A small car offers less protection

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   An artist’s best work is generally that done in the time before the artist becomes very well known. When artists grow famous and are

   This conclusion is not offering a comparison (X is better than Y). It's a causal claim (X can do Y). So we can scrap it without reading the rest.

   2%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

   It is best to insist that a child spend at least some time every day reading indoors. Even though it may cause the child

   This conclusion is superlative (best), not comparative. It's not comparing a binary like smaller vs. larger, where each one has a positive and a negative in the comparison. It's saying "insisting that a kid spend at least some time every day reading indoors" is better than all other options? Really, it's not using "it's best" in the sense of "top-ranked". It's using "it's best" in the giving-advice sense: Whoa, dude. What are you doing? You're texting her back immediately? You guys just met. It's best to delay a little.

   9%
3. C

   Weak Evidence Match14% picked this

   For this work, vehicles built of lightweight materials are more practical than vehicles built of heavy materials. This is so because while lighter vehicles

   This is definitely surviving on the first pass (for most of us). It's making a comparison. It's saying lightweight vehicles are more practical. The negative? Lightweights don't last as long as heavyweights. The positive? Lightweights are cheaper to replace. Ultimately this answer loses to the correct answer because when it comes to lightweights, we don't have that extra layer of similarity: the positive feature makes the negative feature less likely to even happen. In this story, the negative keeps happening (the vehicles wear out) and then the positive follows (well, at least it's cheap to replace). In the other stories, the positive happens (more maneuverability) and makes the negative less likely to occur (avoided getting into accidents).

   14%
4. D

   Weak Conclusion / Evidence Match9% picked this

   Although it is important to limit the amount of sugar and fat in one’s diet, it would be a mistake to try to follow

   The main conclusion here is not a comparison. It's the sentiment "it would be a mistake to have a no sugar / no fat diet". But it is supported by a comparative intermediate conclusion: "it's better to consume sugar / fat in moderation". If we're being charitable, we can work with this. The author is saying a diet with moderate sugar / fat is better than one with no sugar / fat. The negative of the moderate sugar / fat diet? Hmm. It doesn't really say a negative. It's just says that we want to limit sugar and fat in our diet, so a diet with no sugar / fat would be farther in a positive direction. The positive of the moderate sugar / fat diet? It makes you less likely to have a huge sugar / fat binge. So is that positive part outweighing the negative because it's making the negative less likely to happen? The negative of the moderate diet would be "it's not as low in sugar / fat as a no-sugar / no-fat diet". The positive part of the moderate diet is that you won't have huge sugar / fat binges. We can't logically say that the positive part makes the negative part less likely to happen.

   9%
5. E

   Correct66% picked this

   A person who exercises vigorously every day has less body fat than an average person to draw upon in the event of a wasting

   Why this is right

   The conclusion is not an explicit comparison, but it is making a recommendation. Recommendations are implicitly comparisons. For example, if I say, "If you're going to Martha's, you should take the 101, not the 134", I'm saying taking the 101 is better than taking the 134. The conclusion of the original argument could be heard as "you should drive a small car". So this is saying "exercising vigorously every day is better than not doing so". The negative? You'll burn off all your body fat, and in doing so you'd be more vulnerable were you to get a wasting illness (a disease that steadily eats away at your stores of fat). A 200 lb. man could contract a wasting illness and ultimately survive it, even though the illness may have decimated him down to 150 lbs. Meanwhile a frail 150 lb. man who contracts a wasting illness might not survive the illness. The positive? You're way less likely to contract a wasting illness. This beats the other answers because it matches the original argument, in terms of the relationship between the positive and the negative. The positive of vigorous daily exercise (way less likely to contract a wasting illness) makes the negative (you'd be screwed if you got a wasting illness) less likely to matter.

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

   66%