Q24 - It now seems clear

[vswamy]

The stimulus states that the significant role predicted for computers has not become a reality in the classroom and then the author points to a decline in sales of computers as proof of this.

The error sounds like the author assumes that the decline in sales is the only reason for the reason computers do not play a significant role in the classroom when in fact other reasons could explain this as well.
I chose answer choice A because it says that government legislation for reduction of automobile emissions is partially successful because the 20 largest cities contain smaller numbers of pollutants. In my opinion, other factors could have played a role in this rather than government legislation such as a larger number of citizens voluntarily choosing to bike to work rather than drive a gas-guzzling automobile.

However, the answer is D. I could also see why the answer is D but what makes D a more attractive choice above A. Could someone explain this to me as well as why the other choices are wrong as well? Thanks for any help!

[bbirdwell]

The key to answering these questions correctly is to make a good up-front analysis of the original argument before proceeding to the choices. The better you know what kind of "template" you're looking for, the better you'll be able to eliminate the bad choices.

The error in this argument is not a causal one, as you suggested. Nowhere does the author suggest that the decline in sales is the ONLY reason... nor is the decline in sales really a "reason" at all. It's a piece of evidence -- an indicator -- not a cause.

So an analysis of the argument might look like this:

Conclusion: Computers don't have a very significant role in classroom.

Premise: There has been a decline in sales over the past year.

From this point, it seems rather clear what the flaw is, doesn't it? The author is equating a drop in sales with a lack of significance.

We should identify the choice with this same flaw.

(A) the conclusion here is not a good match -- "at least partially successful" -- nor is the reasoning. This choice is indeed a causal argument, so I see why you chose it originally, having mis-identified the original flaw.

(B) not even close. An idea whose time has come?

(C) not even close, the conclusion is a future prediction.

(D) an exact match! Conclusion: Consumers have found little use for microwaves. Premise: Sales have dropped in the past year.

(E) not even close.

[cyt5015]

I thought "seems clear" does not match "apparent"; It turns out I was wrong. Probably, I focused too much on the modifier instead of the reasoning flaw itself.

[WaltGrace1983]

I thought "seems clear" does not match "apparent"; It turns out I was wrong. Probably, I focused too much on the modifier instead of the reasoning flaw itself.

"Seems clear" is actually a very strong match for "apparent." Both mean that something is fairly "visible."

[aaronc.duong]

I got this question right, and I see the equating of the two terms, but couldn't the error in reasoning also have been mistaking continuous purchasing of new computers as a necessary condition for computers to play a significant role in the classroom, when it is actually just a sufficient one? A constant stream of newly computers suggests that they DO play a significant role, otherwise why would they be buying them?