Although we could replace the beautiful—but dilapidated—old bridge across Black River with a concrete skyway, we shou...

Mehran on March 1, 2016

Hi @AnkitM, thanks for your question. No, (C) is not wrong because of its language--"preserve" and "maintain" are effectively synonyms in this context.

Let's consider the stimulus carefully. This is an argument. The conclusion is that the extra cost of building a cable bridge to replace the old bridge is clearly justified by the importance of maintaining the beauty of our river crossing.

But there is no support for that conclusion. Specifically, nothing in the stimulus establishes that a cable bridge would be more beautiful than the alternative (a concrete skyway). Right?

The question stem asks us to identify the assumption on which the argument depends. Thus, this is a "strengthen with necessary premise question," and we can check whether our answer is correct by employing statement negation. If a statement is truly a necessary premise (one on which the argument depends), then negating that statement should cause the argument to collapse.

Now consider the correct answer, answer choice (E). It reads: "Building a cable bridge across Black River would produce a more aesthetically pleasing result than building a concrete skyway." Let's negate that sentence: "Building a cable bridge across Black River would not necessarily produce a more aesthetically pleasing result than building a concrete skyway."

See how the argument falls apart? If the cable bridge does not produce a more aesthetically pleasing result, then why should we build the more expensive cable bridge rather than the concrete skyway? According to the logic of the stimulus, the added expense of the cable bridge is justified *by the importance of maintaining the beauty* of the river crossing.

Make sense?

Hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any additional questions.