Explanation
The original argument provides a logical structure based on the rules for the pricing of cars at Rollway Motors, leading to a definitive conclusion about the age of a car within a certain price range. We're looking for a statement with similar logical reasoning, where certain conditions above and below a specific point lead to a conclusion about that specific point.
A. This response incorrectly mixes conditions for above and below the fourth floor without establishing a clear exclusionary rule.
B. This response adds an additional premise about the location of the three-bedroom apartments, which doesn’t parallel the direct logical deduction in the car argument.
C. (Correct Response) the original presents exclusionary conditions. >18,000 and the car is new, <5,000 and it’s ten years old. Therefore if a car meets neither sufficient condition for price, then it also meets neither of the necessary conditions. C states that >4 then it has 3 or more bedrooms, <4 and it has fewer than 2 bedrooms, so if we have a condition that follows neither of our necessary (=2 bedrooms) then it must also meet neither of the sufficient. Use the contrapositive to follow the argument on both the initial argument and C.
D. This response introduces a new variable (balconies) and does not focus on establishing a definitive condition based on exclusionary rules.
E. This response includes an additional condition regarding vacancies that is not present in the original argument.
The option that most closely reflects the logical structure of the original car pricing argument is C. It uses the given conditions to draw a conclusion about the specific situation where two-bedroom apartments are located, mirroring the method used to determine the age of a car based on its price.