Q10 - In a test of fuel efficiency

[smiller]

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premises:
1. Car X and car Y yielded the same average fuel mileage.
2. Car X was driven in a less fuel-efficient manner.

Conclusion:
Car X is more fuel efficient.

Answer Anticipation:
In this case it's best to go with a general understanding of the argument: two things performed equally, even though the first was at a disadvantage. Therefore, the first performs better than the second.

Correct Answer:
(B)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Premise mismatch, missing premise, and conclusion mismatch. The premise in this answer tells us that X gave lower pain ratings than Y, not the same. There is no premise stating that one or the other was given stronger pinpricks, and the conclusion doesn't claim that one is less sensitive to pain, just that they experience pain differently.

(B) Correct. This has two hamsters performing in a similar manner (weight gain) even though one was at a disadvantage. The conclusion is that one had superior calorie-burning performance.

(C) Premise and conclusion mismatches. The premises provide a different type of comparison than the stimulus, and the conclusion makes a prediction rather than an evaluation.

(D) Premise mismatch, missing premise, and conclusion mismatches. The premise in this answer is about two people giving different estimates, not the same, and we aren't told that one is at a disadvantage. The conclusion is about one of the people making an error, not performing better than the other.

(E) Premise and conclusion mismatches. The premises provide a different type of comparison than the stimulus, and the conclusion predicts that Jean would perform worse in a certain situation.

Takeaway/Pattern: Match the Reasoning questions require you to understand the logical structure of an argument, and spot incorrect answers that have significant differences in their structures.

#officialexplanation

[csunnerberg13]

I was looking for a concrete explanation of this question and didn't find one so I thought I'd try one out and see what people think.

So we're trying to match the argument's reasoning, so I started by rewording the stimulus very vaguely. The argument basically says, In a test of Z, X and Y yielded the same results despite the fact that X was given a disadvantage that Y was not. Therefore, X must be better in terms of Z.

I really didn't see any answer choices that appealed to this direct rewording, but going through them I was able to eliminate things.

(A) is missing both the disadvantage given to one element and a conclusion about one thing being comparatively better than another. It simply concludes that they are "different" but we want a conclusion that is clearer about the difference - does Y or X experience it more? we don't know.

(B) wasn't perfect to me either - it's missing a "test" situation like we have in the stimulus. But it has just about everything else: 2 things being compared with a similar result - same weight gain - despite one side having a disadvantage - eating more - and then a conclusion that one of them must do something more than the other - burn calories. I kept it and went on eliminating

(C) gives a comparison of two things and then says a better way to do it would be to combine those two things. Totally different from the stimulus - eliminate.

(D) was the toughest for me to eliminate and I would love to hear other people's take on it. I ended up eliminating it because there was no disadvantage given to either party being compared, so I thought C worked better than D.

(E) makes a conclusion about what would happen from removing something based on what happens when that something is still there. That's incorrect logic but not the match we are looking for.

A follow up question for anyone who might know...This question doesn't identify the stimulus has flawed logic, but it appears to be. Can this be flawed logic even if the stem doesn't specify it as such?

[ohthatpatrick]

Great explanation!

Just for readers' reference, my rewording of the original was something like, "If X and Y perform equally when something is working against X, then X would perform better than Y if all things were equal."

Again, no perfect match, but I think both of us were close enough to get this.

To your broad question about matching questions, it's TYPICALLY the case that matching questions that DON'T mention 'flawed'/'erroneous'/'questionable' reasoning give us arguments with pretty sound reasoning (often airtight).

But don't take it for granted. The original argument and correct answer's argument might both be somewhat loose. It's still true that we didn't need to look for the flaw to get this answer. So I think it still behooves us to think about how the argument is designed to work, rather than about how it fails to work.

I think (D) is eliminated, as you said, because there's no component that matches up with "even though X was driven in a less fuel-efficient manner" / "even though our hamster ate more than theirs".

And the conclusion isn't the same time of claim. The original conclusion and (B)'s conclusion are sweeping statements that make a comparison between X and Y.

(D)'s conclusion is a qualified statement that specifies for a subset of cases, some comparison applies.

If anyone else has lingering questions, let us know.