Please help tie these two strengthen CR's together..

[rhitian]

So I have come across 2 problems that in my opinion are very similar and I got both of them wrong. I am having a bit of difficulty making that leap from the very apparent second best choice ( also the trap) to the correct answer.

I think they are both strengthen questions... that means outside info is OK. I need help with reasoning and justification for the assimilation of this seemingly off topic info into the argument. I chose B for 1 and E for 2 which are very similar wrong choices. my understanding is that they are premises and already accounted for in the original information given in the argument. But I am having trouble justifying them as Wrong answers... because as we know every answer that is not a right answer is a Wrong answer...

Thank you.

source: Manhattan CATs

(1) Almost every modern kitchen today is equipped with a microwave oven, mainly because microwave ovens offer a fast and convenient way of cooking and reheating food. Indeed, it has become a standard appliance in most households. Studies have shown, however, that microwave ovens are not completely safe and their use has occasionally resulted in serious injury. Because of this, some consumer advocates argue that microwave ovens should not be so readily accepted as a standard appliance until they can be certified to be completely safe.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument of the consumer advocates?
(A)Microwave ovens have taken much of the joy out of cooking.
(B)There have been many reported incidences of people who have been scalded by liquids superheated in microwave ovens.
(C)Absolute safety is the only criterion by which an appliance should be judged to be acceptable as "standard."
(D)There is no such thing as a completely safe appliance.
(E)Stoves and ovens that use natural gas consume energy much more efficiently than microwave ovens.


(2) The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?
(A)For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
(B)While the government’s calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
(C)Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government’s calculation method.
(D)Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
(E)The government’s calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

[jnelson0612]

So I have come across 2 problems that in my opinion are very similar and I got both of them wrong. I am having a bit of difficulty making that leap from the very apparent second best choice ( also the trap) to the correct answer.

I think they are both strengthen questions... that means outside info is OK. I need help with reasoning and justification for the assimilation of this seemingly off topic info into the argument. I chose B for 1 and E for 2 which are very similar wrong choices. my understanding is that they are premises and already accounted for in the original information given in the argument. But I am having trouble justifying them as Wrong answers... because as we know every answer that is not a right answer is a Wrong answer...

Thank you.

source: Manhattan CATs

(1) Almost every modern kitchen today is equipped with a microwave oven, mainly because microwave ovens offer a fast and convenient way of cooking and reheating food. Indeed, it has become a standard appliance in most households. Studies have shown, however, that microwave ovens are not completely safe and their use has occasionally resulted in serious injury. Because of this, some consumer advocates argue that microwave ovens should not be so readily accepted as a standard appliance until they can be certified to be completely safe.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument of the consumer advocates?
(A)Microwave ovens have taken much of the joy out of cooking.
(B)There have been many reported incidences of people who have been scalded by liquids superheated in microwave ovens.
(C)Absolute safety is the only criterion by which an appliance should be judged to be acceptable as "standard."
(D)There is no such thing as a completely safe appliance.
(E)Stoves and ovens that use natural gas consume energy much more efficiently than microwave ovens.


(2) The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?
(A)For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
(B)While the government’s calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
(C)Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government’s calculation method.
(D)Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
(E)The government’s calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

rhitian,
To me your chosen answers are similar because they are very, very close to repeating premises in the argument. Stating a premise again isn't going to help you as much in this type of question; instead, you should probably try to affirm an assumption. Look at the logic gap or leap that the author made from the premises to the assumption.

An especially good example of this can be seen in the first argument.
Premise: Microwave ovens have been associated with injuries.
Conclusion: They should not be certified as standard appliances until they are completely safe.

Wait! We started out talking about injuries, yet the conclusion introduces the idea of a microwave as a standard appliance. We need to link those two in an assumption and can affirm that assumption as a strengthen answer.

[gurvindersingh2004]

Hi Nelson ,
while going through the mgmat cr guide , assumption chapter , i found that a valid assumption could also be one that shows a premise to be feasible . An assumption could also that a premise has the ability to take place .
Therefore going by this logic isnt Option B in CR1 a valid choice .
Another question where an option is purported to be the right answer because it shows the feasibility of the premise .

Analyst: The pace of technological development brings a constant stream of new devices to the market, and many of them enjoy commercial success. But announcing new technology too soon after the introduction of a successful device can backfire. Once consumers hear about the new device, they may stop buying the one currently on sale. So, if a company wishes to announce the upcoming sale of a new device, it should wait until purchases of the old device have begun to decline.

Which of the following, if true, would best support the analyst's main assertion?
(A)New technology often becomes less expensive after an initial surge in sales.
(B)Media outlets, such as television programs and magazines, often report on the planned introduction of new devices while the sales of old devices are still strong. CORRECT
(C)Many consumers are unable to determine whether new technology is superior to current technology.
(D)Surveys have shown that some consumers make only one or two technology purchases per year, whereas others make more frequent purchases.
(E)Consumers tend to be loyal to technology companies whose products they enjoy using.

In this CR the right answer is B .But B just repeats a premise that if the company announces the launch of a new product , the public will come to hear about it . So why is repeating the premise acceptable in the cr quoted and not the cr , the subject of this discussion

[url]
analyst-the-pace-of-technological-development-brings-a-t403.html[/url]

[ven2]

Is B the right answer for 1 and E the right answer for 2 ?

Are you questioning it or are you sure

[jnelson0612]

Hi Nelson ,
while going through the mgmat cr guide , assumption chapter , i found that a valid assumption could also be one that shows a premise to be feasible . An assumption could also that a premise has the ability to take place .
Therefore going by this logic isnt Option B in CR1 a valid choice .
Another question where an option is purported to be the right answer because it shows the feasibility of the premise .

Yes, an assumption can make a premise feasible if it is not currently feasible. But with the microwave problem, the premise is perfectly feasible. It is not a weak or unlikely premise that needs to be strengthened through the assumption.

Analyst: The pace of technological development brings a constant stream of new devices to the market, and many of them enjoy commercial success. But announcing new technology too soon after the introduction of a successful device can backfire. Once consumers hear about the new device, they may stop buying the one currently on sale. So, if a company wishes to announce the upcoming sale of a new device, it should wait until purchases of the old device have begun to decline.

Which of the following, if true, would best support the analyst's main assertion?
(A)New technology often becomes less expensive after an initial surge in sales.
(B)Media outlets, such as television programs and magazines, often report on the planned introduction of new devices while the sales of old devices are still strong. CORRECT
(C)Many consumers are unable to determine whether new technology is superior to current technology.
(D)Surveys have shown that some consumers make only one or two technology purchases per year, whereas others make more frequent purchases.
(E)Consumers tend to be loyal to technology companies whose products they enjoy using.
In this CR the right answer is B .But B just repeats a premise that if the company announces the launch of a new product , the public will come to hear about it . So why is repeating the premise acceptable in the cr quoted and not the cr , the subject of this discussion

[url]
analyst-the-pace-of-technological-development-brings-a-t403.html[/url]

I don't see B as a premise in the argument. Can you quote the exact language that you think mirrors B in the argument? Thanks!

[muzumdar.siddharth]

An especially good example of this can be seen in the first argument.
Premise: Microwave ovens have ben associated with injuries.
Conclusion: They should not be certified as standard appliances until they are completely safe.

Wait! We started out talking about injuries, yet the conclusion introduces the idea of a microwave as a standard appliance. We need to link those two in an assumption and can affirm that assumption as a strengthen answer.

Hi,
In the first argument about microwaves, I have understood the premise and the conclusion as the ones mentioned above. However, I am unable to find the difference between the Assumption and the Strengthener in this question. If answer choice C is the correct answer for this Strengthen question, would it also be the same answer if the question were "Find the Assumption"?

How do we differentiate between an Assumption and a Strengthener in such a case? Would the assumption serve as a strengthener if the other options do not match up? Additionally, supporting a premise, as option B does, is not sufficient to Strengthen?

Would be glad if you could help me understand something that I am missing.

[jnelson0612]

An especially good example of this can be seen in the first argument.
Premise: Microwave ovens have ben associated with injuries.
Conclusion: They should not be certified as standard appliances until they are completely safe.

Wait! We started out talking about injuries, yet the conclusion introduces the idea of a microwave as a standard appliance. We need to link those two in an assumption and can affirm that assumption as a strengthen answer.

Hi,
In the first argument about microwaves, I have understood the premise and the conclusion as the ones mentioned above. However, I am unable to find the difference between the Assumption and the Strengthener in this question. If answer choice C is the correct answer for this Strengthen question, would it also be the same answer if the question were "Find the Assumption"?

How do we differentiate between an Assumption and a Strengthener in such a case? Would the assumption serve as a strengthener if the other options do not match up? Additionally, supporting a premise, as option B does, is not sufficient to Strengthen?

Would be glad if you could help me understand something that I am missing.

Exactly! Sometimes an assumption and a strengthen answer are the exact same thing, or very close! Keep in mind that an assumption is something that we are ASSUMING, meaning that it is not a fact. An assumption may or may not be true.

Here's a very basic argument:
Chocolate contains antioxidants. Therefore, chocolate is good for your health.

Conclusion: Chocolate is good for your health.
WHY?
Premise: Chocolate contains antioxidants.
Assumption: Antioxidants are good for your health. (notice how the assumption bridges the gap between the wording in the premise and the conclusion)

A way to strengthen this argument is to affirm that the assumption is true: Antioxidants are in fact good for your health.

To weaken we attack the assumption: Antioxidants have not been shown to have any impact on human health.

So a strengthen answer is often the one that just says that the assumption is in fact true.

Does this help? Hope so!

[muzumdar.siddharth]

Yes it does absolutely. Thank you very much. :)

[tim]

glad to hear it!

[gaurav.wip]

Hi,

I need to confirm whether the logic I am using to arrive at the correct answer is right.

CCS ---> SA: An appliance, which is certified to be completely safe can be considered a standard appliance.

I am not sure but is it fine to associate this question with cause and reasoning i.e A cause B can be strengthened by stating that nothing else other than A to cause B which is done by C in the microwave question.

Tutors can you please throw some light on this question.

Thanks in advance!!

[tim]

I really can't figure out what your question is. Your paragraph has too many grammar problems for me to get a handle on what you are trying to ask. You haven't even included a question mark! :)

[chandnigaglani]

Hi Nelson, Ron, Stacey

Sorry for bringing up this old post... But I'm confused about the strengthen questions in which there is an option between an answer choice (a) that provides extra information in support of the conclusion and (b) that states an assumption.

I read your post (see below). My takeaway from this was that sometimes there is an overlap between strengthen and assumption question. In such cases, we must pick the answer choice that states the assumption (necessary information that validates the conclusion). (Please correct me if I'm missing something).

However, I also read another post on this forum.. cr-flagrant-fouls-t13362.html .
This deals with a strengthen question. It's a similar case and I was confused between the options B and E. The way I see it..

Option B must be one of the assumptions (the negation of which causes the conclusion to collapse) and E provides the extra information that supports the conclusion. However, this post advises to not confuse a strengthen type question with an assumption type. Following this rule, I consciously eliminated C on the "Microwave" question and chose B. (As C states the assumption while B provides that extra information).

It would be great if you could clarify this doubt for me at the earliest.

An especially good example of this can be seen in the first argument.
Premise: Microwave ovens have ben associated with injuries.
Conclusion: They should not be certified as standard appliances until they are completely safe.

Wait! We started out talking about injuries, yet the conclusion introduces the idea of a microwave as a standard appliance. We need to link those two in an assumption and can affirm that assumption as a strengthen answer.

Hi,
In the first argument about microwaves, I have understood the premise and the conclusion as the ones mentioned above. However, I am unable to find the difference between the Assumption and the Strengthener in this question. If answer choice C is the correct answer for this Strengthen question, would it also be the same answer if the question were "Find the Assumption"?

How do we differentiate between an Assumption and a Strengthener in such a case? Would the assumption serve as a strengthener if the other options do not match up? Additionally, supporting a premise, as option B does, is not sufficient to Strengthen?

Would be glad if you could help me understand something that I am missing.

Exactly! Sometimes an assumption and a strengthen answer are the exact same thing, or very close! Keep in mind that an assumption is something that we are ASSUMING, meaning that it is not a fact. An assumption may or may not be true.

Here's a very basic argument:
Chocolate contains antioxidants. Therefore, chocolate is good for your health.

Conclusion: Chocolate is good for your health.
WHY?
Premise: Chocolate contains antioxidants.
Assumption: Antioxidants are good for your health. (notice how the assumption bridges the gap between the wording in the premise and the conclusion)

A way to strengthen this argument is to affirm that the assumption is true: Antioxidants are in fact good for your health.

To weaken we attack the assumption: Antioxidants have not been shown to have any impact on human health.

So a strengthen answer is often the one that just says that the assumption is in fact true.

Does this help? Hope so!

P.S. - This is the first time I've posted on this forum. Not sure if I've done it right. Let me know if I need to make any changes. :)

Thanks.

[jnelson0612]

Hi chandnigaglani,
Welcome to the forum! Your post was so long and included so many words that I'm not reposting it here in my answer, but I'll do my best to answer your question (I'm going a little off memory of what you asked, so let me know if I miss something). :-)

Something to be aware of is that the Critical Reasoning strategy guide book that was referenced and quoted from in the thread that you linked was version 4. We now have the version 5 Critical Reasoning strategy guide. The way that we teach Critical Reasoning has evolved since the version 4 book was written; we now teach Strengthen and Weaken as being highly related to the assumption. In fact we label them as "assumption family" questions. As I stated up above, the best way to strengthen an argument is to affirm an assumption, because I take away the possibility that the assumption is not in fact true. An assumption not being true is generally the biggest threat to my argument, because it blows up my conclusion. If I had a choice between affirming the main, core assumption and just strengthening the conclusion some other way, I'm going to affirm the assumption.

That is why I always break down my assumption, strengthen, weaken, and evaluate the argument questions the way that I did up above. Once I identify the assumption finding the correct answer is often much easier and I don't get distracted by attractive red herring answers.

I hope that this helps, and again, welcome!

[chandnigaglani]

Hi Nelson,

Thank you for your reply. That sure clears my doubt. (Yes, my post did get longer than I intended it to be :))

However, I am unable to apply this same concept on the question discussed earlier (Source: MGMAT CAT):

Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the league have become concerned with the number of flagrant fouls occurring during league games. This past season, the number of flagrant fouls was double the number from the season before. League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls.

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the officials’ plan will be effective?


A-Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.

B-League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.

C-Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls.

D-A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.

E-Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.

Between B and E. Isn't B the assumption that must be affirmed in order to strengthen the argument? I see B as an assumption because the negation technique works fine here.

Negation- B: League referees have not been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and (therefore may not) report incidents involving such fouls.

No recognition of fouls---> Less/No suspensions---> plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season (conclusion) may not work after all.

Please could you point out where am I going wrong here?

(Also, my exam's in the next 10 days.. so it would be great if I could receive a reply at the earliest! :))

Thanks

[jlucero]

The problem with this, is you haven't proved the conclusion isn't true. The idea here is we want to reduce the number of fouls by implementing suspensions. Negating B tells us refs haven't been trained but that doesn't mean that they still can't give out fouls which result in suspensions.