Q17 - From a book review: The authors blithely

[faryalroshan]

Can someone explain to me what the flaw in this argument is? I don't understand how A is correct

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, faryalroshan !

I'm worried you might be looking at the wrong answer key, or perhaps the wrong section though. The correct answer for this question is (B)!

Also, the question is not asking us to find a flaw in the book review's argument. Rather, we are being asked to simply identify what criticism the book review makes. This is a bit of an unusual question type, but it's most closely related to questions that analyze an argument's structure (specifically, procedure questions). Our task here is to select an answer that accurately reflects the point the book review is making!

While we don't have a traditional argument core to break down, we should absolutely breakdown what the book review is saying first:

WHAT THE BOOK SAYS: 3 basic ways to store energy: heat, electricity, kinetic energy
FIRST CRITICISM: no way to store electricity
SECOND CRITICISM: energy can also be stored as chemical, gravitational, nuclear energy

The first criticism is that the list is inaccurate (it includes an item that it shouldn't: electricity), while the second criticism is that the list is not exhaustive (it's missing stuff!). This matches perfectly with (B)!

Let's take a quick spin through the incorrect answers:

(A) Neither the book review nor the author makes any comment on how comparable the various ways are, or whether you can determine which are 'more basic' than the others.
(C) The book review never mentions "effective ways to use energy".
(D) The book review is using the terms 'basic' and 'effective' in roughly the same way. The book review does not attempt to make any distinction between those concepts.
(E) Like (A), this answer attempts to make comparisons among the ways to store energy - neither the authors nor the book review ever attempt to do that!

Please let me know if that clears up your question!

[ottoman]

hi christine,

how do you know the book reviewer is using the terms 'basic' and 'effective' in roughly the same way?

[ohthatpatrick]

If the author WEREN'T referring back to the quote about "three basic ways", then why would he start his 2nd sentence with HOWEVER?

The HOWEVER tells us that the function of the 2nd sentence is to push back against the first, so we'd interpret the author saying "I can't call to mind any effective ways to store energy as electricity" as "I don't think electricity should be in that list".