In the paintings by seventeenth–century Dutch artist Vermeer, we find several recurrent items: a satin jacket, a cer...

Anna20 on August 12, 2020

How would you diagram/approach this question? Would this be a question where it makes sense to diagram the conditional logic?

Reuse Props --> Dearth of Props
Props Used --> Expensive Props

baileyburke on December 28, 2021

@Mehran why is B incorrect? I was stuck between B and the answer.

Jay-Etter on January 26, 2022

Hi @baileyburke, let's break down the argument.
Conclusion: It was not for lack of props the the recurrect items were used
Premise: Several reappearing objects, which might indicate a dearth of props
Premise2: Many props were expensive.

Remember that for strengthen with sufficient premise questions we're looking for an answer option that makes the conclusion 100% logically guaranteed. Frequently these questions deal with conditional logic.

E is correct! It bridges the gap in the argument about how we know that it wasn't for lack of props.
If lack of props (dearth) -> no expensive props
Combine this with Premise 2, that there are expensive props, and we can take the contrapositive to know that there wasn't a lack of props. This is 100% logical guaranteed.

B on the other hand doesn't guarantee our conclusion. Why does it matter that the props were always available to him? Maybe he rented the props? Maybe he only owned them for a specific amount of time? B doesn't really help our argument, and nor does it explain why we would be sure that Vermeer doesn't have a lack of props based on the information that they were expensive.

Hope this helps, feel free to follow up!