PT 57, S2, Q12 - Criminologist: The main purpose of most

[nicole_mazga]

I selected C - why is D a better choice?

[noah]

The big issue for you is why is (C) a worse choice?

The conclusion of this argument is that gangs (to paraphrase) will definitely become involved in bio tech. Why? Because gangs want profit, and bio tech will be profitable. Any gaps? Do gangs get involved in every profitable business? Bake sales are profitable -- I don't see gangs running those (though there was this one time in middle school...).

We're looking for a sufficient assumption -- one that allows us to completely reach the conclusion (as opposed to a necessary one that simply is required, but is not enough). (D) seals up the argument -- it establishes that if you want profit, they will become involved in any profitable venture.

(A) is incorrect because it's reversed, we need to explain that the gang will definitely become involved, not figure out what the gang's involvement means.

(B) is tempting -- don't we need the gangs to know about bio tech to become involved? However, the argument doesn't state that the gang needs to know about the profitability, just that it is profitable. We'd need to add another premise/assumption to the argument to make (B) even needed: "An organization will become involved in a technological revolution only if it knows it will be profitable." But, we're looking for an assumption that's sufficient, not necessary.

(C) is tempting -- see, those gangs really do get involved in every profitable business! However, (C) is too strong in the wrong direction. Even if criminal organizations are already involved with every profitable business, it does not mean that they became involved because those businesses are profitable -- perhaps they're involved with every single business on earth. Perhaps it's the organization's involvement that makes the business profitable. Perhaps it's some sort of anomaly.

Analogously, let's take this argument: Tom will definitely eat that piece of cake that's on the table next to him since it looks scrumptious. (D) would state Tom eats anything that looks scrumptious. (C), on the other hand, would state Tom has already eaten everything in the room that looks scrumptious. Maybe Tom is full now! Maybe there's a reason that Tom wouldn't eat that piece of cake (just like maybe there's a reason the gang would not get involved with that line of business).

(E) is tempting -- but the fact that an organization is willing to get involved is not sufficient to conclude that the organization will become involved. Furthermore, who's to say that the bio tech revolution is legal? Underground cat-cloning farms!

[ericling]

i chose option B, although I was quite certain D can be the strongest reasoning to support the argument, partly because i saw "properly inferred" in the question stem. I was wondering that maybe D is too strong that the assumption make it deductible.

so can inferrence question be deductible?

Choosing B, I presume that if you invest it, you know it. Howeiver, my question is that can we presume anything that seems quite common sense to us? or how should we destinguish what we can presume with what cannot?

thank you