Q15 - Ninety percent of recent

[ohthatpatrick]

Make sure you're clear on what Sufficient Assumptions are:
An idea that, when you add it to the premise, LOGICALLY PROVES the conclusion.

This line from your explanation makes it seem like you don't get the mathematical certainty we're shooting for:
If ad provides incomplete information, that could suggest they do not care safety.


What does the Question Stem tell us?
Sufficient Assumption

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: These buyers were wrong to say safety was important to them. (Cleaned up: "Safety was NOT important to these other buyers")
Evidence: These buyers said that safety was important, but they relied on ads and promotional materials (as opposed to objective sources of vehicle safety information).

Any prephrase?
If we're just predicting our usual "Premise --> Conclusion" missing link, it would be "If you relied on ads and promotional materials, then safety was not really important to you". The answer might take a more creative form, but it has to give us a rule that we can trigger based on what we know about "these other buyers" and deliver us the language/meaning of "safety was NOT important to them".

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
A) There was no switch from "important" to "most important" that we're worried about patching up. We need to patch "relied on ads and promotion" to "safety wasn't important".

B) This is in the right direction, but we're doing Sufficient Assumption. We need STRONG, DEFINITE ideas that guarantee these buyers don't really think safety is important.

C) This doesn't have anything to do with bridging the gap, and it's also worded incredibly weakly … "Do not necessarily".

D) This is close to the right gist, but "most" isn't definite, and this doesn't give us a rule that delivers us the conclusion.

E) "If you didn't consult an objective source, then safety was not an important factor". Boom. The trigger is the premise, the consequence is the conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern: The correct answer to Sufficient Assumption is almost always a conditional statement that bridges us from a Premise idea to a Conclusion idea. The correct answer is often expressed in the contrapositive form of whatever our natural prephrase would be. Since we prephrased "If you relied on ads and promos, safety wasn't important to you", then gave us an answer in contrapositive form and they used borrowed language [not objective sources] as a proxy for [ads and promos].

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

Hi,

Why is B wrong? I thought since the argument cites advertisements (new factor) in premise, they assume something about advertisements, and B does this. If ad provides incomplete information, that could suggest they do not care safety. If they know it's incomplete and care safety, they would not refer to ad...kind of contrapositive.
Why is B wrong?

[meiy169]

Hi,

Why is B wrong? I thought since the argument cites advertisements (new factor) in premise, they assume something about advertisements, and B does this. If ad provides incomplete information, that could suggest they do not care safety. If they know it's incomplete and care safety, they would not refer to ad...kind of contrapositive.
Why is B wrong?

I

I think it is because"sometimes"... which cannot guarantee the conclusion

[HelenH783]

Hi,

Why is B wrong? I thought since the argument cites advertisements (new factor) in premise, they assume something about advertisements, and B does this. If ad provides incomplete information, that could suggest they do not care safety. If they know it's incomplete and care safety, they would not refer to ad...kind of contrapositive.
Why is B wrong?

I think B could be correct for a necessary assumption question. It's definitely an assumption the argument takes for granted and if it weren't true, the argument would fall apart. But this is a sufficient assumption question and it doesn't comprehensively fill the gap between premises and conclusion. I think the gap in this argument is so intuitive that it's hard to see-- if someone cares about safety, of course they would want to consult an objective source for safety info. But this isn't actually explicitly stated in the premise-- E states it explicitly.

[ReginaP412]

D) This is close to the right gist, but "most" isn't definite, and this doesn't give us a rule that delivers us the conclusion.


#officialexplanation

If D was instead written: 'All consumers are aware...' instead of 'Most' -- would this be accurate?

[Misti Duvall]

D) This is close to the right gist, but "most" isn't definite, and this doesn't give us a rule that delivers us the conclusion.


#officialexplanation

If D was instead written: 'All consumers are aware...' instead of 'Most' -- would this be accurate?

All would be better, but still not quite there. (D) talks about awareness, but doesn't make the link between objective and important the way that answer choice (E) does.

[DeckS974]

the difference/relation between D and E is clearly shown when they are restated as follows:

D. the buyers know the ads are not objective
E. the buyers know the ads are not objective and yet do not bother to consult another objective source

D is not very wrong, but E is more thorough.