Engineer: Semiplaning monohulls are

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite15% picked this

   It serves as one of two analogies drawn between semiplaning monohulls and jet airplanes, which function together to

   This answer says this claim is playing the role of supporting the main conclusion. But we wanted something that sounded like opposing, counterpoint, concession. So we could distance ourselves from this on a first pass. Are there two analogies between SM's and jets? Depends how we interpret that language. There is one central analogy in the argument "What was true of jets is / will be true of semiplaning monohulls". That analogy has several levels, so I don't know if it's really fair to say each of those things is its own analogy. When SM's and jets debuted, they were both 1. faster than the conventional alternative 2. more expensive than conventional alternative And the author is assuming a 3rd analogy 3. SM's, just like jets, will still manage to turn a profit.

   15%
2. B

   Ships vs. Jets5% picked this

   It draws an analogy between semiplaning monohulls and conventional ships that constitutes an objection to the argument's main conclusion, one that is subsequently

   If this answer replaced "ships" with "jets", it would be very tempting. There was no analogy drawn between SM's and conventional ships. Both the SM's and jets started off pricier than their competition. That's an objection to the conclusion that SM's will be profitable. The author doesn't reject the objection that SM's and jets are pricier. He acknowledges it. He just appeals to another part of the analogy between SM's and jets to outweigh that objection (customers will still be willing to pay to use them because they offer greater speed)

   5%
3. C

   Opposite6% picked this

   It draws a distinction between characteristics of semiplaning monohulls and characteristics of conventional ships that independently provides support

   It does indeed draw a distinction between SM's and conventional ships (it's more expensive to travel on SM's), but that distinction does the opposite of support the conclusion. We were looking for opposing, counterpoint, concession.

   6%
4. D

   Correct61% picked this

   It constitutes a potential objection to the argument's main conclusion, but is subsequently countered by an analogy drawn

   Why this is right

   This resonates with our desire to find opposing, counterpoint, concession: it constitutes a potential objection Since the author concludes that SM's will probably be profitable, it's a potential objection to say, "Really? You know that it's more expensive to travel on SM's, right?" But the author goes on to counter this with an analogy .... Similarly (classic analogy indicator) Ships Airplanes SM's faster and Jets faster and more $$ more $$ than than conventional planes conventional SM's will still be Jets were desired enough to profitable? to still turn a profit

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

   61%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match12% picked this

   It draws a distinction between characteristics of semiplaning monohulls and characteristics of conventional ships that the argument's main conclusion compares to a

   The argument does compare a distinction between characteristics of SM's and ships (the former is faster but more $$) to a distinction between jets and other planes (the former is faster but more $$). But that doesn't happen in the conclusion! The conclusion is just "SM's will probably be profitable as well". The main conclusion is stressing a sameness between SM's and jets. According to this answer, the conclusion is stressing a distinction between jets and other planes.

   12%