Q12 - Some gardening books published

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption (requires assumption)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Some books published by GP are flawed.
Evidence: If a book recommends adding compost but DOESN'T explain the basics of composting, it's flawed.
Some books published by GP recommend adding compost but DON'T explain the diff between hot/cold composting.

Answer Anticipation:
We can tell this question seems to want us to solve for a missing link/idea, since there is so much symbol repetition. We are given a rule that allows you to conclude that a gardening book is flawed. The conclusion is trying to conclude that some gardening books are flawed. So we're really just measuring "WAS the rule triggered?"

To trigger the rule and conclude that a gardening book is flawed, we need to know that "it didn't explain the basics of composting". The evidence tells us that GP's books "didn't explain the difference between hot and cold composting".

So we're missing a link that takes us from "if you didn't explain the diff between hot/cold composting, you didn't explain the basics of composting". Or, less conditionally, the author is assuming that "differentiating between hot/cold composting is among the basics of composting".

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Nowhere close to our prephrase. This is a classic "fake opposite" trap answer. The author said "things that are X are Y" and so this trap answer accuses the author of assuming "things that are ~X are ~Y".

(B) Nothing like our prephrase. The word "should" is a dead giveaway that this is out of scope, since the conclusion is not about what "should" be the case.

(C) Bingo! This says "if it doesn't include an explanation of diff between hot/cold, it isn't an explanation of the basics".

(D) Illegal negation (this says "if diff between hot/cold --> the basics of composting" and out of scope (it's not about whether someone understands the diff / the basics …. it's about whether the book explained the diff / the basics).

(E) Illegal negation. The author said that "if it doesn't explain the basics it's flawed", so this accuses him of assuming "if it does explain the basics, it's not flawed".

Takeaway/Pattern: Because the argument gave a conditional rule and attempted to apply it to derive its conclusion, we knew we had to figure out "how did the evidence fall short of triggering this conditional rule?"

#officialexplanation

[ca_teran1]

Hello

How would you negate D? How would you negate E? Thanks

[sumukh09]

Hello

How would you negate D? How would you negate E? Thanks

D negated: some people who understand the difference between hot and cold composting do not understand at least the basics of composting

E negated: at least one gardening book that includes an explanation of at least the basics of composting is flawed

Neither D nor E - negated - destroys the conclusion that some books are flawed.

C negated [an explanation of the basics of composting does not have to include an explanation of the difference of hot and cold composting] destroys the argument*

*argument: books are flawed because they do not explain at least the basics of composting (difference between hot and cold composting)

[kcozen]

Can someone please explain this question to me. I don't see how C is required. I chose D after having it narrowed down to D vs C, because I had no preference of one over the other.

Why must an explanation of the basics of composting include an explanation of the basics of hot vs cold? I thought this was sufficient for the basics of composting but not necessary.

[coldnjl]

Here is my thought on this question:
the conditional logic within this stimulus is
( if gardening book recommends adding compost --> ~ explain at least the basics of composting)-->Flawed
conclusion=some books by Garden path is flawed.
We know that one book by Garden path recommended anding compost, but it did not explain the difference between hot and cold composting.
Therefore, to get this conclusion of flawed, we need to show that the conditional in the sufficient condition is satisfied.
C states that an explanation of the basics of composting must include an explanation of the difference between hot and cold composting, thereby satisfying the initial conditional, triggering the flawed conclusion.