Q20 - Pamela: Business has an interest

[rdown2b]

Can someone help me go through this one. The only one that i was for sure able to eliminate was A....

[maryadkins]

This is an unusual question that combines matching and argument structure. First we have to figure out the role of the objection in the stimulus as it relates to Pamela's argument.

Pamela says businesses should adopt parent-friendly policies because today's children are tomorrow's business people and customers.

Lee responds that no single business is going to rely on its own employees' children so its not advantage for any single business to do so.

Lee is taking Pamela's statement about what's beneficial to a group as a whole and arguing that based on the effects of a single member of that group acting, her suggestion is no good. (B) reflects this same attack on general statement by arguing based on a single member's contribution.

(A) does not give an objection that attacks the argument through this whole v. part method.
(C) likewise doesn't attack the argument based on what a member of the group--or a smaller component--would do.
(D) is the same.
(E) once again, is about the past and future--not a group and its sub-parts. (B) is the only structurally sound fit.

Let me know if that's still unclear.

[medtolaw]

Stimulus
1. Reason for proposal, states proposal
2. Reason for rejection of proposal, rejects proposal

(A)
1. Rejects proposal
2. State what would happen if the proposal were to be rejected

(B) Correct answer! Most similar.
1. Reason for proposal, states proposal
2. Reason for rejection of proposal, rejects proposal

(C)
1. Describes a GENERAL phenomenon, draws a conclusion
2. Describes a SPECIFIC phenomenon, draws a conclusion

(D)
1. If X, then = one alternative
2. If x, then = another alternative

(E)
1. Present fact, makes a speculative claim about the future regarding the past
2. Corrects shift time flaw made by 1.

[uhdang]

It was very hard to structuralize the stimulus although it wasn't particulary challenging to understand what Lee was trying to say. But it was just impossible to spot the whole structure from the answer choices.

I ended up looking at the conclusion structure on stimulus and discovering the first conclusion's (Pamela's) negation is the second conclusion (Lee's).

This allowed me to see that,

A)'s objection has no negation but "earlier" conclusion, so I could elminate it.
B)'s objection seemed to be the negation of the first statement, so I put check-mark on it.
C)'s objection does have the negated conclusion but the target (subject) changes from "advertised discount" to "subsequent sales", so I eliminated it.
D)'s "opposite" is not a way to indicate the negation, so I eliminated.
E) does not have the negating relationship between first statement and the objection in their conclusions.

I barely was able to notice this point, but feel like I left out a big chunk of other clues. I read above posts, but still feel like there could be something more. Could anyone point out other qualities?