Critical Reasoning

Marty Murray wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:I've witnessed a number of instances in which the INCORRECT choice of an Official CR contradicts (or AT LEAST weakens) a PREMISE given in the argument. Now,as we know that the PREMISE given in the argument, can't be WEAKENED or CONTRADICTED, so isn't it logical to accept that answer choice as an INCORRECT option under such circumstances ?

While what is stated in some answer choices may SEEM to contradict the facts upon which an argument is based, I don't believe that I have ever seen in an official question an answer choice something that TRULY contradicts something stated as fact in an argument. If you have examples of such contradictions, please feel free to provide them as discussion points. I would really like to see them.

Sure. Next time I get them will make sure to tag them here for further discussion.

Marty Murray wrote:In these examples "other" and "other than" are used, but no contrast is made.

The soyabean harvest was above average, and the harvest of crops other than soyabeans were also above average.

Marty - I guess, use of "ALSO" plays a crucial role here. I agree to your point as long as "ALSO" is present in the sentence.

BUT, if you remove "ALSO" from the above sentence then ONLY that sentence (wihtout "ALSO") becomes similar to what is discussed in this CR...and thus it appears that Option B implies that Soyabeans DIDN'T have above-average harvests -- a CLEAR CONTRADICTION to the PREMISE in the PASSAGE.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:@Verbal Experts,
Could you please let me know whether the following reason to eliminate option B is correct or not -

The ARGUMENT says "last year's soybean crop was actually slightly larger than average", whereas the option B states that Most countries that produce soybeans had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soybeans last year -- it cealry implies that Soyabean production WASN'T above-average.

So, it appears to be a clear contradiction to what it's being stated in the ARGUMENT (in BLUE).

Am I correct ?

I see what you're saying: if all of these crops are experiencing above average harvests, why differentiate the other crops from soyabeans rather than simply write "in addition to" or "also?" But I agree with Marty that the language doesn't directly contradict the notion that there was an increase in the soyabeans harvest. It's just an odd way of expressing the notion.

Rather than belabor that point, it makes more sense to evaluate B in the context of the conclusion. In other words, rather than insist that B contradicts a premise (an understandable assertion, but a debatable one as well) it's more useful to recognize that this above average harvest in other crops would have no bearing on the crucial link between the weather and soyabean prices. The notion that B doesn't impact the conclusion is unassailable, and, generally speaking, it's better to consider answer choices in terms of their impact on the conclusion, which is ultimately what we're trying to evaluate.

Marty Murray wrote: The second reason is that what choice B says does not in fact contradict what the prompt says. Saying that harvests of "crops other than soybeans" were above average does not clearly imply that soybean production was not above average. In other words, while yes, the expression "crops other than soybeans" could be seen as having the connotation that soybeans were not among the crops the harvests of which were above average, really the presence of the expression "other than soybeans" does not clearly or unambiguously indicate that the soybean crop was not above average.

Consider the following.

"Last year the soybean harvest was above average, and the harvests of food crops other than soybeans were above average."

Clearly the meaning of second clause of the sentence does not contradict that of the first clause.

Hi Marty,
I am afraid I am not get what your explanation that Saying that harvests of "crops other than soybeans" were above average does not clearly imply that soybean production was not above average",
I can understand that soybeans were not among the crops the harvests of which were above average,
my interpretation :
if Saying that harvests of "crops other than soybeans" were above average , then it implies that soybean was not above the average, maybe soybean equals the average or was below the average.

genuinely hope get your clarification.
thanks in advance.

Have a nice day
>_~

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
Rather than belabor that point, it makes more sense to evaluate B in the context of the conclusion. In other words, rather than insist that B contradicts a premise (an understandable assertion, but a debatable one as well) it's more useful to recognize that this above average harvest in other crops would have no bearing on the crucial link between the weather and soyabean prices. The notion that B doesn't impact the conclusion is unassailable, and, generally speaking, it's better to consider answer choices in terms of their impact on the conclusion, which is ultimately what we're trying to evaluate.

Hi David,
Does B state that most countries had a above-average of crops , except soybean ?
in other words, soybean was below or equals average? if so, soybean seems to have not enough , then it is possible that soybean price will increase ..

genuinely hope your clarification.
thanks in advance
have a nice day
>_~

zoe wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
Rather than belabor that point, it makes more sense to evaluate B in the context of the conclusion. In other words, rather than insist that B contradicts a premise (an understandable assertion, but a debatable one as well) it's more useful to recognize that this above average harvest in other crops would have no bearing on the crucial link between the weather and soyabean prices. The notion that B doesn't impact the conclusion is unassailable, and, generally speaking, it's better to consider answer choices in terms of their impact on the conclusion, which is ultimately what we're trying to evaluate.

Hi David,
Does B state that most countries had a above-average of crops , except soybean ?
in other words, soybean was below or equals average? if so, soybean seems to have not enough , then it is possible that soybean price will increase ..

genuinely hope your clarification.
thanks in advance
have a nice day
>_~

Remember that an answer cannot contradict a premise. In the argument we were told, "Worldwide production of soyabeans, an important source of protein for people and livestock alike, was not adversely affected," so we have to take that assertion at face value. B provides information about other crops produced by soybean exporters. This info doesn't explain why the weather patterns would have caused soybean prices to have increased despite the fact that the soybean harvest was not adversely impacted.