Hello, everyone. There is little to analyze in the way of a question stem here. All we need to do is follow the logic of the argument.
Bunuel wrote:
Although Damon had ample time earlier in the month to complete the paper he is scheduled to present at a professional conference tomorrow morning, he repeatedly put off doing it. Damon could still get the paper ready in time, but only if he works on it all evening without interruption. However, his seven-year-old daughter’s tap-dance recital takes place this evening and Damon had promised both to attend and to take his daughter and her friends out for ice cream afterward. Thus, because of his procrastination, Damon will be forced to choose between his professional and his family responsibilities.
The argument proceeds by
Sentence 1 tells us that Damon had
ample time in which to work on a paper for
a professional conference, but he procrastinated.
Sentence 2 provides a conditional statement: he
could still finish the paper, but
only if he burns the midnight oil and works
without interruption.
Sentence 3 presents a hurdle: Damon has a prior
family obligation, one that will require his time.
Sentence 4 reveals the conclusion, using the transition
thus: Damon
must choose between his professional and his family responsibilities.
Since we have teased out what each sentence reveals, we just need to follow the trail of breadcrumbs.
Bunuel wrote:
(A) providing evidence that one event will occur in order to establish that an alterative [sic] event cannot occur
Although this can look tempting, Damon has a choice here. Nothing is set in stone. Sure, depending on which choice he makes, the alternative event will
not occur, but because we do not get any insight into what his decision will be, this cannot be our answer.
Bunuel wrote:
(B) showing that two situations are similar in order to justify the claim that someone with certain responsibilities in the first situation has similar responsibilities in the second situation
This one is all sorts of wrong. Apart from each obligation requiring Damon's time, the two situations are
not presented as being similar. In fact, there is a clear dichotomy that is established instead: professional versus familial obligations. If you want to get really nit-picky, perhaps working on your chops for
boldface questions, there is also no such
claim made in the passage about these so-called
similar responsibilities. The last sentence provides a
premise first--
because...--followed by a
conclusion--
Damon will be forced.... Keep going.
Bunuel wrote:
(C) invoking sympathy for someone who finds himself in a dilemma in order to excuse that person’s failure to meet all of his responsibilities
How touching. However, I don't know about you, but I did not feel any
sympathy for Damon. I was thinking,
You nitwit! How could you promise your little girl one thing and put off your paper/presentation all the while, knowing there was a close deadline? Raise your hand if you think Damon will get his comeuppance. We cannot justify that the passage is looking for us to
excuse his behavior or the probable outcome of it. Despite my reaction, the passage presents all the information in an unbiased, non-judgmental manner. We need to keep looking for our answer.
Bunuel wrote:
(D) making clear the extent to which someone’s actions resulted in harm to others in order to support the claim that those actions were irresponsible
I think Damon was
irresponsible, but, as I pointed out above, the passage takes no such stance. Moreover, we never get an outcome to this situation. Damon has backed himself into a corner, but we get nothing in the way of his choice (whatever that will be) harming others. This is overstated, speculative drivel.
Bunuel wrote:
(E) demonstrating that two situations cannot both occur by showing that something necessary for one of those situations is incompatible with something necessary for the other situation
Finally, the answer that cannot be argued against. This is
exactly how the passage plays out. Damon cannot both complete his paper, according to the passage, and attend his daughter's recital. Why? Because bi-location is still not possible, or at least the notion is not mentioned as part of the passage. Damon is bound by time and will need to make a choice. (On a personal note, if I were him, I would call in sick and cross my fingers that no one would see me either at the recital or at the ice-cream social afterwards.)
I hope that helps. If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to offer my thoughts. Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew