Note: This question is a veiled PSA question. How can we know this? Consider the question stem. It says that the argument's reasoning conforms to some principle. Stated another way, it means that some principle hiding in the answers is sustaining the reasoning. What would happen if you brought this principle (hiding in the answer) out into the light, explicitly? You would effectively be supplying a premise that sustains the argument's reasoning, making for a very strong argument. How strong? It turns out that in this case, so strong that it almost makes for a valid argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Jennifer’s presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles (Jennifer’s team) will win. This is based on computer analysis showing that in every game that the team has lost, Jennifer was not playing.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Although the premises establish that in all prior games, whenever Jennifer was in, the team didn’t lose (this is the contrapositive of “Team lost only when J wasn’t playing”), that doesn’t imply that this relationship must continue to be true for future games. In other words, what’s true about the past doesn’t have to be true about the future.
There’s also an assumption that in the games that the team didn’t lose, the team actually won (as opposed to having the game end in a tie).
A
infers from the fact that a certain factor is sufficient for a result that the absence of that factor is necessary for the opposite result
(A) doesn’t describe a flaw; it describes the contrapositive inference. Also, the premise didn’t establish that J’s presence “is” sufficient for not losing. It established that in PAST games, her presence WAS sufficient for the team to not lose. This doesn’t apply to the future.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that a player’s contribution to a team’s win or loss can be reliably quantified and analyzed by computer
The author doesn’t assume anything about levels of contribution to the teams’ wins and losses. He simply relies on the fact that in past games, whenever Jennifer was in, the team didn’t lose. This isn’t an attempt to say that Jennifer was 50% responsible, or 80% responsible, etc.
C
draws conclusions about applications of computer analyses to sports from the evidence of a single case
The author’s conclusion concerns whether Jennifer’s presence in a game will ensure that the team wins. The conclusion doesn’t assert anything about computer analyses in sports generally.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that occurrences that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide
The author assumes that the association between Jennifer’s presence and winning, which is something that has been true about the team’s past games, will continue to be true in the future.
E
draws a conclusion about the value of computer analyses from a case in which computer analysis provided no facts beyond what was already known
There’s nothing flawed about believing analysis is valuable even if it provides facts already known. Maybe it helped make those facts easier to interpret, or sped up calculation. Also, the premises say the analysis “revealed” something, which means something not previously known.
Summary
The stimulus states that egg cartons are among the easiest food containers to make from recycled Styrofoam because the eggshells prevent the food (the eggs) from directly contacting the Styrofoam. Therefore, used Styrofoam doesn't need to be as thoroughly cleaned for making egg cartons as it is for making other food containers.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Eggs in a carton make contact with the Styrofoam, but it does not matter because they are in a shell.
A
No food containers other than egg cartons can safely be made of recycled Styrofoam that has not been thoroughly cleaned.
This is too strong to support. There is no information as to whether there is or is not another type of food that does not need its Styrofoam packaging to be thoroughly cleaned.
B
There are some foods that cannot be packaged in recycled Styrofoam no matter how the Styrofoam is recycled.
The stimulus does not mention a food that absolutely cannot be packaged in Styrofoam. You have to make several assumptions for this to work.
C
The main reason Styrofoam must be thoroughly cleaned when recycled is to remove any residual food that has come into contact with the Styrofoam.
This is too strong to support. Perhaps removing residual foods is *a* reason, but there is no indication that it is the *main* reason.
D
Because they are among the easiest food containers to make from recycled Styrofoam, most egg cartons are made from recycled Styrofoam.
There is no mention of what most egg cartons are made from. The stimulus says that egg cartons are among the easiest to make from recycled Styrofoam.
E
Not every type of food container made of recycled Styrofoam is effectively prevented from coming into contact with the food it contains.
This is definitely hard to parse through, but it is supported. The stimulus acknowledges that egg cartons (a type of food container) come into contact with the eggs (food it contains).
Note: This is video #2 in a two-part explanation using the split approach for comparative passages. In the previous video, J.Y. already tackled whatever questions he could based solely on a readthrough of Passage A. In this video, he picks up with Passage B and then cleans up the remaining questions. So, if you don't see a full explanation for a given question in this video, it's because J.Y. tackled that question in the previous video. (Press shift + ← to head to the previous video.)
Note: This video deals with Passage A only. In this video, J.Y. uses the split approach for comparrative passages. This means he reads through Passage A and then makes a first pass through the questions, answering them to the extent possible based solely on the information in Passage A. For an explanation of Passage B and the remaining unsolved questions, head to the next video (shift + → on your keyboard).