We have an MBT question which we can glean from the question stem which reads: If the statements above are true, which one of the following statements must also be true?
We’re told there are 3 sets of people at this gathering: bankers, athletes, and lawyers. Sounds like a pretty nice gathering! Then we get a pair of very straightforward conditional statements that we can map out: Bankers→Athletes and Lawyers→/Bankers. So what do we know about our three categories of attendees? If you’re a banker then you are definitely an athlete and you are definitely not a lawyer. If you are a lawyer you are definitely not a banker. And if you’re an athlete—well, we don’t know much. We know that all bankers are athletes, and therefore some athletes are bankers. We can’t say anything more than that.
This question is a test of your ability to understand conditional logic. There’s not much more to break down about this stimulus. I suppose we could spend more time asking questions about this gathering—where is it being held? Who are these hybrid banker/athletes? What are these titans of industry and sport gathering to discuss? But that’s not really what you’re here to learn about, so let’s move onto the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) We know all the bankers are athletes, but if you know your conditional rules, you know that we can’t simply flip this around without negating both sides. This is a very simple case of sufficiency/necessity confusion. Case closed! Moving on.
Answer Choice (B) We know that none of the lawyers are bankers. Other than that, we have no information to go off of. This is wholly unsupported.
Correct Answer Choice (C) Here we go! If you think back to our analysis of the stimulus we concluded that some athletes are bankers. What do we know about bankers? They are definitely not lawyers. Therefore some athletes are not lawyers. Simple as that!
Answer Choice (D) This is just the opposite of what we know to be true. No bankers are, in fact, lawyers.
Answer Choice (E) We don’t know anything about the relationship between lawyers and athletes so we cannot conclude anything about whether there are or are not any lawyers who are athletes.
This stimulus starts with Gilbert’s conclusion: the food label is mistaken. We then get his premise: the label says that the cookie has only natural ingredients but the alpha hydroxy acids (AHAs) contained in the cookies are produced synthetically at the cookie plant.
We then get Sabina’s argument. Again we start with her conclusion: the label is, in fact, not mistaken. She goes on to explain in her premise: AHA can also occur naturally in sugarcane.
Basically this boils down to the question of how you define natural ingredients. Is an ingredient natural if it can occur naturally as Sabina argues, or does it matter how the ingredient in question was produced, as Gilbert contends? The answer choice we’re looking for seems like it may resemble a sufficient assumption or PSA rule that will make Sabina’s argument valid. Let’s take a look:
Answer Choice (A) This is irrelevant. What we are concerned with is whether this particular label for these particular cookies is mistaken. If we look at Gilbert’s argument he tells us everything we need to know: we are talking about a particular batch of cookies that do contain AHA and we are discussing whether AHA constitutes a natural ingredient.
Answer Choice (B) Another irrelevant answer choice. We are only concerned with AHA, which we know is part of the cookies. Whether or not other chemicals don’t make it into the final batch doesn’t affect our argument.
Answer Choice (C) Again, we are concerned with this particular label for these particular cookies. This is irrelevant information.
Answer Choice (D) This doesn’t mean that Sabina is correct, it just means that other companies could be repeating similar falsehoods. What we are concerned with is whether or not the claims in question are accurate.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we need. It tells us that all substances (except those that don’t occur naturally in any source) are considered natural. What do we know about AHA? For one, it can be found occurring naturally in sugarcane. Therefore, it is included in the set of substances that can be considered natural. If it’s considered natural, what does that tell us about Sabina’s argument? It’s valid! Remember how I said we might be looking for something that resembles a PSA rule. Well here we have it! Her premise triggers this rule, which leads us directly to her conclusion: that the label which includes AHA in a set of all-natural ingredients is not mistaken.