Thread: detective and the detective’s dull companion

: bump :

C is the answer..

Because of the reason that most of the stories would distract the reader from the correct solution but eventually a few would lead them to the right/correct solution using the uncovered clues provided by the Companion.

Mystery stories often feature a brilliant detective and the detective’s dull companion. Clues are presented in the story, and the companion wrongly infers an inaccurate
solution to the mystery using the same clues that the detective uses to deduce the correct solution. Thus, the author’s strategy of including the dull companion gives
readers a chance to solve the mystery while also diverting them from the correct solution.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) Most mystery stories feature a brilliant detective who solves the mystery presented in the story. - Clearly out of scope, we have to relate how having the dull companion helps the readers. This option has nothing to relate with that line of thought, hence OUT

(B) Mystery readers often solve the mystery in a story simply by spotting the mistakes in the reasoning of the detective’s dull companion in that story. - Not really, the implied purpose of including the dull companion is to use his theroies to weed out what he reader might also think. In doing so, the author actually leads the reader in eliminating incorrect deductions, hence the presence of the dull reader. OUT

(C) Some mystery stories give readers enough clues to infer the correct solution to the mystery. - Only if this were to be true, would the theory of using the dull companion hold. If there were no clues and the readers were not atall interested in solving the mystery but just read it then the argument won't hold. Hence there has to be an intention on the reader's part to solve the mystery with the provided clues, in such a case the argument holds. This clearly strongly supports the argument. CORRECT ANSWER

(D) The actions of the brilliant detective in a mystery story rarely divert readers from the actions of the detective’s dull companion. - The detective does not derive inaccurate conclusions, so there is no question. The readers will always focus on what the devective says, does so the detective cannot divert attention. Also the argument is not about diverting attention from the dull companion's. OUT

(E) The detective’s dull companion in a mystery story generally uncovers the misleading clues that divert readers from the mystery’s correct solution. - This contradicts the argument, the dull companion does not uncover misleading clues, the dull companion draws incorrect deductions from the same set of clues, and in doing so diverts the readers attenetion and makes the reader think than just focus on the detective. OUT


IMO C

Let me explain my take on why option B cannot be true:

What we need to support : "Thus, the author’s strategy of including the dull companion gives
readers a chance to solve the mystery while also diverting them from the correct solution.
"

We have to support the conclusion which shows "author's" intent to give the readers a chance and ALSO divert them in different directions.

"(B) Mystery readers often solve the mystery in a story simply by spotting the mistakes in the reasoning of the detective’s dull companion in that story."
- Here the dull companion's story is actually helping them resolve the mystery and not divert them in a different direction. It actually kinda contradicts the conclusion which we need to support.


Helps?