Q21

[andrewgong01]

Prephase: Something rests an assumption that without it would be untenable

A) Defer

B) Does not go along the lines of soemthing being of fundamental importance that can not be violated

C) Defer

D) Deception and rule violation does not seem like a good match, especailly with A and C already deffered to. We are not really talking about the ethics of deception either

E) Trap for using honesty but this is different. However, there is no link to something at the "start" that needs to be correct for something else to be tenable


I chose A originally however i think it is wrong because C is a closer match.

I think the issue with A is that it says "must be selected" which is a normative claim whereas originally the passage did not go that far in making a claim. Moreover, the passage and Choice C gave more intuition about why something is a necessary condition and must be trouble for something else to be tenable. ?Does anyone else have other thoughts on getting rid of "A"? I don't really know how to describe it but it just seems like "C" reads better

[ohthatpatrick]

We're going off of "candor is an essential prerequisite of all other restraints on abuse of judicial power, for the limitations imposed by constitutions, statutes, and precedents count for little if judges feel free to believe one thing and say another."

My prephrase was something like:
we need to identify something as the "core requirement", the one that underlies all the other requirements.

(A) gave us a requirement, but there was no language that indicated that THIS requirement was the linchpin of all other requirements, whereas (C) does convey that idea.

Here's a pictorial way of how I would match it up:

"candor is an essential prerequisite of all other restraints on abuse of judicial power, for the limitations imposed by constitutions, statutes, and precedents count for little if judges feel free to believe one thing and say another."

(A) Juries must be selected from as representative a selection of the population as possible.
Otherwise, their verdicts cannot be trusted to be unbiased

(C) The data presented in support of a scientific theory must meet conditions such as relevance and sufficiency. But a presumption of all such conditions is that the data itself is accurate.

Probably the easiest way to get rid of (A) is to see that it's doing the classic "Topic Trap" that we see on lots of Matching / Analogy tasks.

If you're down to (A) and (C) and asking yourself questions like, "is there a TRAP-y reason I like one of these?", it would be that we like (A) because it's still talking about the legal system.

[KelliW299]

Can you address choice E please - thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

It seems like (E) would be attractive just because "honestly" and "candidly" would be synonyms.

But analogy questions aren't testing topic similarity or word similarity. They're testing logical similarity.

The claim about candor was saying, "The rule that judges should be candid is the foundational rule upon which all other rules (such as constitutions, statues, and precedents) get built"

(C) is saying "the rule that data should be accurate is the foundational rule upon which all other rules (such as relevance and sufficiency) get built".

Does it feel like (E) is saying anything that could be adapted to that form?

"The rule that doctors must disclose possible side effects is the foundational rule upon which all other rules (such as ??? and ???) get built"?

Put another way, the original claim is saying
"If judges aren't candid, then all these other constraints no longer have meaning."

(C) is saying
"if the data isn't accurate, then all these other constraints no longer have meaning."

(E) would be saying
"if a doctor didn't disclose all the side effects, then all these other constraints (?) no longer have meaning."

The fact that (E) doesn't give us other rules is what makes it a poor match. We need another example where ONE rule undergirds OTHER rules.