catennacio wrote:Hi instructors,
It would be an obvious E for me if the stimulus stopped at "Those small domestic mills will take more business from the big American steel mills."
However, the part "than would have been taken by the foreign steel mills in the of quotas." confuses me. When I read this part, in my mind, I think there are 3 parties: the small mills, the big mills, and the foreign mills. According to the [full] last sentences, we can deduce that before the quota, the foreign mills took the business from the big mills, the small mills did take some of the business from the big mills (because of the word "more"), and the small mills took less than or equal businesses from the big mills than did the foreign mills take. After the quota the small mills take more businesses from the big mills than do the foreign mills.
So I stumbled upon this 3-way relationship and tried to attack the fact that small mills took more business from big mills than foreign mills did.
Can you please explain how this way of thinking is not right and how to classify the 3-way relationship as a distracting/side info and not something major to attack?
the problem in what you're asking here can be summarized in three words -- in fact, in three of your very own words: "how to classify".
this is the big problem with the way lots of people approach critical reasoning problems: they think that these problems involve some sort of formal, academic logic, in which you have to "classify" things and learn these weird boolean ways of thinking that are not like how normal people think.
the cure is to dispense with that kind of thinking, and just approach these passages the way you would approach normal conversations (notwithstanding the fact that you probably wouldn't have normal conversations about the interests of competing steel mills).
here's an analogy:
let's say i have an expensive leather jacket ("jacket #1"). then, one day, you see me wearing a jacket that looks even more expensive ("jacket #2"), and you exclaim, "wow, that one must have cost even more than jacket #1!"
technically, this is a comparison. but i think it's clear that if i tell you "oh, i actually got jacket #2 for free, because i know the designer personally" then that weakens your claim. after all, i got the jacket for free! so, even though there is no direct reference to the other jacket, the implications are straightforward.
the analogy here is
(the second jacket is free) <--> (the small mills don't take any
business from the big mills, because they make things that the big mills don't make)
in general, this is the not-so-secret secret of critical reasoning on this exam: it is meant to test what is essentially the way in which real-world human beings think, NOT some sort of weird formal logic in which you have to "classify" things.
in fact, the more "classifying" you do, the worse you are likely to perform on the cr problems -- because that sort of overly formalized thinking is going to start competing with real-world thinking for space in your brain.