Not sure the conclusion here is correct.... I think conclusion is Recipe testers should not blame author when recipe does not work but find out why recipe was unsuccessful by studying ingredients, combinations and temperatures.
because it answers the question why [ they should not blame and study] because only through this sort of exhaustive analysis can the recipes be corrected and made palatable
Always conclusion should pass why test, except when this is a recommendation or suggestion.... Infact here conclusion also looks like a suggestion that they should not Y but do Z.
My take on answers is as below.
A. The author of a recipe is not the cause of the recipe's failure. --- this is a trap answer.... this seems a paraphrase of the conclusion ...testers should not blame author when recipe does not work. It does not bridge the gap between evidence (exhaustive analysis corrects recipe and makes palatable recipes) and conclusion (do not blame author but study ingredients bla bla)
Lets negate this ...author is the cause of recipe's failure but then it misses big picture that do not blame but find out why this failed because only through study we can correct and make it palatable....the conclusion still holds
B. The author of a recipe should be the one who tests the recipe.---- Not necessarily as tester are the ones who do it
C. More thorough testing of recipes will always create recipes that are more palatable. -- Argument is 100% correct as testing helps to correct and make recipe palatable but not necessarily this is how you arrive at conclusion. Conclusion is
when recipe does not work you find it through exhaustive analysis. but here assumption is more focusing on how we can make recipe palatable
D. Recipe testers should contribute to the eventual palatability of the recipes they test.--this looks an assumption as recipe testers test recipes, if recipes are ok, its all good. but if recipes are not good, testers need to do exhaustive analysis and what exhaustive analysis does , it makes recipe palatable....so this bridges the gap between conclusion and evidence
E. Most recipes are unpalatable due to the combinations of their ingredients.[/quote]--need not be assumed that most are unpalatable..
Addupaddukaddu wrote:
pun91 wrote:
Recipe testers should not simply blame the author of a recipe when the recipe does not work but find out why the recipe was unsuccessful by studying ingredients, combinations, and temperatures. Only through this sort of exhaustive analysis can the recipes be corrected and made palatable.
Which of the following is a necessary assumption in the argument above?
A. The author of a recipe is not the cause of the recipe's failure.
B. The author of a recipe should be the one who tests the recipe.
C. More thorough testing of recipes will always create recipes that are more palatable.
D. Recipe testers should contribute to the eventual palatability of the recipes they test.
E. Most recipes are unpalatable due to the combinations of their ingredients.
Here's my two cents. It's important to understand the argument before jumping into the options. You can use mnemonics or indicators that make life easier. especially on a time constraint that demands you solve this question in around 2 mins.
So here's the argument deconstructed:
X should not do Y but should do Z. Conclusion: only through Z can they get P.
This is the least count of the argument. I'll explain what that means in point 2. 1. Repetitions not allowed.
2. Anything that breaks X, Y, Z or P further is not a sufficient assumption. for example, if I say combinations are/are not a major factor in palatability, I'm not going to blow the argument open since combinations is just one of the criteria. So keeping your cool and choosing what information can be clubbed in a variable is really important; if you can do this, the major battle is won.
Only valid assumptions: (1) Y or any other thing (not mentioned in the argument) cannot get P (2) X should do P (3) Not P means Not Z (implication contra-positive)
Anything that even hints at the above three is a winning choice.
D is an exact match.
Common wrong answers A and CA. We can eliminate this through 1. assumption negation and 2. the fact that the option breaks the least count. It talks about the author not being the cause. Now since we selected Y to encompass "blame the author for the recipe", if the author is or isn't to be blamed doesn't support our conclusion of Analysis gives palatable (only through Z can they get P). By the first technique if you negate it again, it doesn't really weaken the argument. It actually doesn't really do anything to the argument to be honest.
C. Option C is a tricky one to eliminate, but if you have your logic (mathematical/symbolic logic) antennas up this is an easy strike out. Option C reads, in variables, If Z happens then P has to happen, which is wrong because the conclusion reads only through Z can they get P. Confused? Don't be!
Let's take Z and P as easily understood analogies. Let's call Z = Grey rainy clouds and P = rain. Let's read the conclusion. Only through grey rains clouds can they get rain. Seems legit. That means rain only comes from grey rainy clouds. Or no rain means no grey rainy clouds. Yes! that seems okay. Does the option say that though?
Now let's read option C. If grey rainy clouds occur then it has to rain. Ouch. Not necessarily. I can have grey rainy clouds and no rain. Rain needs grey rainy clouds but grey rainy clouds doesn't necessarily mean rain. There could be no rain.
AAH!!
close
18 Jul 2018, 11:59
61%
(01:42)
wrong 
