jerseygirl wrote:i would like some tips on how to best approach the strengthen questions. i've read tactics where you treat ans choices on a gradient scale, where one ans choice may strengthen the arg more than the other, but this just gets me into the twilight zone.

is there some trick i can use figure out which ans choice strengthens more in a more foolproof way? some say negating the ans choice (like you would with an assumption question) would work. this makes sense, but i wanted to solicit some more advice.

here is a question that i had trouble with recently:

Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone, these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire.

First step identify the conclusion which in this case is that their proposal to remove the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire ....

Then look for how does the author reach the conclusion -
Premise - a majority of the alarms are prank calls made from fire alarm boxes and since everybody now has access to private telephones can still raise the alarm when needed

Always keep the conclusion in might ....
Now look at the options
"



Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?

A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
Let's hold this ... because now that they have proposed removing the boxes , they should still be able to reach the site of crime .. However, this is not possible if the location of the private telephone is not trackable...
B. Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs Springfield approximately five million dollars annually. - This has nothing to do with the argument because the argument is about prank calls .....since people have phone ...remove boxes.... the reason for removing the boxes is not from an economic standpoint
C. A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box. - This to me is like a FYI....
D. Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire department's capacity for responding to fires. - this was never the concern . The solution of removing the boxes was proposed to reduce prank calls
E. On any given day, a significant percentage of the public telephones in Springfield are out of service. - we are talking about private telephones. So this is out of scope really

Hence our option is A

____

A







I guess I thought C and D could also help strengthen the argument too...

debmalya_dutta wrote:
Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone, these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire.

First step identify the conclusion which in this case is that their proposal to remove the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire ....

Then look for how does the author reach the conclusion -
Premise - a majority of the alarms are prank calls made from fire alarm boxes and since everybody now has access to private telephones can still raise the alarm when needed

Always keep the conclusion in might ....
Now look at the options
"



Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?

A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
Let's hold this ... because now that they have proposed removing the boxes , they should still be able to reach the site of crime .. However, this is not possible if the location of the private telephone is not trackable...

C. A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box. - This to me is like a FYI....

Hence our option is A

____

A


I guess I thought C and D could also help strengthen the argument too...

debmalya_dutta wrote:

jerseygirl wrote:i would like some tips on how to best approach the strengthen questions. i've read tactics where you treat ans choices on a gradient scale, where one ans choice may strengthen the arg more than the other, but this just gets me into the twilight zone.

is there some trick i can use figure out which ans choice strengthens more in a more foolproof way? some say negating the ans choice (like you would with an assumption question) would work. this makes sense, but i wanted to solicit some more advice.

here is a question that i had trouble with recently:

Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone, these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire.

First step identify the conclusion which in this case is that their proposal to remove the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire ....

Then look for how does the author reach the conclusion -
Premise - a majority of the alarms are prank calls made from fire alarm boxes and since everybody now has access to private telephones can still raise the alarm when needed

Always keep the conclusion in might ....
Now look at the options
"



Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?

A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
Let's hold this ... because now that they have proposed removing the boxes , they should still be able to reach the site of crime .. However, this is not possible if the location of the private telephone is not trackable...
B. Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs Springfield approximately five million dollars annually. - This has nothing to do with the argument because the argument is about prank calls .....since people have phone ...remove boxes.... the reason for removing the boxes is not from an economic standpoint
C. A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box. - This to me is like a FYI....
D. Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire department's capacity for responding to fires. - this was never the concern . The solution of removing the boxes was proposed to reduce prank calls
E. On any given day, a significant percentage of the public telephones in Springfield are out of service. - we are talking about private telephones. So this is out of scope really

Hence our option is A

____

A







I guess I thought C and D could also help strengthen the argument too...

hultt wrote:Can someone please clear my doubt on this ques..
Conclusion says >> "Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire"

to me option E is best...
it says "On any given day, a signifi cant percentage of the public telephones in Springfi eld are out of service"
this implies, public phones most of the time are out of service. hence removing them will not impact the ability of people to report fire. But, removing the public phones will certainly reduce the prank calls as they are non traceable.

hence i chose E.

Option A>> Though fire department can trace calls BUT if
1. most of the phones are out of service and not used, hence they MAY be used for prank calls. But even if they are used, it no where mentions the ability of the fire department to reduce the prank calls. hence i got this out.

Can someone please compare option A and E.

Many Thanks.

hultt wrote:Can someone please clear my doubt on this ques..
Conclusion says >> "Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire"

to me option E is best...
it says "On any given day, a signifi cant percentage of the public telephones in Springfi eld are out of service"
this implies, public phones most of the time are out of service. hence removing them will not impact the ability of people to report fire. But, removing the public phones will certainly reduce the prank calls as they are non traceable.

hence i chose E.

Option A>> Though fire department can trace calls BUT if
1. most of the phones are out of service and not used, hence they MAY be used for prank calls. But even if they are used, it no where mentions the ability of the fire department to reduce the prank calls. hence i got this out.

Can someone please compare option A and E.

Many Thanks.