All right, I see a couple questions about this one, and I will admit to taking a close look at two answer choices before settling on the OA. The real question: How do we disprove (C)? Read on, and if you are curious, feel free to check out my analyses to the other responses as well. First, the question:
Bunuel wrote:
Which one of the following, in its logical features, most closely parallels the reasoning used in passage?
We need to find an answer choice that
parallels the logic of the passage, so how does the passage break down?
Bunuel wrote:
Although all contemporary advertising tries to persuade, only a small portion of contemporary advertising can be considered morally reprehensible. It nevertheless follows that some attempts at persuasion can be regarded as morally reprehensible.
The dependent clause of sentence 1 reveals that
all contemporary advertising tries to persuade. Simple enough.
The main clause of sentence 1 delves a little deeper into
contemporary advertising:
a small portion... can be considered morally reprehensible.
The second sentence provides a conclusion:
some attempts at persuasion [are] morally reprehensible.
To be honest, the only aspect of the
passage that flummoxed me was the transition
nevertheless. I felt the conclusion was grounded without it. However, I can appreciate how the transition might counterbalance the
only a small portion of the previous sentence. Anyway, enough semantic fact-checking. On to the answers.
Bunuel wrote:
(A) None of the chemicals used for cleaning the Sistine Chapel will affect the original dyes. Hence, the colors used by Michelangelo will be fully restored.
I was expecting something more along the lines of
all chemicals... some chemicals... some chemicals. Here, we shift from
none of the chemicals to
dyes to
colors, as well as focusing on what does
not happen. This does not parallel the reasoning used in the passage at all.
Bunuel wrote:
(B) Not all operational tracking studies are conducted to illustrate exact corporate returns on investment. Hence, some of these studies are not reliable.
The passage does not start with a negation, not to mention that the middle link is missing. We cannot conclude that just because
not all such studies fail to
illustrate exact corporate returns on investment,
some of them must be unreliable. There is no qualifying statement about what makes a study reliable, so there is no basis for judgment.
Bunuel wrote:
(C) A good manager always makes important decisions on the basis of adequate data, although of course some managers fail to do this. It follows that some managers are not good managers.
The moment of truth. This one is so close, but it just misses out. Why did I highlight the first
some managers? Because to parallel the passage, the answer would have to say,
although of course some good managers fail to do this, and that statement would contradict what we had just learned about
a good manager. That is, it cannot be true that a good manager
always follows a certain course of action, yet some
good managers fail to do so. For this answer choice to parallel the passage, the passage itself would have to shift from
all contemporary advertising to some other type of advertising, perhaps something that had been used in the past. Instead, the passage repeats
all contemporary advertising. As I imagine just about everyone else did, I placed this answer choice on hold for further analysis of the other options.
Bunuel wrote:
(D) There is a direct correlation between the number of times you repeat something and the degree to which you retain it. Therefore, repetition is always a critical factor in remembering.
Where do I begin with this one? It starts with a statement that the reader is meant to take as fact, rather than trickling down from all to some of something. Then, the second link is missing, and finally, the switch got flipped from
some in the passage to a definitive
always here. Keep moving.
Bunuel wrote:
(E) Some short poems are thematically pluralistic, since some sonnets are characterized by such pluralism, and all sonnets are short poems.
The trouble I had here was with presentation. It is all backwards! But notice that the question does
not ask us to parallel the sentence-by-sentence progression of the passage. Instead, it asks us to parallel the
reasoning. If we take a moment to start from the end, we get something that fits:
All sonnets are short poems, and some sonnets are characterized by thematic pluralism. Some short poems are therefore thematically pluralistic.The logical progression goes from
all to a subset of the
same type of poem and makes a comment on a feature of this subset, thereby allowing us to conclude that
some representatives of the broader category retain the same feature. In the language of the passage,
Although all sonnets are short poems, only a small portion of sonnets can be characterized by thematic pluralism. It nevertheless follows that some attempts at short poems can be regarded as thematically pluralistic.This makes perfect sense. If you think I changed too much to make the answer fit, then consider doing the same with (C), and I think you will further expose the logical disconnect:
Although all good managers always make important decisions on the basis of adequate data, only a small portion of managers fail to do this. It nevertheless follows that some managers can be regarded as not being good managers.It is not that I disagree that
some managers might not make the grade, as implied from the beginning with the designation of
good managers (as opposed to poor ones, presumably). It is just that by swapping out good managers for some managers in general in the second part, the reasoning of the answer choice and the passage start on divergent paths. This is a subtle one, but in CR, you have to make every word count.
I would be happy to discuss any contrary views on the matter. I cast my vote for (E).
- Andrew
close
10 Mar 2020, 03:15
68%
(02:13)
wrong 
