# June 2007 - Sec 2 - LR - Q13

## Video Transcript:

0:06
Question 13: Standard aluminum soft-drink cans do not vary in the amount of aluminum that they contain. Fifty percent of
0:15
the aluminum contained in a certain group (M) of standard aluminum soft drink cans was
0:21
recycled from another group (L) of used, standard aluminum soft-drink cans. Since
0:29
all the cans in L were recycled into cans in M and since the amount of
0:35
material other than aluminum in an aluminum can
0:38
is negligible, it follows that M contains twice as many cans as L.
0:46
Argument or facts? Clearly we have an argument. The conclusion that 'it follows', our structural
0:52
indicator. So M contains twice as many cans as L. And how do we know that?
1:01
Well it tells us that fifty percent of the aluminum contained in a certain group (M). So, fifty
1:12
percent of the aluminum in M was recycled from another group L
1:21
of used standard aluminum soft drink cans. So we recycled L to make fifty percent of M. And then obviously the other 50%
1:33
of (M) would be from something else. So that's what M is composed of. But now
1:39
they're telling us that M is twice as many cans as L. So imagine L is X then M
1:48
has 2X the amount of cans. So now that we have a clear understanding of this passage, again these would
1:57
be the premises for the conclusion that M contains twice as many cans as L. You
2:03
notice that this is flawed logic. This argument doesn't make any sense.
2:07
The premise does not support this conclusion. And the question stem points that out by saying that
2:12
conclusion of the argument follows logically if which of the following is
2:16
assumed?
2:18
Again, 'follows logically if'... We have a strengthen with sufficient premise question stem. So we are trying to guarantee
2:28
the conclusion that M contains twice as many cans as L
2:33
based on the premise that 50% of M came from recycling the cans in
2:40
L. So let's take a look at (A): The aluminum in the cans of M cannot be recycled any
2:48
further. That is completely irrelevant. It doesn't even strengthen this argument. So
2:53
(A) is out. How does that help?
2:58
(B) Recycled aluminum is of poorer quality than unrecycled aluminum. Again does not
3:03
even strengthen this argument. What difference does that make? This is not an
3:07
argument about the quality of the cans in M or L it's about the quantity. (C) all of the
3:18
aluminum in an aluminum can is recovered when the can is recycled. Well if that's true then
3:27
this 50% of M that came from L if L was X then all of the aluminum in an aluminum can is
3:36
recovered when it's recycled. Again let's not forget that we recycled L into M.
3:45
Well therefore, this 50% of M must be X. And if 50% of M is X then twice that would be 2X.
3:59
You notice that would guarantee our conclusion. So (C) here would be correct
4:06
answer. Again 100% guarantees the conclusion that M contains twice as many
4:15
cans as L because if all of the aluminum in an aluminum can is recovered when
4:20
recycled. And we recycled L and it gave us 50%. Well then M contains twice as many
4:27
cans as L.
4:31
But again just making sure... (D) none of the soft drink cans in group L had been made
4:38
from recycled aluminum. Again completely irrelevant. So (D) would be out. Then
4:44
lastly checking (E): Aluminum soft-drink cans are more easily recycled than are
4:50
soft drink cans made from other materials. Again, what difference does that make?
4:54
It's not about the ease of recycling it's about whether M contains twice as many cans
4:59
as L. And again on a strengthen with sufficient premise we are trying to
5:03
guarantee that conclusion
5:05
100%.