sahil7389 wrote:
Veritas PREP or
egmat or any Expert.
Can you please explain this question. I am not able to understand it.
Hi
sahil7389Please find below my reasoning. Let me know if it helps.
Splitting the argument.
1. Recently, since rumors have been confirmed that the most prominent multi-property owners in
the condominium complex have been using home equity credit to make renovations,- Fact
2. other owners, who feared that the complex's property values were rapidly decreasing, have been greatly relieved. - Premise
3. They posit that, since the largest stakeholders in the complex evidently believe in the soundness of their properties, the worry that values are declining must be false. Conclusion
4. This may not be sound reasoning, however, because the largest stakeholders may simply be protecting their investments by creating
the image that the property values will stay high so that other owners do not sell their properties and further perpetuate the decrease. - Counter Premise
The (1) BF and (2) BF are opposite premises.
A The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
The second is not the conclusion. It is a counter premise "This may not be sound reasoning because...." Hence incorrect. (note the words - may not be)
B The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
The two BFs are supporting opposite conclusions. Hence incorrect. C The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
Yes, Both are premises, the first one supporting the conclusion and the second one, doing the opposite, makes you question the conclusion. - CorrectD The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
Both are supporting opposite conclusions and are not on the same side of the argument. Also, the second BF is not an explanation, it gives you a reason to question the conclusion. Hence incorrect. E The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
Both are supporting opposite conclusions and are not on the same side of the argument. The second provides a counter -evidence to the conclusion. Hence incorrect. Let me know if this helped you or confused you more