Q20 - Engineer: Semiplaning monohulls are

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Determine the Function

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: SM's will probably be profitable. Evidence: Even though SM's will be more expensive for transportation than are conventional ships, SM's will be faster and more reliable. When jet airplanes were first introduced, they were more expensive than conventional planes, but became profitable because they had greater speed and reliability.

Any prephrase?
This is a counterpoint. Our author is saying this downside will be outweighed by SM's two upsides (speed and reliability) and thus SM's will probably be profitable.

Answer choice analysis:
A) This analogy does not SUPPORT the conclusion. It is a counterpoint. "SM's will probably be profitable. Why? Because they're more expensive to travel on than conventional ships?"

B) This almost works. It correctly identifies the more expensive part as a counterpoint, but it's not an ANALOGY between SM's and conventional. It's just a literal distinction between them.

C) This does not SUPPORT the conclusion. It's a counterpoint.

D) This is the fixed version of (B). It correctly identifies the counterpoint and then correctly speaks about an analogy between ships and planes.

E) Almost. It's certainly not as complete or accurate as (D). It's not a distinction between the 'characteristics' of SM's vs. ships. It's just a distinction between the cost of transportation on each. Also, the conclusion of the argument is not applying THIS comparison to airplanes.

The correct answer is D.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a very tough Determine Function problem. If we understand the ingredient we're seeing is a counterpoint, then A and C are easy to eliminate. If we remind ourselves of the actual conclusion, then E is easy to eliminate. B is a little more subtle.

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

I chose A because they are comparing speed and reliability...why is A wrong?

[konamiyoxi]

"Analogy btw ships and airplanes" led me to cross D out initially. This is supposed to be an analogy between SM & Jet planes, not the general ships and airplanes, right?

[ohthatpatrick]

The analogy is between
"a new type of plane (jet), that started off impractically expensive despite its advantages (over conventional), but eventually took hold"
and a current case the author finds similar
"a new type of boat (SM), that starts off impractically expensive despite having advantages (over conventional), but will eventually take hold"

The author is saying "what happened with planes will probably also happen with boats: the new one will eventually be practical/popular"

[dych]

Hi all,

I'm uncomfortable with (D) in that an earlier component of the stimulus (the part we're asked to identify function of) is described as being an objection to something that follows. Is it okay for an objection to precede the point being objected to? Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, objections frequently precede the idea they're objecting to.

Every time we use structures like ...
Although ______ , ________ .
Despite the fact that _____ , ______ .
While it's true that ______ , _______ .
etc.

... we're putting a counterpoint first and then our author's main emphasis second.

This is just a more extreme version of that, since the author's main emphasis doesn't occur until the final sentence.

When I do these Role questions (Determine the Function), I find the Conclusion, and then I classify whatever claim they've asked about as:
CONC
SUPPORT
OPPOSES
NEUTRAL

In that sense, it doesn't matter where it appears. You're just asking how it relates to the Conclusion (if it's not, itself, the Conclusion).

Since our conclusion was
"Semiplaning M's will probably be profitable"
the idea that
"transportation on Semiplaning M's will be much more expensive than on traditional ships"

sounds like an Opposing idea.

Another way to help yourself like (D) more is the phrasing of
"It constitutes a potential objection"

That's not directly accusing the author of having presented the fact AS an objection. It's just saying, "this idea COULD be used to attack the conclusion, but it's countered by a supporting analogy"

[obobob]

I am confused with the explanation for the incorrect choice (E) and what the answer choice says:
The answer choice is saying that the statement is making a distinction between characteristics of semi planing monohulls and characteristics of conventional ships, and the answer choice is also saying that the main conclusion is comparing such distinction (between monohulls and ships) to a distinction between types of airplanes.
If my understanding above is correct, aren't those distinctions are compared each other?

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm having a hard time decoding your question because of its typo:

If my understanding above is correct, aren't those distinctions are compared each other?

The easiest way to eliminate (E) is that the main conclusion is about "whether or not semiplaning monohulls are likely to be profitable".

That is not a distinction between monohulls and other ships.
Both monohulls and conventional ships could be profitable. The author isn't comparing them in terms of profitability. Similarly, jets and planes were never compared in terms of profitability.

The distinctions we know of between monohulls and conventional ships:
- Travel on M's will be more expensive, at least at first, than on conventional
- Travel on M's will offer greater speed and reliability than do conventional

Those are the same distinctions we know about jets and planes:
- Travel on J's was at least at first more expensive
- Travel on J's offered greater speed and reliability

We know that Jets ended up being profitable. That's not a distinction between jets and other planes. Other planes might also be profitable. We weren't told.

The author's conclusion assumes that the trait of 'profitability' will also apply to monohulls.

Since conclusion is about 'profitability of monohulls', but the distinctions between types of planes and types of ships are about "expense, speed, or reliability", it can't be right to say that the conclusion is talking about these distinctions.

Hope this helps.

[abrenza123]

I was very stuck between A and D with this question for a couple of reasons:

I may be taking this too literally, but I also don't want to be skipping over potentially important details/word choices in arguments on tough questions - I wasn't sure if the "as well" in the conclusion "semiplaning monohulls will be profitable as well" was important. If I rephrased it as "like jets, monohulls will be profitable" I wasn't sure if the 2nd sentence could be considered an objection.

I wasn't sure if that sentence supported the argument by saying "monohulls are going to be more expensive than ships, and jets were more expensive than other planes at first. Jets provided more reliability and speed, and monohulls do the same thing. Jets were profitable. Therefore, like jets, monohulls will likely be profitable (as well)"

To me, that blurs the line between potential objection/part of support because the price comparison creates additional similarities the analogy between jets/monohulls. I hope I am making sense, I just thought that if the argument was saying "A will likely turn out like B because A is super similar to B in all of these respects and B turned out like this..." then i'm not sure if its a part of an analogy(ies) that supports the conclusion or a potential objection.

If the "as well" is negligible, then I would have an easier time with categorizing 2nd sentence as potential objection. If the argument was "mono will be profitable. Mono is much faster BUT is much more expensive than traditional ships (potential objection). HOWEVER, jets were also more expensive but had these advantages to other planes (like mono does w/ traditional ships) and they ended up being profitable!! then I could see it more as a potential objection.

Also, for A - I had doubt because I wasn't sure if there were two analogies in the stimulus or one. I understand that monohull: traditional ship as jet: other planes, but I wasn't sure if the price comparison/advantages of speed and reliability were parts of one analogy, or if price of monohull: ship/price of jet: other planes was one analogy and advantages of monohull:ship/advantages of jet: other planes was another analogy. I wasn't sure if the "analogy between planes and ships" was too vague..

IF the whole thing is one analogy, what would two analogies look like? What would A be the correct answer to?

My other doubt about A was that sentence would have been PART of the analogy, but the actual sentence itself was a comparison between monohulls and ships, not an analogy itself.

Just to be clear about E - I thought it was wrong because it was the PREMISES that compare the that distinction between mono/ship to distinction between jet/other airplane, not the main conclusion.

[ohthatpatrick]

The "as well" is pretty negligible. If you got rid of it, you'd still know that the conclusion was saying "monohulls will probably be profitable".

The "as well" is just a rhetorical flourish, reminding the reader that we're completing the analogy.

There are potentially four levels on which the author is analogizing jets and monohulls:
1. faster speed than their competing technology
2. more reliable than their competing technology
3. more expensive than their competing technology
4. profitable, nonetheless
(the author is speculating that jets and monohulls will be analogous on this 4th level)

#1 and #2 are reasons FOR believing #4. (premise)
#3 is a reason AGAINST believing #4. (an objection)

You can tell that #3 is a counterpoint from common sense (more expensive products are at a disadvantage to competing products, all other things being equal). Also, it says "jets were more expensive than other planes, but jets STILL ended up being profitable".

I think your concern is that you think we could make the language of (A) work by saying, "the fact that jets and monohulls are similar on BOTH levels (the bad and the good) is why they function together to support the conclusion".

I can see where you're going with that, but (D) takes less effort to match up.

The 2nd sentence is not itself an analogy. We eventually learn that jets were analogous to monohulls in terms of being more pricey than competing technology. But the 2nd sentence isn't about jets, so it's hard to say that the statement we're being asked about is "one of two analogies".

Meanwhile, since the 2nd sentence is only about monohulls, and it offers a reason monohulls would NOT be profitable, it's easy to say that statement constitutes a potential objection to the main conclusion.