Vercules wrote:
Technology Analyst: Most technologies become less effective over time. Some experts go so far as to recommend that every technology will be redundant after 15 years and should be replaced by a new technology, thus replacing all of its existing infrastructure and personnel. However, this policy would be impractical since certain technologies have trivial applications, such as in motor operated equipment used in households and, and therefore cannot afford to be permanently discontinued.
In the technology analyst’s argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A) The first is evidence offered in support of an opinion that the technology analyst rejects; the second offers information that contradicts that evidence.
B) The first is a premise that the technology analyst accepts but argues against; the second offers evidence that supports the analyst’s position.
C) The first is a position that the technology analyst argues against; the second is the position that the analyst defends.
D) The first is a generalization that the technology analyst accepts as accurate and is used as the basis for an opinion that the analyst rejects; the second is a consideration used to defend the analyst’s position.
E) The first is a generalization that the technology analyst accepts as accurate and is used as the basis for the analyst’s position; the second offers another consideration used to defend that position.
Good explanations will receive Kudos...!!
Let us first break the argument - what is the conclusion and what role do the two bold face sentences play with respect to the conclusion.
BF1 - Most technologies become less effective over time
This could be considered an intermediate conclusion and a premise on which the author makes the statement that some people believe that in 15 years time technology becomes obsolete. This statement is clearly a premise on which a statement is made which is against the conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion - However, this policy would be impractical - that every technology would become obsolete after 15 years.
BF2 - certain technologies have trivial applications, such as in motor operated equipment used in households and, and therefore cannot afford to be permanently discontinued.
BF2 is giving reason as to why the conclusion above stands. It is supporting the conclusion.
Hence after doing such analysis upfront we go to the individual answer choices and then make our decision.
A) The first is evidence offered in support of an opinion that the technology analyst rejects; the second offers information that contradicts that evidence.
The first statement is not any kind of evidence , its just an opinion.
B) The first is a premise that the technology analyst accepts but argues against; the second offers evidence that supports the analyst’s position.
The first statement is a premise but the author does not argue against this premise. He argues against the next statement that is based on this premise.
C) The first is a position that the technology analyst argues against; the second is the position that the analyst defends.
The second is not a position but a reason as to why the conclusion holds.
D) The first is a generalization that the technology analyst accepts as accurate and is used as the basis for an opinion that the analyst rejects; the second is a consideration used to defend the analyst’s position.
Right on mark from our pre-thinking step.
E) The first is a generalization that the technology analyst accepts as accurate and is used as the basis for the analyst’s position; the second offers another consideration used to defend that position.
The first is a generalization that the technology analyst accepts as accurate but this is not used for basis for the analysts position , in facts its going against the conclusion ( that is the analyst argument).
Kudos me if you like the post !!!!
close
18 May 2013, 05:15
37%
(02:13)
wrong 
