Q1 - Rhett: Otto gives me

[smiller]

Question Type:
Identify the Disagreement

Stimulus Breakdown:
Rhett presents an argument:
Premise: Otto has to go by Rhett's house on the way to work.
Intermediate Conclusion: Giving Rhett a ride won't increase Otto's fuel cost.
Main Conclusion: Rhett shouldn't have to pay Otto for fuel.

Barbara claims that Rhett's argument is flawed, using an analogy as support. By the same logic, Rhett should be able to warm his house using warm air from an unused room in Barbara's house, if it wouldn't cost Barbara more money.

Answer Anticipation:
Barbara is questioning the logic in Rhett's argument. She doesn't directly dispute his premise: she never says that Otto doesn't have to go by Rhett's house. Barbara also doesn't disagree with Rhett's claim about Otto's fuel cost staying the same: in Barbara's analogy, Rhett's actions don't increase her expenses, either. In claiming that Rhett's logic is flawed, Barbara's point seems to be that Rhett's argument does not support his conclusion. Even if Otto's costs stay the same, this doesn't prove that Rhett should ride for free.

The correct answer will identify their point of disagreement.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Half Scope: Rhett states that Otto "expects" Rhett to pay. We might question whether "expects" means the same as "requires," but we really don't need to. For choice (A) to be correct, Barbara would need to dispute the fact that Otto wants to be paid, which she never does.

(B) This is correct. We don't know this for sure, because Barbara only states that Rhett's logic is flawed. She never directly states that Rhett should pay. She doesn't think his argument proves that he shouldn't have to. However, the question stem asks for the answer that is most supported, and we don't really find any support for the others.

(C) Contradicted: Rhett states that this is not true, and Barbara's analogy is also about a situation that doesn't increase her expenses, so she's not claiming that Otto's expenses will increase.

(D) Half Scope: This might seem tempting at first, but we don't see Rhett's response to Barbara, so we have no idea what he thinks about her analogy. Maybe he agrees that he has no right to the warm air in her house, but he thinks this has nothing to do with Otto's car. Or maybe he's completely swayed by Barbara's analogy, and agrees that he should not steal her air. We just don't know.

(E) Out of Scope: Barbara is using an analogy to show that Rhett's logic is flawed. An analogy doesn't have to describe something that could actually happen. Barbara's exact words are "...if you could divert it..." She never claims that this could actually occur.

Takeaway/Pattern:
In this type of question, the first person's statement will usually contain an argument. Try to understand the exact part of the argument that the second person is targeting with their statement. This helps prepare you for the answers, but it's most useful to keep an eye open for wrong answers. If an answer choice describes an issue that one person, or both, has no opinion about, that can't be the point of disagreement.

#officialexplanation