Help

@claire_crites, Great question. The stimulus tells us that the odds of winning any major lottery jackpot are extremely slight. We're also told that the very few people who do win major jackpots receive a great deal of attention from the media. The stimulus then says since most people come to have at least some awareness of events that receive extensive media coverage, it's likely that many people greatly overestimate the odds of their winning a major jackpot. This is a strengthen with a necessary premise question. We're looking for an answer choice that must be true if the argument is to stand a chance. We can use the negation test in the answers to see if the argument could still be intact after negating each answer choice. If the negation doesn't wreck the argument, then that's not the answer choice. The reason that the negation test works is because it's testing whether the statement in question is essential to the argument. (A) is incorrect because its negation, most people who overestimate the likelihood of winning a major jackpot DO NOT DO SO at least in part because media coverage of other people who have won major jackpots downplays the odds against winning such a jackpot, doesn't wreck the argument. The argument's conclusion, that many people greatly overestimate the odds of their winning a major jackpot, is still consistent with the negation of (A) because the negation applies to MOST people, which leaves room for some (i.e., many), which is what's in the conclusion. (B) is incorrect because its negation doesn't wreck the argument. If there are tons of people other than those who win major jackpots who receive a great deal of attention from the media, the argument is not broken. (C) is incorrect because its negation, if it were not for media attention, most people who purchase lottery tickets would overestimate their chances of winning a jackpot, does not make the argument fall apart. This negation could still be consistent with the argument's conclusion that many people greatly overestimate the odds of their winning a major jackpot, so it's out. (D) is correct; it's negation, that becoming aware of individuals who have won a major jackpot DOES NOT LEAD any people to incorrectly overestimate their own chances of winning a jackpot, would make the argument fall apart. The argument's conclusion, that many people greatly overestimate the odds of their winning a major jackpot, is supported by the premise that most people come to have at least some awareness of events that receive extensive media coverage, is wrecked if the negation of (D) is true because becoming aware of people who win the lottery wouldn't lead them to overestimate their odds of winning, thereby wrecking the argument in the stimulus. (D) is our choice. (E) is incorrect because its negation, that at least some people who are heavily influenced by the media do believe that the odds of their winning a major jackpot are significant, is perfectly consistent with the conclusion of the stimulus. We can get rid of this choice. Does this help? Let us know if you have any more questions!

Hey Ravi, Can you explain what you mean by negation in your explanation for answer choice D and E? To me, D and E look like very similar answers.