Q15 - A well-known sports figure

[weiwu0221]

This is a Match the Reasoning question for sure. But it seems that all answer choices are logically different from the text. Why is B correct? What did I miss in this question? Thank you for your help!

[noah]

The basic structure of the stimulus is as follows:

X and Y don't go together
Y is happening.
THEREFORE, X is not.

(B) has the same structure. Working on critical emergencies and less serious ones can't go together. Less serious ones got treated. THEREFORE, critical ones didn't happen

Each of the wrong answers is missing a pair of phenomena that can't go together. One could argue, for example, that in (E) butter knives and sharpness form the pair, but the stimulus has the pair's mutual exclusivity explicitly stated. All of the answer choices are also mismatched with the stimulus' conclusion. We want to hear that one of the elements in the problematic pair will not occur. None of the answers have that.

[nthakka]

Great explanation Noah! I just want to add about (E), that the conclusion has "may". This element of uncertainty in the conclusion does not match up with the stimulus, which is much more definitive: "she will NOT be making any publicity appearances in London".

[T.J.]

In addition to the exclusivity between two events that Noah mentioned, there is actually one other similarity between the stimulus and (B), in that they both bring up a generalization, namely, two events cannot happen together, and then apply it to a specific date ("this week", "on Monday").

[a8l367]

The basic structure of the stimulus is as follows:

X and Y don't go together
Y is happening.
THEREFORE, X is not.

How do you come to that structure?

Why the structure not like that:
If X (play/publ) then Y (no publ/no play)

Should we always consider Y (no publ/no play) as NO Y (play/publ)? It it kind of a rule or something?

[AlexisE386]

The basic structure of the stimulus is as follows:

X and Y don't go together
Y is happening.
THEREFORE, X is not.

How do you come to that structure?

Why the structure not like that:
If X (play/publ) then Y (no publ/no play)

Should we always consider Y (no publ/no play) as NO Y (play/publ)? It it kind of a rule or something?

Your structure does not fully present the argument in the stimulus.

'X and Y don't go together' means that if X, then not Y AND if Y, then not X. This is what the stimulus tries to say. If bookstore appearance, then no playing in competition AND if playing in competition, then no bookstore appearance.

however, your structure only contains one side.