Critical Reasoning

BTGmoderatorDC wrote:A company has developed a new sensing device that, according to the company's claims, detects weak, ultralow-frequency electromagnetic signals associated with a beating heart. These signals, which pass through almost any physical obstruction, are purportedly detected by the device even at significant distances. Therefore, if the company's claims are true, their device will radically improve emergency teams' ability to locate quickly people who are trapped within the wreckage of collapsed buildings.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. People trapped within the wreckage of collapsed buildings usually have serious injuries that require prompt medical treatment.

B. The device gives a distinctive reading when the signals it detects come from human beings rather than from any other living beings.

C. Most people who have survived after being trapped in collapsed buildings were rescued within two hours of the building's collapse.

D. Ultralow-frequency signals are not the only electromagnetic signals that can pass through almost any physical obstruction.

E. Extensive training is required in order to operate the device effectively.

PREMISE: New sensor detects signals from beating heart
PREMISE: Signals pass through almost everything
CONCLUSION: New sensor will help locate trapped people quickly

Now let's examine each answer choice while reminding ourselves of the conclusion.

A) Does this strengthen the conclusion that the new sensor will help locate trapped people quickly?
No, the conclusion is concerned only with the new sensors ability to locate trapped people. Whether or not those people have serious injuries has no bearing on the conclusion. As such, answer choice A cannot strengthen the argument. ELIMINATE A.

B) Does this strengthen the conclusion that the new sensor will help locate trapped people quickly? YES! If it were the case that the sensor detected heartbeats from ALL living creatures, then emergency teams would waste a lot of time following signals emitted by non-human such as rats, mice or other animals with a heartbeat. So if the sensor detects only the signals from humans then the emergency teams will definitely be able to locate people quickly. KEEP answer choice B for now.

C) Does this strengthen the conclusion that the new sensor will help locate trapped people quickly? NO. ELIMINATE C.

D) Does this strengthen the conclusion that the new sensor will help locate trapped people quickly? NO. It makes no difference whether there are other electromagnetic signals that can pass through physical obstructions. ELIMINATE D.

E) Does this strengthen the conclusion that the new sensor will help locate trapped people quickly? NO. It makes no difference whether training is required. ELIMINATE E.

Answer: B

Cheers,
Brent

deloitte247 wrote:Option A - CORRECT.
This statement is true and supports the claim of the company. Since the new sensitive device according to the company's claims, detects weak, ultralow-frequency electromagnetic signals associated with a beating heart. Then this device will help during emergency period to help people trapped during the wreckage of collapsed building.

Option B - INCORRECT.
This statement would have been accepted but, it has been complicated by clarifying human beings alone among all other living things.

Option C - INCORRECT.
This statement may be true but it occurs only in rare cases and only in a not too big building. So therefore, it is not associated with the company's claim.

Option D - INCORRECT.
This statement is true but it is not associated with the company's claims.

Option E - INCORRECT.
This claim is not stated in the company's claim and definitely not an option to look into on the issue been discussed.

You might want to revisit your solution here. The official answer is B

Cheers,
Brent