Hello,
chillbrorelax. I am open to receiving constructive criticism, so I am glad you provided
reasons for why you think the question and the OA and OE may be flawed. I will respond in-line below:
chillbrorelax wrote:
Hi
AndrewN,
You have offered an interesting question.
But I think the OA is incorrect. Here's why I think so.
Let me explain this with an example.
Premise 1: All living things need water.
Premise 2: Roses need water.
Can we conclude the following?Therefore, roses are living things.
The answer is no.Official explanations to this example attached in the references below. Click on the links.
References: 1.
How rational are you?-
University of Toronto Magazine. 2.
Computational Biases -
The Psychology of Problem SolvingThe last two statements in the given passage provide similar premises.
Premise 1: a tea made exclusively from spruce nettles was used as a remedy for scurvy
Premise 2: citrus, a type of fruit high in vitamin C, was a recommended remedy for scurvy
Applying similar method of reasoning as in the example, can we conclude that "Spruce nettles contain vitamin C"? No.The two quoted lines from the passage do not fit the same pattern as your earlier example, in which a broad truth in statement one is then applied, via a singular example, in statement two. What you are calling premises for a shared conclusion above are two detached statements that are unrelated, except that each surrounds a remedy for scurvy. In fact, I included the last line of the passage as a red herring for choice (E), and as an additional historical footnote. Notice, too, that in the earlier premise about roses, there is a key missing component in any mention of a recommendation. It is easier to expose the flaw in reasoning with that bit added in:
Premise 1: All living things need water.
Premise 2: Gardeners recommend that roses be watered.
To conclude that, based on a recommendation, roses must be living things sounds ridiculous rather than well-reasoned.
chillbrorelax wrote:
Also, notice the official explanation for option B.
Quote:
If this were untrue, then based on the information in the passage, there is no way that a tea made exclusively from spruce nettles could have led to the recovery of the sailors afflicted with scurvy.
Going by the explanation here, the statement given in
option B can be implied as a necessary condition to suggest that "a tea made exclusively from spruce nettles could have led to the recovery of the sailors afflicted with scurvy". Such a necessary condition is called assumption.
Therefore, going by the given explanation, this statement best serves as an assumption to a statement given in the passage.I hope you will take my criticism objectively. Please feel free to share your views on this.
Thank you.
Do not lose sight of the question itself:
Which of the following conclusions can be most reasonably drawn from the information in the passage? You are not looking for an airtight truth. However, under the given conditions that a lack of vitamin C causes scurvy, and that a spruce nettle tea apparently cured people of that very disease, it seems
reasonable to conclude that something in that tea contained (or led to the synthesis of) vitamin C. Of the five answer choices presented, (B) is the best answer to the question being asked. Of course, you are welcome to disagree. One element of your critique that is missing is a defense of a different answer choice. What do you believe the answer should be, or do you feel the options and passage are so flawed that no reasonable answer exists?
Again, thank you for the thoughtful response.
- Andrew