Q25 - The fact that tobacco smoke

[b91302310]

The conclusion of the argument is "something in large quantities is harmful but in samll quantities, could be beneficial.

I chose (B) which the conclusion is "something in small quantities is beneficial but in large quantityes could be harmful. I think the logic is to some extent similar to the stimulus and I could not figure out why it is wrong. Is it incorrect because it is a reversal of the argument stated in the stimulus?

Could anyone explain it ?

Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

Yes, that's part of the reason it's wrong. Another reason is that your job on this problem is not simply to match the conclusion, it's to match the reasoning. So, be very careful when paraphrasing the argument.

Here are the key elements for this one:

C: Although tobacco smoke is harmful to smokers, a smaller amount may not be harmful.
p: Other things, like vitamin A, are good in small amounts and toxic in large amounts.

This is why (E) is the right answer and (A) is wrong. While (A) seems to mimic the "gist" of the argument, it does not reason the same way (ie supporting with an unrelated example).

[Dannyboy3D]

Please explain why D) is wrong.

I eliminated A), B), and C) because they do not allude to some other example the way the stimulus does.

D) and E) do allude to other examples, but I don't see much of a difference in the choices.

[ohthatpatrick]

This is a Match the Reasoning question.

Our first job is to concoct a general recipe of the original argument (try to subtract the topic, if possible, since the answer choices are going to use new topics).

Conc: the fact that X is harmful in larger quantities doesn't prove that X is harmful in smaller quantities.

after all
Prem: Many substances, such as Y, are bad in large quantities but beneficial in small ones.

As the previous poster said, since the original argument used an analogy/comparison for evidence, we'll need that same type of thing in our correct answer.

(A) is purely about bleach.
(B) is purely about fiber.
(C) is purely about chemical fertilizers.

(D) makes a conclusion about cereal based on a premise about broccoli.

(E) makes a conclusion about TV watching based on a premise about sleep.

So we need to dig deeper and determine which one better embodies the "more vs. less quantity" relationships to "harm/benefit".

How does (D)'s conclusion stack up to our original?
Conc: the fact that X is harmful in larger quantities doesn't prove that X is harmful in smaller quantities.

(D): the fact that five ppl liked X doesn't mean that everyone will like it.
(not so good ... nothing about harm / not harm or bigger/smaller quantities)

How about (E)'s conclusion?
(E): the fact that watching TV for half a day is bad doesn't mean that watching it for less than half a day would be just a little bad.
(much better ... we have the waste/not waste which is a closer match to harm/not harm ... and we have the bigger/smaller quantities match with "half of every day" vs. "briefly every day")

Can we confirm (E)'s premise?
Prem: Many substances, such as Y, are bad in large quantities but beneficial in small ones.

(E) says sleeping half the day is wasteful but sleeping at least SOMEWHAT is necessary. That's pretty close to our original. Big quantity of sleep is bad, but small quantity is good.

Meanwhile, (D)'s premise has nothing to do with good/not good or bigger/smaller quantities.

(D)'s whole argument is just of the form,
"Just because X is sometimes true doesn't mean it's always true. After all, sometimes Y is true, but sometimes Y is not true."

I can see how you could describe the original argument in those broad terms, but the question stem asks for the "MOST similar" answer choice.

So if you were working with a mental model similar to what I just described, you would not be able to pick between (D) and (E). That means that you need to add a little more detail into your mental model. If we start introducing ideas like harm / no harm and bigger/smaller quantity into our model, then (E) becomes the clear winner.

Hope this helps.