Self-study
Support If relativity theory is correct, no object can travel forward in time at a speed greater than the speed of light. ███ ███████ █████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ █ ████████████ █████████ █████████ ███████ ██████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ ███████ ██████████ ██████████ █████ ████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████
Method of Reasoning
The author states that if A is true (relatively theory is correct), then B is true (no object can travel forward in time faster than the speed of light). But there’s a prediction C (that tachyons can travel faster than light. Thus, the author concludes that if A is true, then either C is wrong or C must be reconciled with B (in this case, meaning that tachyons must travel backwards in time, because B says that no object can travel forward faster than the speed of light.
22.
The pattern of reasoning in █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
According to a ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████████████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██████ █████████ ████ █ ███████████ █████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ████████
(A) just describes a magazine article, it doesn’t make its own argument. And it doesn’t follow the general structure that if A is correct then B is correct, but some additional information C could potentially undermine B and must be either wrong or reconciled with B.
b
If the defendant █████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ███ █ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ █████████ ███ █ ██████ ███████ █████ █████ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████
(B) isn’t a valid argument. B says that the defendant satisfies a necessary condition of being guilty: either having a motive or being irrational. However, we don’t know whether this is a sufficient condition for being guilty — there isn’t enough information to conclude guilt.
c
The human brain ███ ███████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ █ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████ █████████ █████████████ █ ████████ ███████ ████████ ████ █ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ ██ ██████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ████████████ █████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ███████
(C) reasons that given A (modern medicine), then B is true (the brain can’t survive long without oxygen). However, a witness says C (a shaman survived long underground). The author reasons that if A is true, either C must be wrong or C must be reconciled with B. This is the same logic as in the stimulus.
d
Alexander the Great ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ █████ ██████ ████████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ██ █████ █ █████████ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ███████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ██████
(D) says Alexander could have been buried in 2 places, and it’s likely one place because of some evidence. This isn’t parallel. (D) doesn’t present any conditional reasoning, nor does it introduce any information that could undermine a relationship between A and B.
e
If the big ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ████████ █████ ███████████ ███ █████████████ ██████ █████ ████████ ████ ██████████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ██████████
(E) isn’t a solid argument because it doesn’t address whether the big bang theory is correct. If it isn’t, then the universe won’t necessarily stop expanding. And unlike the stimulus, (E) doesn’t introduce any information that undermines B (the universe is currently expanding).