In addition to the labor

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: should3% picked this

   The price of a bottle of wine should be a reflection of

   The author isn't using any normative language so we can't accuse him of assuming anything about what should / shouldn't be the case. This argument is purely descriptive.

   3%
2. B

   Too Strong: never8% picked this

   Price is never an accurate indication of the quality of a

   The author's conclusion is only trying to prove that there is at least one pricey wine that is not high quality. This answer accuses the author of having committed himself to the notion that price and quality are always a mismatch for each other. That's way too strongly worded. Who would ever want to defend that price and quality never match?

   8%
3. C

   Correct76% picked this

   The reputation of a vineyard does not always indicate the quality

   Why this is right

   This answer has the lovable quality of ruling out an idea with "not / no" language, which is the hallmark of about 45% of correct answers on Necessary Assumption. If we negate this ruled-out idea, we get "the reputation of a vineyard always indicates the quality of its wines". Would that weaken the argument? Was the author thinking there was sometimes a mismatch between reputation and quality? Yes, but we really have to use our common sense to understand this argument. Labor and materials are more "justified" reasons for a wine to be more expensive. If you worked harder and used more premium materials to make a wine, then it's probably higher quality. But the reputation of a vineyard is not a good reason for the price to go up. It has no direct causal effect on whether the wine that is made is better. So in the argument, we're supposed to hear that the author is saying, "In addition to [these two legitimate factors that can make a wine more expensive], there is also this [silly thing that has no direct causal effect on the quality of wine] that plays a role in determining the price." "Thus, you might see an expensive wine that isn't that great. You're not paying a high price because they worked really hard on it and used great materials. You're just paying for the prestige of the Kendall-Jackson brand name." Thus, the author was thinking that a crappy wine might still have a high price tag if it just has a reputable vineyard's label on it. So, he thinks that a vineyard's high reputation is not necessarily an indicator of high quality wine in every bottle.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   76%
4. D

   Unknown Comparison: greater12% picked this

   The reputation of a vineyard generally plays a greater role than the quality of its grapes in

   The author doesn't need reputation to play a larger role than other things in order for the argument to work. Maybe labor, materials (the quality of the grapes) and reputation all play an equal 33.3% role. That wouldn't weaken the author's argument. The author can still argue that 1/3 of the price you're paying sometimes is simply for the reputation of the vineyard. Is a $15 wine really better than a $10 wine? That extra $5, (1/3 of the $15 wine) is just because of the vineyard's reputation, but the more expensive wine is not necessarily the better wine.

   12%
5. E

   Opposite, if anything1% picked this

   Wines produced by lesser-known vineyards generally are priced to reflect accurately

   The author's argument hinges on a disconnect between quality and price, based on the vineyard's reputation. A well-known vineyard with a high reputation will often have a high priced wine that isn't necessarily higher quality. A lesser-known vineyard without much reputation could have a lower priced wine that isn't necessarily lower quality. The author's conclusion is that price does not reflect quality, so this answer choice seems to go against that disconnect by making it seem like price accurately reflects quality.

   1%