Thank you experts all for your kind responses and explanations!
I've learned more during this process.
Thank you for your elaborations of the use of "IF" structure and "more," but I would like to discuss the phrasing "would otherwise be," since it confuses me the most.
KarishmaB wrote:
Here is the thing about the distinction made for 'otherwise' - you cannot distinguish between the cases I and II.
What does this mean - "If you run this campaign, you will get more customers than otherwise"
It simply means that if you run this campaign, you will get more customers than if you do not run the campaign.
"If rigorously enforced, more people will be attracted than otherwise" means that if it is rigorously enforced, more people will be attracted than if it is NOT rigorously enforced. In the case of "NOT rigorously enforced", we are talking about the case of "implemented and not rigorously imposed" as well as "not implemented." Option (D) doesn't distinguish between the two and neither can we.
KarishmaB Yes I understand this point. I also mention in my previous post by saying "Does not the option (D), with the phrasing "otherwise," refer to all the situations except for the situation in which the plan is enforced strictly?" I appreciate the expert's breakdown of the sentence into (I) and (II), but I do not think that we have to choose just one of them, since "otherwise" refers to both scenarios.
Though, I still have one doubt: cannot we use the information that a plan, when strictly enforced, has some effects, to infer that the plan, when enforced by a normal degree, will also have some effects?
I think this is the crux preventing me from eliminating (D), because I do think, partly because of my understanding of the real world, that if a plan, when strictly executed, has some effects, the plan will also have some effects when it is normally executed.
I really like your chemistry example, and I can see why the statement "
If you heat it to 500 degrees celsius, the components are more likely to separate than otherwise" might not be helpful in convincing people of the plan's success, because we do not know whether the plan entails heating the mixture to 500 degrees. But it is science, and we know that chemical reactions only occur when the specific conditions are satisfied. 499 degrees, even though just fewer by one degree, might not prompt the chemical reaction that 500 degrees prompt.
But in my opinion, that is not how a plan works in the real world--a plan is not a chemical formula. If a plan has some effects when it is executed strictly, it should also have some effects when strictly normally. This is my personal understanding of plans and their execution in the real world. I factored it in for this CR question in the same way I factor in common senses for CR questions.
To be honest, surely I can think of some examples that a plan has no effect unless it is strictly implemented, but they are not many, so I ignored such examples in my previous reasoning.
KarishmaB you are absolutely right that test takers can learn something from this official question. My personal takeaway is that my understanding of how plans work might need to be corrected--whether a plan will achieve its goal when it is normally executed might not be inferred from the information that the plan has some effects when strictly executed. I take it as a message from CR test designers.
To elaborate more why I interpret the option (D) as saying that the plan has some effects when strictly enforced, I think the information "
more people will be attracted to downtown businesses" supports this interpretation, regardless of whether the comparison of the number of visitors is between when the plan is rigorously enforced and when there is no such plan, or between when the plan is strictly enforced and when the plan is normally enforced.
Thank you again for your response.
zhanbo wrote:
Grace, you are such a good writer; your AWA will absolutely be 6.
Thank you
zhanbo for your compliment. Your comment made my day.
But in fact I've never scored 6 for AWA in my previous attempts. I think the key factor is the amount of time I have for writing. Usually I spend at least one hour writing a post in the CR section--partially organizing my lines of thinking and partially making my sentences as clear and concise as possible. Sometimes I figure out the question on the way and then I I will stop writing the post. By writing I intend to learn rather than practice for AWA, but I feel that writing at this forum greatly helps prepare for AWA. I hope that my AWA scores could be better next time.
zhanbo wrote:
Let's say, If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, 200 people will be attracted to downtown businesses. Otherwise, only 100 people will be attracted to downtown business. Fair enough?
But we do not know how many people are visiting downtown business now!
It might be any number from 50, 150, 250, to 500+.
Since the goal of the plan is to increase visitors to downtown business, simply knowing (D) is essentially irrelevant. True, If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be. But, even with the rigorous enforcement, the number of visitors may still be lower than current level. (Or it may be higher. Thus irrelevant.)
Sometimes I also like solving CR questions with numbers, and I appreciate your examples.
I think that the use of "more" in the option (D)
"If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be." implies that there will be an increase in the number of visitors when the plan is strictly enforced, but I also see that
it is unclear where the baseline is.
If we interpret the option (D) as saying "more people will be attracted when the plan is strictly enforced than
when there is no such plan (baseline 1)," we do not know whether more people will be attracted when the plan is normally enforced.
If we interpret the option (D) as saying "more people will be attracted when the plan is strictly enforced than
when the plan is normally enforced (baseline 2)," we still do not know whether the number of visitors will be higher when the plan is normally executed than when there is no such plan.
Hence, I can understand now why the option (D) is wrong, however I dislike the option (C) for the reasons that have been mentioned by many members in previous posts.
Thank you for your response.
AndrewN wrote:
As with many other issues in SC and CR alike, you want to contextualize the information you encounter. It is not as though I saw if in answer choice (D) and went, Zap! Gone! For example, I could see a correct answer starting with, If implemented, the plan... The problem with the if in answer choice (D) is that the rest of that conditional operates under an extreme condition: if... rigorously enforced.
Furthermore, we cannot look at more in a vacuum and call it a second factor for elimination. Again, I did not look at more people and immediately write off the answer choice. Rather, I considered the contents of the second half of the conditional statement together: more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.
Thank you
AndrewN for elaborating more on your approaches and thoughts.
To be completely honest, I cannot eliminate the option (D) just because it uses the "IF" structure, although several experts whom I respect have criticized this structure. I remember that some correct answers also use the "IF" structure, and next time when I review them or run into a new question that also uses "IF" structure in the correct answer, I might write a follow up posts for test takers' reference.
But I can understand your main point. Thank you for your advice and help as always.
PS. Andrew, I do not think that you are lazy at all. I can see that you put time and thoughts in your posts when answering members' questions. And you also reply membes' questions quickly. "Lazy" is the final adjective I think of if I am to describe you.
avigutman wrote:
When I read answer choice (D), I stop reading at the comma and proceed with a quick elimination:
Quote:
If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced,
Why? Because that answer choice is conditional on rigorous enforcement, which (as far as we know) is not part of the plan. Therefore, I cannot imagine ANY text after the comma that would save this answer choice from elimination. The clause following the comma is a hypothetical whose likelihood we have no way of evaluating, so I'd rather not read it.
Since every wrong answer choice has something about it that will seduce test takers, I'd rather not expose myself to whatever that thing is. This strategy requires a VERY slow reading pace, with a reluctance to read any more text than I absolutely have to (I'm lazy by nature).
Thank you
avigutman for your explanations! Your method is efficient as always.
I had the contrary idea previously--I thought that if a plan has some effects when it is executed strictly, it should also have some effects when strictly normally. This was based on my personal opinion and understanding of how plans work in the real world. Since our task is to find a strengthener instead of a proof that the plan will definitely achieve its goal, I thought that (D) was not bad. But I've seen why (D) is not ideal and explained it above.
Thank you for your help, time and thoughts!