Question

Yes! Can someone please answer this!

@nelson and @Meredith, Happy to help. You're right...the terms don't match up completely. They kind of do, but either way, this argument isn't that good. That said, we can create a general diagram to help us see the structure of the argument, as all we're looking to do in this question is find the answer choice that contains an argument most similar to the argument in the stimulus. For this argument, we have Wealth inequality - >threatens democracy (this is the conclusion) The premises are wealth - >political power true democracy - >equal distribution of power These don't appear to connect together, but if we play around with the terms in general and take the contrapositive of the second premise, we get wealth - >political power for wealthy individuals (unequal distribution of power) - >not true democracy (threatens democracy) It's important to note that you're right...in general, you never want to play around terms when you're trying to make a conclusion from an argument or do something similar. However, for this type of question (parallel reasoning) it's fine to do this if it helps you create a general map of what's going on so that you can find the argument in the answer choices that's the most similar. This is why it's o.k. to do it on this question. We want an answer choice that follows the general format of what we've outlined above. Note that there were no quantifiers or compound statements, so any answer choices with and/or can be removed quickly. (A) says, "Consumer culture and an emphasis on technological innovation are a dangerous combination, since together they are uncontrollable and lead to irrational excess." We can get rid of (A) because there's a compound statement ("and") in there, and this wasn't in the stimulus. (B) says, "If Sara went to the bookstore every time her pocket was full, Sara would never have enough money to cover her living expenses, since books are her love and they are getting very expensive." (B) makes no sense and is invalid. We don't have a clue what Sara's living expenses are, how much money she has, and whether or not she buys the books. Even though the argument in the stimulus is a little shaky due to the terms not completely matching up, this argument is way off and doesn't have the same structure, so it's out. (C) says, "It is very difficult to write a successful science fiction novel that is set in the past, since historical fiction depends on historical accuracy, whereas science fiction does not." (C) is invalid, and it makes no sense. The argument is about writing science fiction, so we do not care about the fact that historical fiction depends on accuracy, so (C) is out. (D) says, "Honesty is important in maintaining friendships. But sometimes honesty can lead to arguments, so it is difficult to predict the effect a particular honest act will have on a friendship." (D) doesn't make any sense and doesn't appear to have a conclusion. Also, the "some" statement allows us to eliminate it, as there's no "some" statement in the stimulus. (E) says, "Repeated encroachments on one's leisure time by a demanding job interfere with the requirements of good health. The reason is that good health depends on regular moderate exercise, but adequate leisure time is essential to regular exercise." (E) looks good, and it matches up pretty nicely with the stimulus. Repeated encroachments on leisure time - >interfere with requirements of good health (conclusion) premises: good health - >regular moderate exercise regular exercise - >adequate lesiure time taking the contrapositives, we have inadequate leisure time (repeated encroachments on leisure time) - >not regular exercise - >not good health (interfere with the requirements of good health) Like the stimulus, we have a transitive structure with three terms that are connected. We also have to take contrapositives and be a little liberal in connecting the terms to make everything work. This argument has a very similar structure to the stimulus and also has the same flaws of not having totally matching terms. Thus, (E) is correct. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!