LR Question 21 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Maté is a beverage found in much of South America…
QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen
CONCLUSION: Maté probably originated in Paraguay.
REASONING: Maté is used more widely in Paraguay than elsewhere, and there are more varieties of it there too.
ANALYSIS: This isn’t a very good argument. To strengthen it, we can say that Maté probably originated in the area where it has the most varieties or where it is used more widely.
___________
- In use “for a very long time” isn’t the right comparison. We want to find where Maté originated.
- Who cares what Paraguayans believe? We want to know what’s true, not what’s popularly believed. Belief can’t establish fact.
- The argument doesn’t say that the best maté shows where maté originated. Also, this answer is only about belief, not fact.
- This doesn’t help us prove which place in South America maté originated. Much of South America drinks maté.
- CORRECT. This supports the argument. Maté is more widely used in Paraguay than anywhere else. So this answer suggests that maté may have originated in Paraguay.
More Resources for Strengthen Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Strengthen questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers strengthen questions.
I understand Lucas’ reasoning in the comments, but I think the description of answer A on the page should be adjusted. It seems like both A and E are using points about length of time as an indicator of origination, so the explanation of A seems flawed. Pointing out the difference in relative vs absolute terms would be more helpful. Thanks!
Maybe I can clarify the distinction in A. Suppose I prove you’ve been using coffee for a very long time.
Is that the same thing as saying you invented coffee? Absolutely not.
A is using the completely wrong concept. Absolute and relative is also a helpful way of thinking about it but I think it is necessary to point out that A used the completely wrong idea.
Long time vs originated are completely different ideas, even though they are similar.
Another reason why (A) is wrong is is because its use of the term “Great”. We only know that there are more varieties than other places but we do not know if that number is a great number. This might be easier to catch.
Good point! I think you could reasonably imply that there are a largish number of varieties, but it’s true there could be only 4-5 from the way the argument is worded. This is an additional reason to eliminate A.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
I see how E could be the correct answer, but I am failing to see why it is better than A. Both answers only state that the implication of (A) a great variety of a type of a beverage or (E) the wider use of a beverage is that the beverage has been used there for a very long time, so why does E necessarily strengthen the argument more than A?
There’s one hard-to-catch distinction between (E) and (A) that make (E) the correct answer. (E) is speaking in relative terms — the longer a beverage has been in use, the more widely that beverage is used there. We know that mate is used more widely in Paraguay than anywhere else, so by (E)’s logic we can say that it has (likely) been in use longer than anywhere else.
(A) is speaking in absolute terms — by (A)’s logic, we could say that mate has likely has been in use for a very long time in Paraguay, but it doesn’t allow us to compare the amount of time it’s been in use in Paraguay to that same value in other countries. Sure, maybe Paraguay has more varieties than anywhere else, but maybe the number of varieties elsewhere is still “great”, so mate can also be said to have been in use there for a very long time by (A)’s logic.
very difficult distinction to catch.
Agreed. I think this one’s clear enough though, that we can’t say LSAC is splitting hairs.
LSAC most definitely split hairs on this one.