Bunuel wrote:
Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award should not submit book review articles that review more than three books at a time. This is because editors for the Boatwright Psychology Review will not publish a book review article if it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read. In their submission guidelines, the editors explicitly state that review articles that cover more than three books at a time are considered too lengthy and cumbersome to read.
Which of the following statements represents an assumption upon which the argument relies?
(A) The book reviews articles that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.
(B) If a book review article is published in the Boatwright Psychology Review, that article will receive the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award.
(C) All articles published in the Boatwright Psychology Review must be limited to a certain length specified by the editors.
(D) The Boatwright Psychology Review editors generally prefer book review articles that cover one book rather than books.
(E) To be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award, a psychologist's book review article must be published in the Boatwright Psychology Review.
Project CR Butler: Critical Reasoning
For all CR butler Questions Click HereKAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
The author concludes that psychologists who want their work to be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award should only submit articles containing reviews on three or fewer books. The evidence follows: the Boatwright Psychology Review basically will not publish any book review article that reviews more than three books. Look back over the conclusion and evidence, and you'll realize that they aren't really talking about the same thing. The conclusion is about what one should do in order to get his work nominated for the award, and the evidence is about what one should do in order to get his work published. That's a classic scope shift. The only way to make these two different subjects relate to one another is to assume that one must have a review article published in the Review in order to be eligible for the award. Otherwise the evidence about publication requirements would have no relevance to the conclusion about nomination requirements.
(E) expresses this central assumption faithfully, tying the evidence concerning publishing to the conclusion concerning nominations.An 800 test taker knows that the logical gap that results from a scope shift can often be bridged by an assumption.
(A) While the stimulus suggests that articles covering more books are longer, it nowhere suggests that this proportional relationship carries out to the extremes. What makes for the longest articles isn't central to the evidence and conclusion, and hence need not be assumed in order for this argument to work.
(B) overstates the link between the two subjects. The argument in the stimulus assumes that publication is necessary for a book to be nominated, while (B) says that publication guarantees that a book will win the award. The argument doesn't concern itself with which book might win the award, so (B) isn't directly relevant to it.
(C) is too broad to be necessary here. The argument concerns book review articles, which do come with certain length restrictions. But (C) deals with all articles, and we don't know nor do we really care anything about articles besides book reviews that Boatwright may contain (editorials, feature articles, etc.). These may or may not have length restrictions, but this particular argument doesn't depend on this issue.
(D) makes an irrelevant distinction that doesn't directly pertain to the central issue: what must be done with an article before it can be nominated for the prestigious award. One book and two books are both on the acceptable side of the length restriction—no distinction between them need be assumed here.
_________________
17 Feb 2021, 00:15
58%
(02:18)
correct 
close
