Q2 - To keep one's hands warm

[jardinsouslapluie5]

I don't understand this answer (C).
I think it's the grammatical issue for me to understand.

Conclusion: we don't need gloves to keep our hands warm

Because: putting an extra layer of clothing on our vital organ(body???) can keep our hands warm

Okay....

I still don't understand (C).

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for your question. You've basically got the argument core but there's a key word missing that is important to understanding the question.

Putting on an extra layer of clothing will keep your vital organs warm which can warm your hands -------> You never need gloves or mittens to warm your hands

The gap here is the word "never" in the conclusion. Sure, the premise tells us that the extra layers "can keep one's hands warm as well." But it doesn't promise to always do that.

(C) picks up on this. When temperatures are low enough to cause frostbite, the extra layer trick doesn't work.

And the wrong answers:

(A) is out of scope. Relative importance is not relevant to either the premise or the conclusion.

(B) strengthens, if it does anything. If lots of light garments are better than one heavy coat, it seems more likely that you can warm your hands.

(D) is out of scope. Turning up the heat? Hardly a solution for always keeping your hands warm.

(E) tells us that the act of putting on more layers won't by itself warm your hands. But that doesn't mean that the layers won't warm your vital organs and warm your hands that way.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions about this question.

Demetri

[Joetrot88]

Okay, this one you should chart to get the answer rapid fast.. This is how you do it

W= warm during winter
G=gloves M=mittens
X=extra clothes
V=vital organs

CONCLUSION: W-> ~g or ~m
W -> X
V-> W

To weaken an argument you must do 1 of 2 things
1.) attack on premise to disprove the conclusion
2.) or attack on conclusion directly

A.) Talks about psychological issues here
*irrelevant
B.) One or two garments are mentioned
*irrelevant - not in argument
D.) W->X less effective than heat
*out of scope- Were not talking about the heat here, we're talking strictly about gloves, mittens and clothing. Although this could be true, the argument has no support for this statement or I should actually say this statement has no business weakening our argument.
E.) *out of scope - were not talking about the physical effort, we're talking about what the CLOTHES will do. This is wrong for the same reason D is wrong

C.) X->~w
This is a direct missile headed straight at one of our premises (W->X). If X->~w were true, than here we would have an incorrect reversal, therefore disentangling the argument and proving C as the CORRECT answer.

The approach above is the correct approach, however here's a detailed explanation.

C.) If wearing extra clothes would not keep someones hands warm at VERY low temps( enough to cause frostbite and lose a hand!).... than this would show that our conclusion (To keep hands warm, one NEVER needs gloves or mittens ) CAN be a false statement because this opens up the argument for someone to POSSIBLY need gloves or mittens in CERTAIN situations. It's not air tight, but it weakens the conclusion more-so than the other answer choices.

So, my personal argument here is, if you charted this than it's more clear of what the answer is right away. This approach takes reasoning and more importantly, TIME.

[Aquamarine]

I still don't understand why E can't be an answer.
I think E also can weaken the conclusion since it says "The physical effort~~~does not stimulate circulation enough to warm your hands."
So Why can't E be an answer? And why is C right?
What's the difference between them?

Please someone explain me.
Thanks!

[ganbayou]

I was also not sure between C and E and still struggle between them.
I eliminated C because I thought "at temperatures low enough to cause frostbite" is extra information and no need to be mentioned. It does not have to be "at temperatures low enough to cause frostbite."
Why is C correct and E wrong? What is the problem with E?
Is it because it does not have to "stimulate circulation" and maybe it can still contribute to the warmness by other systems?

Thank you

[maryadkins]

Is it because it does not have to "stimulate circulation" and maybe it can still contribute to the warmness by other systems?

Yes. We already know putting on clothing is going to keep your insides warmer and can warm your hands. We were told so. We cannot therefore challenge this. It doesn't matter that the way that happens is not through the physical effort. It could happen other ways. Like, you just have more clothes on protecting you from the cold.

[atzhang6v6]

Did I read E wrong?
I thought what makes E wrong is the part "The physical effort."I thought E says this small effort does not stimulate circulation enough to warm hands, and this actually does not weaken the conclusion because what is argued in the stimulus is layer vs glove...
Is it too simple if I delete E because of the part "The physical effort" in E??

And...I thought C is correct because in the conclusion it says "never needs" but if C is true, this part of the conclusion would not be true so in the end it undermines the conclusion...in the premise it says people can "always" keep hands warm, but it may not warm enough at temperatures low enough to cause frostbite.
Did I understand this choice correctly?

[BretJ989]

The key phrase is "one can always keep one's hands warm by putting on an extra layer of clothing".

Answer choice (C) tells us that an extra layer won't keep our hands warm, hence it follows that an extra layer of clothing won't "ALWAYS" keep our hands warm.

That's at least my take if that's not right I'd appreciate it if someone could point out the error in my reasoning.