After examining the options, the budget committee discovered that QI's office–phone system would be inexpensive enoug...

Mehran on September 24, 2018

@joryjes let's identify the method of reasoning here. The stimulus tells us that QI < L.

We are then told that C < QI, which leads to the conclusion that C < L.

P: QI < L
P: C < QI

C: C < L

This would be valid argument.

Answer choice (E) states: "Health Dairy's sharp cheddar cheese is low enough in fat to meet the labeling standard for "low fat" cheddar cheese, and since its mild cheddar cheese is even lower in fat, it too must meet the labeling standard."

P: SC < LS
P: MC < SC

C: MC < LS

This answer choice, like the argument, explains that one item must have the same characteristic as another because the second item falls within the same range of the first. We are told that Health Dairy's sharp cheddar cheese is low enough in fat to meet the labeling standard for "low fat" cheddar cheese, and since mild cheddar cheese has even less fat than "low fat" cheddar cheese, i.e. its fat content falls within that of sharp cheddar cheese's, it must also meet the labeling standard. Thus, just like the argument, because the second item had even less of a specific quality than the first, they must both share the same resulting characteristic.

Now let's take a look at (C):

"John's blood-alcohol level was far above the legal limit for driving, so even if it turns out that Paul's blood-alcohol level was lower than John's, it too must have been above the legal limit."

This is a flawed argument. Let's assume that John's blood-alcohol level was .25, well above the legal limit of .08. Now let's assume Paul's was .07 (lower than John's). This example shows that the conclusion in (C) does not follow logically so (C) would be eliminated.

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.