All savings accounts are interest–bearing accounts. The interest from some interest–bearing accounts is tax–free, so ...

BenMingov on June 28, 2020

Hi RS1, thanks for the question.

The real difference between the two statements is that the premises are different. In our passage, we have one all statement combined with a some statement incorrectly to lead to a some conclusion.

However, in answer choice B, we have two all statements, which lead to a some conclusion. This is the key difference and why the structure isn't paralleled in B.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

shunhe on June 28, 2020

Hi @RS1,

Thanks for the question! So actually, (B) and (C) are pretty different answer choices, and we can see that especially clearly when we diagram them out. (B) states that all great photographers are artists, and ALL artists are intellectuals, so some great photographers must be intellectuals. In other words:

Great photographers —> Artists
Artists —> Intellectuals
Therefore: Great photographers <—some—>intellectuals

And we can actually see that this reasoning isn’t even flawed, unlike the argument. Recall that the argument was

Savings accounts —> Interest-bearing accounts
Interest-bearing accounts <—some—> tax-free
Conclusion: Savings accounts <—some—> tax-free

And this is flawed, since there may be some interest-bearing accounts that aren’t savings accounts, and it could be the case that it’s all of those that are tax-free. If that’s the case, then it’s not necessarily true that some savings accounts have tax-free interest.

But (B) is perfectly solid logic. If all great photographers and all artists are intellectuals, then clearly, some great photographers are intellectuals (to be perfectly clear, all great photographers are intellectuals, which would mean also that some great photographers are intellectuals).

(C), on the other hand, states that all great photographers are artists, and SOME artists are intellectuals, so some great photographers are intellectuals. The word “some” instead of “all” here is key. Diagramming this, we get

Great photographers —> Artists
Artists <—some—> Intellectuals
Therefore: Great photographers <—some—> Intellectuals

And clearly, we can see that this is similar to the passage’s flawed reasoning, since it messes up with the “some” clause. It’s possible that the artists who are intellectuals are also the ones who aren’t great photographers (since all great photographers are artists doesn’t mean that all artists are great photographers), which would mean that it’s not the case that some great photographers are intellectuals. This is similar to the flawed reasoning in the stimulus, and so (C) is the correct answer over (B).

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.