Critical Reasoning

Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word "explosion" and use the phrase "energetic disassembly" instead. In fact, the word "explosion" elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore, of the two terms, "explosion" is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term "explosion" outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.

(B) The phrase "energetic disassembly" has not so far been used as a substitute for the word "explosion" in the kind of discussion at issue.

(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.

(D) The only reason that people would have for using "energetic disassembly" in place of "explosion" is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.

(E) The phrase "energetic disassembly" is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion.

My answer for this is C.

I'd go for A. If that's the OA, I'll give you my reasoning behind it.

IMO A

Edited my post

IMO A is correct

Please explain ur answers.

OA A

Hey Govi..I was about to mention you..Meanwhile you edited ur post:)

Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word "explosion" and use the phrase "energetic disassembly" instead. In fact, the word "explosion" elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore, of the two terms, "explosion" is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term "explosion" outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term. - The conclusion recommends the usage of "Explosion" ALWAYS, instead of the usage of a more mellow "Engergetic disassembly" assuming that the usage of "explosion" will have better results.

(B) The phrase "energetic disassembly" has not so far been used as a substitute for the word "explosion" in the kind of discussion at issue. - Weakens the arguement.

(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words. - Irrelevant

(D) The only reason that people would have for using "energetic disassembly" in place of "explosion" is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions. Weakens.

(E) The phrase "energetic disassembly" is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion. Weakens.

I need help with this one; my answer was C When I see a CR of such density I get nervious; especially since I know I only have 2 minutes to find the answer.

The first thing I did was to read the stem so that I could get a feel for what I needed to look for. Then I read the passage quickly but only comprehended about 20% of what I read; so I re-read it more slowly and then read each answer choice but only C made the most sense to me.

The premises are: [spoiler] (1) "explosions" heighten attention and (2) "energetic disassembly" does not heighten attention; [/spoiler] therefore, [spoiler] participants should use the word "explosion" in serious policy discussion because it elicits desirable reactions[/spoiler] but how can I find the assumption? It's the unstated premises right?
How do you guys attack these? In my diag tests my CR skills are my weakest verbal area.

von wrote:I need help with this one; my answer was C When I see a CR of such density I get nervious; especially since I know I only have 2 minutes to find the answer.

The first thing I did was to read the stem so that I could get a feel for what I needed to look for. Then I read the passage quickly but only comprehended about 20% of what I read; so I re-read it more slowly and then read each answer choice but only C made the most sense to me.

The premises are: [spoiler] (1) "explosions" heighten attention and (2) "energetic disassembly" does not heighten attention; [/spoiler] therefore, [spoiler] participants should use the word "explosion" in serious policy discussion because it elicits desirable reactions[/spoiler] but how can I find the assumption? It's the unstated premises right?
How do you guys attack these? In my diag tests my CR skills are my weakest verbal area.

You knowI experienced the same problem initially. WHat I have started doing now is making notes of the key points WHILE reading the question the first time itself, that way I am able to comprehend more than I used to be when I would just read the question and ended up reading it again to be able to grasp what it's saying.
How I solved this one was by going thru each choice and determining if its relevant to the conclusion or not. Ofcourse, in order to be able to determine that we need to have proper understanding of the question/stem itself.
Try making quick notes of the key ideas, you would think it'll take longer, but it really doesn't. (I have timed myself doing that and kept under 2 minutes). See if that works.

Taking short-hand notes while reading def saved me time and the correct answer actually became more obvious to me. Here's how I did it: First I read the argument pausing at the end of each sentence to digest the meaning and jot down a the thoughts with an eye for the conclusion:

Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word "explosion" and use the phrase "energetic disassembly" instead

Notes: Conclu = use "explosion" and not "energetic dis"

Second, I continued to read with an eye for the premises:

In fact, the word "explosion" elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not.

Notes: (1) "explos" gives desir reactions; (2) "explos" gives heightnd atten; (3) "energ disass" does NOT give desir reactions

Then A became the obvious answer. Thanks

Glad it worked. Good Luck!

Paraphrasing the stimulus:

conclusion - You have to use "explosion"

evidence: because explosion gets the heightened level of attention and "energetic disassembly" (spare me!) doesn't.


Therefore, the author is assuming that "heightened attention" is important. That leads to A.

Try the denial test. If the advantages of attention DON'T outweigh the risks of using "explosion", i.e. if using explosion is a problem, then you shouldn't use it and the argument dies.