Q9 - Political organizer: Our group needs to assemble

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We need to get at least 30 volunteers if MG is gonna have a chance to win the election.
Evidence: MG can only win if the pubic is fully informed about her record, and it'll take at least 30 unpaid campaigners to do this for her.

Answer Anticipation:
What are the two most common patterns in ID the Conclusion questions?
1. The first sentence is the conclusion
2. The conclusion is in the middle, as some sort of rebuttal to someone else's position.

In this case, the 1st claim was the conclusion. The word "since" (and "because") is always attached to supporting ideas, so the other half of any sentence since/because appears in will always be a conclusion (maybe not the main conclusion, but a conclusion). So the fact that the 2nd claim begins "since" tells us that the 1st claim is a conclusion. Because the final sentence helps to support this 1st claim, we know the 1st claim is not just a conclusion but the MAIN conclusion.

We need a paraphrase of "Our groups needs to find at least 30 volunteers in order to give MG a chance at winning".

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Never said

(B) Premise

(C) YES, this matches the meaning of the 1st claim.

(D) Premise

(E) Premise

Takeaway/Pattern: This one could go smoothly for us if we read ID the Conclusion question stems and remind ourselves, "Most of these are found in the first sentence or as some sort of rebuttal". Also, knowing the premise trigger words (FABS: for, after all, because, since) makes it easy to spot adjacent conclusions. We can validate our suspicion that the 1st claim is the conclusion (or invalidate our suspicion that any other claim is the conclusion) by asking ourselves "Is this the author's opinion? Is it explicitly supported?

#officialexplanation

[ZhengL938]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We need to get at least 30 volunteers if MG is gonna have a chance to win the election.
Evidence: MG can only win if the pubic is fully informed about her record, and it'll take at least 30 unpaid campaigners to do this for her.

Answer Anticipation:
What are the two most common patterns in ID the Conclusion questions?
1. The first sentence is the conclusion
2. The conclusion is in the middle, as some sort of rebuttal to someone else's position.

In this case, the 1st claim was the conclusion. The word "since" (and "because") is always attached to supporting ideas, so the other half of any sentence since/because appears in will always be a conclusion (maybe not the main conclusion, but a conclusion). So the fact that the 2nd claim begins "since" tells us that the 1st claim is a conclusion. Because the final sentence helps to support this 1st claim, we know the 1st claim is not just a conclusion but the MAIN conclusion.

We need a paraphrase of "Our groups needs to find at least 30 volunteers in order to give MG a chance at winning".

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Never said

(B) Premise

(C) YES, this matches the meaning of the 1st claim.

(D) Premise

(E) Premise

Takeaway/Pattern: This one could go smoothly for us if we read ID the Conclusion question stems and remind ourselves, "Most of these are found in the first sentence or as some sort of rebuttal". Also, knowing the premise trigger words (FABS: for, after all, because, since) makes it easy to spot adjacent conclusions. We can validate our suspicion that the 1st claim is the conclusion (or invalidate our suspicion that any other claim is the conclusion) by asking ourselves "Is this the author's opinion? Is it explicitly supported?

#officialexplanation

Hi patrick, I initially thought this is the question which asks us to infer the main conclusion from the stimulus. Because I thought this is a chian conditional logic. From the last sentence, if "we cannot afford to pay people for this work", then"there will not be enough people campaign for her",which means "the public will not be fully informed". Finally, I infered that Garson will not have a chance of winning the election.
So I picked A
What's wrong with me?

[JenaM342]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We need to get at least 30 volunteers if MG is gonna have a chance to win the election.
Evidence: MG can only win if the pubic is fully informed about her record, and it'll take at least 30 unpaid campaigners to do this for her.

Answer Anticipation:
What are the two most common patterns in ID the Conclusion questions?
1. The first sentence is the conclusion
2. The conclusion is in the middle, as some sort of rebuttal to someone else's position.

In this case, the 1st claim was the conclusion. The word "since" (and "because") is always attached to supporting ideas, so the other half of any sentence since/because appears in will always be a conclusion (maybe not the main conclusion, but a conclusion). So the fact that the 2nd claim begins "since" tells us that the 1st claim is a conclusion. Because the final sentence helps to support this 1st claim, we know the 1st claim is not just a conclusion but the MAIN conclusion.

We need a paraphrase of "Our groups needs to find at least 30 volunteers in order to give MG a chance at winning".

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Never said

(B) Premise

(C) YES, this matches the meaning of the 1st claim.

(D) Premise

(E) Premise

Takeaway/Pattern: This one could go smoothly for us if we read ID the Conclusion question stems and remind ourselves, "Most of these are found in the first sentence or as some sort of rebuttal". Also, knowing the premise trigger words (FABS: for, after all, because, since) makes it easy to spot adjacent conclusions. We can validate our suspicion that the 1st claim is the conclusion (or invalidate our suspicion that any other claim is the conclusion) by asking ourselves "Is this the author's opinion? Is it explicitly supported?

#officialexplanation

Hi patrick, I initially thought this is the question which asks us to infer the main conclusion from the stimulus. Because I thought this is a chian conditional logic. From the last sentence, if "we cannot afford to pay people for this work", then"there will not be enough people campaign for her",which means "the public will not be fully informed". Finally, I infered that Garson will not have a chance of winning the election.
So I picked A
What's wrong with me?

I did the exact same thing. But, then I realized that the fact that they can't afford to pay explains why they will be using volunteers. It is not saying that because of the inability to pay, they won't get the 30 people after all, and MG will therefore lose.