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

2:18

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

4:31

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