CR Strategy Guide 5th Ed "Ethanol"

[jlucero]

That's just an idiom used in different ways. I can't explain it, but can show you two correct structures:

X is more than Y
Do we save more with X or with Y

[supreet0405]

Hello,

Even I thought that option B is taking 'ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline' as one whole phrase, since everywhere in the passage, this phrase is explicitly mentioned as one phrase. How do we know that this was supposed to be referred individually?

Also, since its an evaluation question, according to me, there was a yes and a no for this option.
Yes: more energy is saved using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline.
No: more energy is not saved using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline.

Could someone please clear this dilemma?

Thanks & Regards,
Supreet Singh

[jnelson0612]

Hello all,

From the above explanations, I understood that B is right as it is irrelevant to compare ethanol saved in cases 1) when using ethanol in conjunction with 2) in place of gasoline.
I am OK with it but my problem is that I misread the option B. I thought for comparing two cases that too with more , than should be used..Something such as "Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with than in place of gasoline".

If my understanding of using more is wrong, could you please throw some light on the proper usages of "more".

Thanks a ton in advance.

You certainly can use "more" with "than":

"He has more money than I do."

However, you don't have to have "than" if an implied comparison is already there. For instance, let's say that my grocery store allows me to enroll in a new customer loyalty program. For every nine regularly priced items I buy, I get one free. If I accept this offer I can't use any manufacturer's coupons when buying items.

Let's say that I want to save the most money possible. In deciding whether to enroll in this program, it would important to determine:
"if I will save more money by buying nine items and getting one free".

The implied comparison is there: the loyalty program savings vs. using manufacturers coupons. Notice that I didn't have to use "than" because the two options were clearly noted.

[ZoeZ42]

Dear instructor,
I doubted about (B) and (D)
(B): Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline
1st path is:
yes, more energy is saved under using in conjuction with or in place of gasoline,
that's great. it support the conclusion that "to save energy......."
2nd Path is:
no, no more energy is saved under using conjuction with or in place of gasoline.
that mean less or equal.
if equal, individual can choose what they want, no strengthen no weaken,
if less, no reason to choose ethanol.
above, (B) is not good choice.

(D)Whether it is possible to produce more ethanol than is currently produced
yes, more produce. its a good news. people won't be pushed to choose gasoline, it can reduce polllution, but i am not sure whether save energy cuz i have no idea about the consumption to power cars. can it strengthen the conclusion if just strengthen either energy or reduce pollution?
No. produce less or equal than currently produced, the suply cannot meet the demand
emmmm......people won't be pushed to choose gasoline if import ethanol. or people will be pused to choose if no import. seems strengthen but no weaken.

Please point out where is wrong? thanks in advance.

Reviewing the explanation from MANHATTAN, i am afraid i did not catch the idea:
This answer choice uses many of the same words as the conclusion. But that's a trap! The conclusion makes no distinction between these two methods of using ethanol; it just recommends in general that we do use ethanol. If more energy is saved using ethanol in conjunction with gasoline, then the conclusion holds. If more energy is saved using ethanol in place of gasoline, then the conclusion holds. Either way, it's the same thing! There aren't “two paths” here. I'll keep this one.
in my opinion, If more energy is saved using ethanol in conjunction with gasoline, then the conclusion holds. If more energy is saved using ethanol in place of gasoline, then the conclusion holds
it is the one path under two different using way "in conjunction with gasoline" and "in place of gasoline" and the second path is no more emergy is saved under using two different ways.
Please point out my issues.

thanks a lot.

have a nice day
>_~

[cgentry]

Dear instructor,
I doubted about (B) and (D)
(B): Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline
1st path is:
yes, more energy is saved under using in conjuction with or in place of gasoline,
that's great. it support the conclusion that "to save energy......."
2nd Path is:
no, no more energy is saved under using conjuction with or in place of gasoline.
that mean less or equal.
if equal, individual can choose what they want, no strengthen no weaken,
if less, no reason to choose ethanol.
above, (B) is not good choice.
>_~

In my opinion, you are misinterpreting this answer choice. The language of (B) doesn't ask "whether using ethanol will save energy" it asks "which saves more energy than the other: ethanol with gasoline, or ethanol alone?"

In other words, (B) accepts as true that using ethanol in some form will save energy. It merely asks which form of use will be better than the other: ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline. In either case, the recommendation in the conclusion would stand--it would save energy to use ethanol in some form.

I hope this helps!
Chris

[SaurabhC801]

Dear Instructor,

My interpretation of the answer choice B was also same as how imhimanshujaggi, supreet0405, ZoeZ42 had been interpreting.

(B) Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline.

I had also been reading "using ethanol in conjunction with or in place of gasoline" as one, because throughout the argument it had been used that way. So I was also thinking in terms of Whether more energy is saved when using Ethanol (in either form) as compared to Gasoline alone, or less energy is saved when using Ethanol (in either form) as compared to Gasoline alone.

I think the wordings of this answer choice are very confusing!!

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

You need to remember that the answers are trying to confuse you! I think you read what you were expecting to see, rather than what was written. Here's a hint: whenever I see a word like "more", I make sure that I check what's being compared.

[TaoL266]

That's just an idiom used in different ways. I can't explain it, but can show you two correct structures:

X is more than Y
Do we save more with X or with Y

Dear Instructor:

What I have learnt from Manhattan SC Guide is that in comparison, 'more' is always used combine with 'than' . I know it may be a little bit irrational to use SC rules to CR issues, but i'm so confused about the meaning of the choice B.

As the confusion expressed by imhimanshujaggi, supreet0405, ZoeZ42 and SaurabhC801, i also interpret the meaning of choise B as " Whether more energy is saved when using ethanol [in conjunction with or in place of gasoline], which definitely leads me to come up to the conclusion that B matters when evaluating the intention of the conclusion about saving energy.

In addition, what we get from the passage is a little bit different from the meaning of choice B. the passage expressed that using Ethanol,no matter along with or in place of gasoline, can reduce the amount of gas consumed; however, the choise B provide us information that more energy can be saved by using ethanol, which is something(the gap) we need to get the conclusion.

Could you please help me to have better understanding the meaning of the choice B?

Thanks & Regards,
Tony

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

That's totally fine to apply SC rules to CR problems. And, whisper it, sometime official CR or RC problems don't follow all the SC rules. However, using the word 'more' without 'than' is okay. I mean, think of the sentence "I bought three bagels in the morning, and four more in the afternoon." The meaning is clear and the grammar is fine.

As for answer B, it seems that you're falling in the "Nice guy" trap. When we read this problem, most of us (if we're nice people) think "hey, I want to use less energy and save the planet!", which isn't exactly what the argument is claiming. You need to be more specific and see that it's an argument about whether we'll save energy by using ethanol rather than gasoline. This is our important comparison. Trickily, the argument cites two strategies: to use ethanol 'in conjunction with' gasoline or 'in place of gasoline'.

It's a bit like if I was to say: 'let's go to the cinema tomorrow' and present some evidence about why we should go to the cinema. We could argue about the weather forecast, alternative activities, the quality of current films, etc. However, it wouldn't affect my argument to determine whether sitting at the front of the cinema is better than sitting at the back. Sure, it's relevant once we decide to go to the cinema, but it's the next step. The same goes here: someone has proposed two strategies to save energy. Deciding which one of those strategies is the better of the two is not relevant at this stage.

[TaoL266]

Great explanation! Thanks a lot. Sage Pearce-Higgins.

I think it will be useful to interpret the CR and RC sentences in a more normal(real-world) way and getting rid of the stringent rules in SC will help a lot.

As long as I get the right meaning of the choice B, I can rule out this choice much easier.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Great takeaway, good job.