Self-paced
Although tales of wonder and the fantastic are integral to all world literatures, only recently has the fantasy genre had a commercial resurgence in North America. ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ███████████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ████ █ ██ ██ ███████ ██ █████ █████████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ █████████ █████████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ █████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████████
Argument Breakdown: Correlation to Causation
The stimulus tells us about some booksellers, who conclude that a recent increase in fantasy book sales was caused by increased positive reviews. Why do they think so? Because the increase in sales occurred over the same time period as the increase in positive reviews.
The booksellers' argument shows a classic mix-up between correlation and causation. The factual premises only establish a correlation between book sales and positive reviews, but the booksellers' conclusion assumes that one caused the other. This gives us some space to attack—or defend—the argument.
Strategy: Weaken/Strengthen
The booksellers' argument falls within phenomenon-hypothesis reasoning: they observe a phenomenon (the correlation between book sales and reviews) and form a hypothesis to explain it (reviews caused book sales to rise).
To weaken this kind of logic, we can propose an alternative hypothesis: for example, maybe the increase in sales actually caused the increase in reviews, or a third factor caused both. We can also find evidence that's incompatible with the hypothesis, to suggest something else is going on.
To strengthen, we would do the exact opposite. Eliminating a competing hypothesis would strengthen, as would finding compatible evidence that aligns with the booksellers' conclusion. We could also find a causal mechanism that explains how exactly reviews increased book sales.
17.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ███████████████ █████ ███ ███████
a
Publishers often select █ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████
If anything, (A) strengthens by showing a causal mechanism for how reviews could increase book sales. More fantasy books get good reviews, publishers publish more fantasy books, fantasy book sales rise. (A) certainly doesn't undermine the argument.
b
Few readers of ███████ ███████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████████
(B) undermines a causal mechanism that would explain how reviews could increase book sales. If readers don't even read book reviews, that undermines the argument by limiting the impact of reviews on book sales.
Of course, there are other ways reviews could impact sales—for example, through publishers, as (A) suggests. But (B) nonetheless weakens by making the researchers' hypothesis less likely to be true. The goal isn't to make it totally impossible.
c
Most booksellers are █████ ██ ████ █████ ████ █████████ ████ ███████ █████ ████████ █████████ ██████
And what do booksellers do with this awareness? (C) doesn't go far enough to suggest any impact reviews may or may not actually have on book sales. It doesn't impact the argument at all, meaning it doesn't weaken.
d
Although the increase ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ████████████ ██████████ ████████ ████ █████ █████ ████████ ████ ████████
That's great for publishers, but it doesn't touch on the causal relationship between book reviews and sales. (D) doesn't affect the argument at all, so can't weaken.
e
Many of the ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████████ ██████ ████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ █████
Having more details about the contents of reviews still doesn't tell us about their impact on book sales, or lack thereof. (E) doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve the booksellers.