People who have never been asked to do more than they can easily do are people who never do all they can. Alex is som...

Ravi January 6, 2019

@UTSmtihie,

Happy to help. stimulus says people who have never been asked to do
more than they can easily do are people who never do all they can.

Never been asked to do more than they can easily do - ->people who
never do all they can

This is an A - ->B statement

Then, we're told that Alex is someone who has clearly not done all
that he is capable of doing. In other words, Alex is a member of the B
group.

The argument then concludes that Alex has never been pushed by anyone
to do more than what comes to him easily. The argument's conclusion is
A

B - ->A

The full structure of this argument is

A - ->B

B

Therefore, A

This is incorrect conditional logic, and this is the flaw. it's
invoking the necessary condition and saying that the sufficient
condition comes from invoking the necessary condition.

Answer A says that anybody who has a dog knows the true value of companionship.

has a dog - ->knows value of companionship

A - ->B

We're then told that Alicia has demonstrated that she knows the true
value of companionship. In other words, Alicia is a subset of group B.

The argument then concludes that Alicia has a dog. In other words, the
argument concludes A

A - ->B

B

Therefore, A

This flawed argumentation structure replicates what we see in the
stimulus, so this is the correct answer.

You asked about answer E. Let's take a look.

Answer E says that people who have never lost something that they
cannot afford to lose will be lax about keeping their property secure

never lost something they can't afford to lose - ->lax about keeping
property secure


A - ->B

We're then told that Jon is lax about keeping property secure WHEN IT
IS SOMETHING HE CAN AFFORD TO LOSE. So, Jon isn't lax about all of his
property; he's lax about his property when it's something he can
afford to lose. This is the key distinction that makes this answer
wrong. The stimulus has a perfect match of B in its premise to the
A - ->B relationship it outlines. However, this is not a perfect match
of B.

The argument then concludes that Jon must never have lost anything.
This is also a mismatch because the sufficient condition is people who
have never lost something THAT THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE.

This answer is wrong because it puts the descriptor on B instead of A.
In order for this answer to correctly match the flawed argumentation
of the stimulus, we'd need it to say, "Jon is lax about keeping
property secure; therefore, Jon has never lost something he can't
afford to lose."

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!