial insects.

c. powdery mildew is the only fungal infection that affects rose plants

d. if a fungicide is to be effective against powdery mildew on rose plants, it must eliminate the powdery mildew completely.

e. the effectiveness of the fungicide does not depend on its being more concentrated than one part in ten parts of water



any guesses?


e si rewsna eht

[katrina at law]

I'd go with E? 

[zxcvbnm]

E. We know the fungicide is safe when diluted, and we know the fungicide kills mildew, but these are separate facts -- we are not told that the fungicide kills mildew when it is diluted.

[pale_blue_sun]

Well

A certain experimental fungicidecauses no harm to garden plants, though only if it is diluted to at least 10 parts water to one part fungicide. Moreover, this fungicide is known to be so effective against powdery mildew that it has the capacity to eliminate itcompletely from rose plants. This fungicide, as long as it is sufficiently diluted, provides a means of eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants that involves no risk of harming the plants.

which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a. there is not an alternative method, besides application of this fungicide, for eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants without harming the plants.

b. when the fungicide is sufficiently diluted, it does not present andy risk of harm to people, animals, or beneficial insects.

c. powdery mildew is the only fungal infection that affects rose plants

d. if a fungicide is to be effective against powdery mildew on rose plants, it must eliminate the powdery mildew completely.

e. the effectiveness of the fungicide does not depend on its being more concentrated than one part in ten parts of water



any guesses?


e si rewsna eht

Choice A doesn't really "fit" as the answer...even if there was an alternative, so what...the assumption that there is no alternative method is NOT RELEVANT here.


B is tempting...  True the fungicide may be OK for the plants (as long as it's properly diluted)...but there is not mention of it's effect on "people, animals, or beneficial insects"...  Hmm...I don't know about this one.  It sort of sounds like it's repeating the stem...but further analysis reveals that it's not really doing that...  A possible answer.


C is like A.  How is the assumption that "powdery mildew is the only fungal infection that affects rose plants" relevant?  That's what the stem is talking about...  It didn't state that this fungicide gets rid of all fungal infections...did it?

D is also not the correct one.  The second sentence of the stem reads, "fungicide is known to be so effective against powdery mildew that it has the capacity to eliminate itcompletely from rose plants".  The use of the word words "so effective" means that this fungicide is a really GOOD one, that it goes above and beyond the call of duty.  So D is wrong.  A fungicide DOES NOT have to completely eliminate the powerdery mildew completley.  The fact that this one does is just a cherry on the cake.

E looks good too.  One must assume that "the effectiveness of the fungicide does not depend on its being more concentrated than one part in ten parts of water".  But there is no explicit connection b/w effectivness and the concentration...  

I'm a bit confused on this one.  It's either B or E.  I'm tempted to say that B is the answer...but since you have "e si rewsna eht" at the bottom of your post...I don't know!  

So I'd go w/ C.

[JonnyLee]

A certain experimental fungicide causes no harm to garden plants, though only if it is diluted to at least 10 parts water to one part fungicide. Moreover, this fungicide is known to be so effective against powdery mildew that it has the capacity to eliminate it completely from rose plants. This fungicide, as long as it is sufficiently diluted, provides a means of eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants that involves no risk of harming the plants.

which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

LOOK FOR THE GAP OR LEAP. If it’s essential to the argument, it’s the assumption the passage relies on.

a. there is not an alternative method, besides application of this fungicide, for eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants without harming the plants.

Not stated.  The passage states nothing about this being the only way to eliminate fungus on plants.  CROSS OFF and move on.

b. when the fungicide is sufficiently diluted, it does not present any risk of harm to people, animals, or beneficial insects.

Unstated/irrelevant.  It does not state anything about being harmful or not to people, animals, or beneficial insects.  This doesn’t affect the argument.  It only states it causes no harm to garden plants, specifically the rose.  CROSS OFF and move on.

c. powdery mildew is the only fungal infection that affects rose plants

Once again, unstated/irrelevant.  It does not state anything about mildew being the ONLY fungal infection. It only states that this fungicide will eliminate mildew completely on rose plants. Even if it were, who gives a flying @#!*?  CROSS OFF and move on.

d. if a fungicide is to be effective against powdery mildew on rose plants, it must eliminate the powdery mildew completely.

This is actually an overstatement.  It says it’s so powerful it can remove all, but doesn’t say it HAS TO remove all on roses to be effective.  CROSS OFF, laugh, and move on.

e. the effectiveness of the fungicide does not depend on its being more concentrated than one part in ten parts of water

POE- process of elimination.  You should still look at this, go back and review the other responses A-D to make sure you didn’t overlook anything. 

This statement actually has to do with the power of the fungicide, and you can make up your own gaps.  The importance of the claim is “no harm to plant.”  Focus on this.  It’s the selling point.  Think, for instance, maybe some users don’t dilute the solution to 1/10, but instead 2 part water to 1 part concentrate, and the *&^% ends up being more powerful than it should be.  So it kills mildew, but also kills your poor f-ing rose.  It’s the only one that ties both the concentration with the claim of being unharmful. 

Also. What if you dilute the *&^% to 50 parts water to one part fungicide, it ain’t gonna work. Just stretch the numbers out and see if it would still hold true.

The other ones are a joke.  I’d rate this as 5/10 on difficulty, but maybe you just are new to these.

Just remember the key points to tackling ASS-umption problems, and be  methodical about it.  Don’t get fooled by red herrings or garbage.

Good luck.

[londongirl]

I think it's E. I think B's wrong because it is irrelevant or, in Kaplan talk, 'out of scope'. Effect on animals or people has nothing to to with the stem, with effectiveness in combatting mildew. We are told it 'poses no harm to plants'. This is our only concern here.
Just my two cents.

[JonnyLee]

i wasn't clear on that.  my explanation shows that E is by far the correct answer.  NO doubts. 

[TrojanChispas]

i took b originally because of the beneficialinsects that may help plants that if the chemical affected could affect the plant

[JonnyLee]

blunt,

you're assuming too much on your own. you're making a connection between insects who may help in removing fungus from the plant and thus aiding the fungicide/and or plant, but it's not a claim of the passage. 

if the concentrate is stronger, than it will be effective in removing mildew, but as a side effect, harm the plant, and this would tear the claim apart, which states that the fungicide is not harmful to plants.   

the claim states that 1/10th concentration will be effective, but what if that effectivenes is due to a stronger solution?  this is the assumption, that it is not a stronger solution that is killing the mildew.

[JonnyLee]

forties,

think of an analogy.

let's say Advil claims that users who take a regular dosage (2 tablets) have stated in surveys that the pain reliever gets rid of their headaches effectively, and that the regular dosage causes no health risks to the human body. 

an assumption would be that people do not take more than the regular dosage (and that 2 tablets is enough to kill the pain) but it isn't in many cases. lord knows that I do, almost every time i have a really large headache.  i take 2 tablets, then half an hour later, i take 2 more.  and headache is gone, but darn, i have i alot of ibuprofen in my body, and i know for a fact that too much is bad for my stomach.  so that may be one assumption of Advil's claim.  get it?