CR Mystery Stories

[ldoolitt]

Mystery stories often feature a brilliant detective and the detective's dull companion. Clues are presented in the story, and the companion wrongly infers an inaccurate solution to the mystery using the same clues that the detective uses to deduce the correct solution. Thus, the author's strategy of including the dull companion gives readers a chance to solve the mystery while also diverting them from the correct solution.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) Most mystery stories feature a brilliant detective who solves the mystery presented in the story
(B) Mystery readers often solve the mystery in a story simply by spotting the mistakes in the reasoning of the detectives dull companion in that story
(C) Some mystery stories give readers enough clues to infer the correct solution to the mystery
(D) The actions of the brilliant detective in a mystery story rarely divert readers from the actions of the detectives dull companion.
(E) The detective's dull companion in a mystery story generally uncovers the misleading clues that divert readers from the mystery's correct solution

Using POE I got C in ~1:20 which is correct, according to the source. However doesn't that have a logic gap? What throws me off in that solution is "correct"; you can deduce from the stimulus that you have enough clues to solve the mystery, it doesn't indicate to me that a reader is capable of getting the correct solution at all since reader != story detective.

If someone could explain I would be much appreciative.

[fitzgerald23]

Are you sure the OA is E and not C? Nowhere in the passage is it said that the dull detective uncovers the misleading clues. It only states that he inaccurately interprets the clues used to solve the mystery.

[ldoolitt]

Are you sure the OA is E and not C? Nowhere in the passage is it said that the dull detective uncovers the misleading clues. It only states that he inaccurately interprets the clues used to solve the mystery.

Whoops, I meant C. Fixed.

[Target2009]

Agree to C.

[ldoolitt]

Yeah, I got that its C by process of elimination, but I don't see why C doesn't totally rest on the assumption that the mystery is solvable by anyone.

[ccassel]

The last sentence in the statement says "..gives readers a chance to solve the mystery". Key word is "chance".

C is a good match because it says "...give readers enough clues to infer the correct solution". Key words here are "clues to infer"; where neither "clues" nor "infer" give us the impression that the mystery IS solvable by anyone. Rather, it gives readers a chance to draw OR infer the correct solution.

At first, C appears not strong enough because it starts off with "Some mystery stories..." but makes up for it with by ending with "...give readers enough clues to infer the correct solution to the mystery" as the best match to the original statement.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,

[ldoolitt]

The last sentence in the statement says "..gives readers a chance to solve the mystery". Key word is "chance".

C is a good match because it says "...give readers enough clues to infer the correct solution". Key words here are "clues to infer"; where neither "clues" nor "infer" give us the impression that the mystery IS solvable by anyone. Rather, it gives readers a chance to draw OR infer the correct solution.

At first, C appears not strong enough because it starts off with "Some mystery stories..." but makes up for it with by ending with "...give readers enough clues to infer the correct solution to the mystery" as the best match to the original statement.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,

So I can see how it would work if the answer stated "give the readers enough clues to infer the solution" but nowhere does it state or imply that a reader could EVER get the CORRECT solution, only that they could arrive at A solution (gives the readers a chance to solve the mystery doesn't imply that they can solve it CORRECTLY).

[ccassel]

I find it helpful to break down exactly what is contained in the statement as to not stray from its meaning.

What is the scope of the original statement?

Premise: Mystery stories often feature a brilliant detective and the detective's dull companion.
Clues are presented in the story,
the companion wrongly infers an inaccurate solution to the mystery using the same clues that the detective uses to deduce the correct solution.
Conclusion: Thus, the author's strategy of including the dull companion gives readers a chance to solve the mystery while also diverting them from the correct solution.

The question asks: "Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?"

- "C" is most supported by the information above because...A chance to solve the mystery means some will and some won't solve the solution. Nowhere does it STATE in the statement that the user must come to the correct solution. We cannot make the ASSUMPTION that they MUST arrive at the solution but we can make the ASSUMPTION that there is a CHANCE that some will arrive at the solution and some won't. Hence, "C" is a strong match.

A common mistake in CR is make improper assumption (unstated, necessary and sufficient) as we read the question. Breaking the statement down into its components (CPA - conclusion, premise, assumptions) will help.

[ldoolitt]

I find it helpful to break down exactly what is contained in the statement as to not stray from its meaning.

What is the scope of the original statement?

Premise: Mystery stories often feature a brilliant detective and the detective's dull companion.
Clues are presented in the story,
the companion wrongly infers an inaccurate solution to the mystery using the same clues that the detective uses to deduce the correct solution.
Conclusion: Thus, the author's strategy of including the dull companion gives readers a chance to solve the mystery while also diverting them from the correct solution.

The question asks: "Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?"

- "C" is most supported by the information above because...A chance to solve the mystery means some will and some won't solve the solution. Nowhere does it STATE in the statement that the user must come to the correct solution. We cannot make the ASSUMPTION that they MUST arrive at the solution but we can make the ASSUMPTION that there is a CHANCE that some will arrive at the solution and some won't. Hence, "C" is a strong match.

A common mistake in CR is make improper assumption (unstated, necessary and sufficient) as we read the question. Breaking the statement down into its components (CPA - conclusion, premise, assumptions) will help.

(C) would imply that the readers CAN arrive at the CORRECT solution. Nothing in the stimulus indicates that the readers can arrive at the CORRECT solution. For example lets say the solution was needlessly complex and unsolvable by anyone. In that sense the readers still have "the chance to solve the mystery" but not correctly and the detective (who is not a reader) can "deduce the correct solution."

My point is that the statement "[a subgroup] can solve the mystery" in no way implies that "[a subgroup] can solve the mystery correctly" or vice versa "the detective can solve the mystery correctly" in no way implies that "any reader can solve the mystery correctly"

[ccassel]

In my opinion and, given the correct answer choice, the author's opinion solving a mystery correctly is implied when you say "solving a mystery".

For example, "I found my way home" is the same as "I found my way home correctly". When would anyone think you found your way home incorrectly if you said that you found your way home?

Cheers,

[ldoolitt]

In my opinion and, given the correct answer choice, the author's opinion solving a mystery correctly is implied when you say "solving a mystery".

For example, "I found my way home" is the same as "I found my way home correctly". When would anyone think you found your way home incorrectly if you said that you found your way home?

Cheers,

True but two statements indicate that that may not be correct here:

"and the companion wrongly infers an inaccurate solution" or in other words "comes to an incorrect solution"

and "the dull companion gives the readers a chance to solve the mystery while also diverting them from the correct solution"

combining with the above the dull companion comes to an incorrect solution which gives the readers a chance to solve the mystery incorrectly.

To me the juxtaposition in the bolded portion indicates that "a chance to solve the mystery" does not equal "a chance to arrive at the correct solution"

In relation to the above it would be like you following someone who you believe knows the way home, at which point you arrive at your "home" and state "i found my way home" when in fact the person you were following doesn't know the way to your house and thus you can't "find your way home correctly"

Its like those damn scooby doo mysteries...the ending actually makes no sense to anyone but Velma always figures it out!

[ccassel]

There are 3 opinions in the original statement...
1. brilliant detective
2. detective's dull companion
3. the reader

The reader takes the information from both the brilliant detective and from the detectives dull companion to arrive at the solution. In no way does the statement say that the reader "blindfolded" and led to the solution (or home) by the detectives dull companion.

Some assumptions in questions will make sense, and some won't. I would just move on and get through as many q's as possible.

Scooby Doo.

[ldoolitt]

There are 3 opinions in the original statement...
1. brilliant detective
2. detective's dull companion
3. the reader

The reader takes the information from both the brilliant detective and from the detectives dull companion to arrive at the solution. In no way does the statement say that the reader "blindfolded" and led to the solution (or home) by the detectives dull companion.

Some assumptions in questions will make sense, and some won't. I would just move on and get through as many q's as possible.

Scooby Doo.

Yeah I guess you just have to accept thats a weird assumption the author takes for granted in order to say (C) is correct.