Q14 - In order for life to exist on the

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning

Stimulus Breakdown:
Life on P23 → Water
No Water
Therefore, no life

Answer Anticipation:
This is a simple, contrapositive-based argument. It's valid. I'm looking for an answer that sets up a conditional, negates the necessary condition, and concludes the negation of the sufficient.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Second premise mismatch. This answer has a second conditional premise, so it's a mismatch.

(B) Premise and conclusion mismatch. The premises in the stimulus are all certain, and this answer throws around "might". The conclusion is also not definitive ("not necessarily"), unlike the stimulus ("is no").

(C) Outside of the order of the premises, this is an exact match:
Planning an increase → Buying new equipment
Not buying new equipment
Therefore, not planning an increase
Since order is one of the two things that doesn't matter in MtR questions (the other being topic), this is the answer.

(D) Invalid. This argument commits an illegal reversal (the first sentence is the necessary condition of the second, not the negation of it).

(E) Tempting! However, this answer doesn't rely on the negation of the necessary condition in the premise (in other words, it doesn't rely on the contrapositive). Therefore, it's a mismatch. Also, there's an argument that this is invalid (timeline).

Takeaway/Pattern:
Order and topic don't matter in Match the Reasoning questions. Everything else (generally) does.

#officialexplanation

[andrewgong01]

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning


(E) Tempting! However, this answer doesn't rely on the negation of the necessary condition in the premise (in other words, it doesn't rely on the contrapositive). Therefore, it's a mismatch. Also, there's an argument that this is invalid (timeline).

Takeaway/Pattern:
Order and topic don't matter in Match the Reasoning questions. Everything else (generally) does.

What did you mean by "E" is invalid because of a timeline? I found "E" valid because it gives a conditional (If export decrease, trade deficit increases) and the sufficient has been triggered.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think he was just saying that when exports decrease, we know that the trade deficit will (at some point) increase.

But maybe it's not an immediate effect. So the conclusion might be invalid. Even if an increased trade deficit is a definite eventuality, it might not have occurred yet.