The Loch Ness Monster - Kaplan New Test #10

[coderversion1]

Kim: Over the last 50 years, there have been numerous sightings of a mysterious creature in a large, deep freshwater loch in Scotland. The creature has been given the name ""The Loch Ness Monster."" All those who have spotted this strange creature have estimated its size to be far greater than that of any known animal that inhabits the loch, and no human trickery has been discovered as of yet. Thus, this new creature, the Loch Ness Monster, must be real.

Tammy: Maybe the creature is a type of animal that would typically live in the lake but is larger than any prior known specimens of that animal. After all, it is hard to know how large the biggest whale on the planet is because we do not see every single whale. Or perhaps the sightings were a result of large shadows cast by the asymmetric reeds around the lake, which move around violently on windy days. In any case, I doubt that a new creature called the Loch Ness Monster exists in that lake.


Tammy responds to Kim's conclusion by

A. Offering alternative explanations consistent with the evidence that Kim cites.
B. Attacking Kim's conclusion as inconsistent with the available evidence.
C. Weighing Kim's conclusion against expert opinion.
D. Assuming that Kim has been unduly influenced by media reports.
E. Negating the validity of a premise on which Kim relies in drawing her conclusion.

[BlindVision]

Kim: Over the last 50 years, there have been numerous sightings of a mysterious creature in a large, deep freshwater loch in Scotland. The creature has been given the name ""The Loch Ness Monster."" All those who have spotted this strange creature have estimated its size to be far greater than that of any known animal that inhabits the loch, and no human trickery has been discovered as of yet. Thus, this new creature, the Loch Ness Monster, must be real.

Tammy: Maybe the creature is a type of animal that would typically live in the lake but is larger than any prior known specimens of that animal. After all, it is hard to know how large the biggest whale on the planet is because we do not see every single whale. Or perhaps the sightings were a result of large shadows cast by the asymmetric reeds around the lake, which move around violently on windy days. In any case, I doubt that a new creature called the Loch Ness Monster exists in that lake.


Tammy responds to Kim's conclusion by

A. Offering alternative explanations consistent with the evidence that Kim cites.
B. Attacking Kim's conclusion as inconsistent with the available evidence.
C. Weighing Kim's conclusion against expert opinion.
D. Assuming that Kim has been unduly influenced by media reports.
E. Negating the validity of a premise on which Kim relies in drawing her conclusion.

E

[Ruch12345]

Kim: Over the last 50 years, there have been numerous sightings of a mysterious creature in a large, deep freshwater loch in Scotland. The creature has been given the name ""The Loch Ness Monster."" All those who have spotted this strange creature have estimated its size to be far greater than that of any known animal that inhabits the loch, and no human trickery has been discovered as of yet. Thus, this new creature, the Loch Ness Monster, must be real.

Tammy: Maybe the creature is a type of animal that would typically live in the lake but is larger than any prior known specimens of that animal. After all, it is hard to know how large the biggest whale on the planet is because we do not see every single whale. Or perhaps the sightings were a result of large shadows cast by the asymmetric reeds around the lake, which move around violently on windy days. In any case, I doubt that a new creature called the Loch Ness Monster exists in that lake.


Tammy responds to Kim's conclusion by

A. Offering alternative explanations consistent with the evidence that Kim cites.
B. Attacking Kim's conclusion as inconsistent with the available evidence.
C. Weighing Kim's conclusion against expert opinion.
D. Assuming that Kim has been unduly influenced by media reports.
E. Negating the validity of a premise on which Kim relies in drawing her conclusion.

IMO, answer should be a since tammy is negating the conclusion not the evidence that Kim gives.
However, he gives alternative explanations for the same evidence that Kim cites.

[coderversion1]

Agree, A is a strong contender. Let's see,

A. Offering alternative explanations consistent with the evidence that Kim cites.

Kim: "....All those who have spotted this strange creature have estimated its size to be far greater than that of any known animal that inhabits the loch..."
Tammy is seen to offer alternate explanations
Tammy: " .....the sightings were a result of large shadows cast by the asymmetric reeds around the lake..."

But E seems an equally good choice.

If i had to choose between the two i would go with E, because it seems slightly more accurate. Your views on this?

[HSPA]

I was stuck btw B and E

E:
Kim's premise relied on what people said.
Does Tammy prove that what people said is wrong? No

B:
Tammy is giving evidence that shadows can decieve and biggest whale size is un-determineable.

I am with B...

[dinaroneo]

To me A and B appear to be almost the same in that both assume that the evidence sited or available is valid!

A. Offering alternative explanations consistent with the evidence that Kim cites

B. Attacking Kim's conclusion as inconsistent with the available evidence

Will go with E! where the validity of the premise is in question...

E. Negating the validity of a premise on which Kim relies in drawing her conclusion.

After all, it is hard to know how large the biggest whale on the planet is because we do not see every single whale. Or perhaps the sightings were a result of large shadows cast by the asymmetric reeds around the lake, which move around violently on windy days.

[need720+]

Kim: Over the last 50 years, there have been numerous sightings of a mysterious creature in a large, deep freshwater loch in Scotland. The creature has been given the name ""The Loch Ness Monster."" All those who have spotted this strange creature have estimated its size to be far greater than that of any known animal that inhabits the loch, and no human trickery has been discovered as of yet. Thus, this new creature, the Loch Ness Monster, must be real.

Tammy: Maybe the creature is a type of animal that would typically live in the lake but is larger than any prior known specimens of that animal. After all, it is hard to know how large the biggest whale on the planet is because we do not see every single whale. Or perhaps the sightings were a result of large shadows cast by the asymmetric reeds around the lake, which move around violently on windy days. In any case, I doubt that a new creature called the Loch Ness Monster exists in that lake.


Tammy responds to Kim's conclusion by

A. Offering alternative explanations consistent with the evidence that Kim cites.
B. Attacking Kim's conclusion as inconsistent with the available evidence.
C. Weighing Kim's conclusion against expert opinion.
D. Assuming that Kim has been unduly influenced by media reports.
E. Negating the validity of a premise on which Kim relies in drawing her conclusion.

IMO E. I am highlighting the premise and negation parts.

Please share OA and OE. Thanks

[coderversion1]

As this question is from Kaplan's new experimental test number 10. The OA is not known, it was not disclosed in review test after the test was over. Sorry guys. May be an expert reply will help.

[jonathan123456]

IMO A. Tammy is not negating. She is only giving another explanation of the evidence at hand.

[rppala90]

IMO A.

[sunnyjohn]

Kim: Over the last 50 years, there have been numerous sightings of a mysterious creature in a large, deep freshwater loch in Scotland. The creature has been given the name ""The Loch Ness Monster."" All those who have spotted this strange creature have estimated its size to be far greater than that of any known animal that inhabits the loch, and no human trickery has been discovered as of yet. Thus, this new creature, the Loch Ness Monster, must be real.

F1: Numerous sightings of monster.
P1: size is very big and no human trickery has been discovered.
Conclusion: Monster must be real.

Tammy: Maybe the creature is a type of animal that would typically live in the lake but is larger than any prior known specimens of that animal. After all, it is hard to know how large the biggest whale on the planet is because we do not see every single whale. Or perhaps the sightings were a result of large shadows cast by the asymmetric reeds around the lake, which move around violently on windy days. In any case, I doubt that a new creature called the Loch Ness Monster exists in that lake.

Tammy:
P1: Monster is not a new species.
P2: May be its just a shadow of blah-blah.
Conclusion: doubt --> Monster exists in lake.

A. Offering alternative explanations consistent with the evidence that Kim cites.
Tammy did not go against the evidence cited by Kim, instead she offered alternative explanations. Its is a strong contender.
B. Attacking Kim's conclusion as inconsistent with the available evidence.
Tammy did not attack Kim's conclusion by citing any evidence. The whale example was evidence to her own point.
C. Weighing Kim's conclusion against expert opinion.
Tammy did not cite any EXPERT opinion. Overall there are only two opinions - Kim's and Tammy's
D. Assuming that Kim has been unduly influenced by media reports.
Tammy did not underestimated any evidence cited by Kim. She did not criticize Kim as well.
E. Negating the validity of a premise on which Kim relies in drawing her conclusion.
Kim's premise:
P1: size is very big and no human trickery has been discovered.
Tammy did not mention anything about Size or human trickery. Therefor this option is not correct.


This left "A" as answer.

[adi_800]

Should be A...
But looking for a good reason to eliminate E...

[garima99]

Kim: Over the last 50 years, there have been numerous sightings of a mysterious creature in a large, deep freshwater loch in Scotland. The creature has been given the name ""The Loch Ness Monster."" All those who have spotted this strange creature have estimated its size to be far greater than that of any known animal that inhabits the loch, and no human trickery has been discovered as of yet. Thus, this new creature, the Loch Ness Monster, must be real.

Tammy: Maybe the creature is a type of animal that would typically live in the lake but is larger than any prior known specimens of that animal. After all, it is hard to know how large the biggest whale on the planet is because we do not see every single whale. Or perhaps the sightings were a result of large shadows cast by the asymmetric reeds around the lake, which move around violently on windy days. In any case, I doubt that a new creature called the Loch Ness Monster exists in that lake.


Tammy responds to Kim's conclusion by

A. Offering alternative explanations consistent with the evidence that Kim cites.
B. Attacking Kim's conclusion as inconsistent with the available evidence.
C. Weighing Kim's conclusion against expert opinion.
D. Assuming that Kim has been unduly influenced by media reports.
E. Negating the validity of a premise on which Kim relies in drawing her conclusion.

[killer1387]

A +1

[navami]

Kim: Over the last 50 years, there have been numerous sightings of a mysterious creature in a large, deep freshwater loch in Scotland. The creature has been given the name ""The Loch Ness Monster."" All those who have spotted this strange creature have estimated its size to be far greater than that of any known animal that inhabits the loch, and no human trickery has been discovered as of yet. Thus, this new creature, the Loch Ness Monster, must be real.

Premise in above argument: All those who have spotted this strange creature have estimated its size to be far greater than that of any known animal that inhabits the loch, and no human trickery has been discovered as of yet.

there have been numerous sightings of a mysterious creature in a large, deep freshwater loch in Scotland.


Now : Option E says that Tammy negates the validity of Kim's premise. Which is wrong. But he gives a alternative explanation. Hence A