Support The great medieval universities had no administrators, yet they endured for centuries. ███ ██████████ ███ █ ████ ██████████████ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ██ ███████ █████████ █████████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████
At its core, this argument involves a textbook flaw in causal reasoning – just because two things are correlated doesn't mean one causes the other. The reasoning here is notable, though, because the author's causal claim is implied rather than stated explicitly. Here's a summary:
Great universities: no admins; endured for centuries
Our universities: hella admins; endurance threatened
—
Let's abolish the admins – that'll ensure our endurance.
The first two claims are correlative – they establish a few data points for which having admins is negatively correlated with endurance. An explicit version of the causal conclusion would look like this:
Admins cause a lack of endurance. / Not having admins will cause endurance.
Although the author never overtly makes this causal claim, their recommendation to abolish the admins implies it. Abolishing the admins with the goal of ensuring that the university will endure only makes sense as a strategy if having administrators is causally related to endurance.
Anyway, here's the abstract template by which to judge the answer choices:
Premises: These two things are correlated.
—
Conclusion: Let's do [thing 1] – that'll cause [thing 2].
Which one of the following █████████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
No airplane had ███ ███████ ██████ █████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ █████ █████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ██████████
(A) presents a valid argument with no causal claims. The first sentence points to a set of planes (pre-1940 ones) that flew and didn't have jet engines. The conclusion says jet engines aren't necessary to fly planes, which follows from the existence of those pre-1940 jetless planes.
The novelist’s stories █████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ████ █████ ███ ███████ █████ █ ████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ████ ███████ ████████ ███ ████████████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ███ █ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███ ████████████ █████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██ █ █████████
(B) matches the stimulus in taking two correlative claims and drawing an implicit causal conclusion:
Stimulus
Great universities: no admins; endured for centuries
Our universities: hella admins; endurance threatened
—
Let's abolish the admins – that'll ensure our endurance.(B)
Novelist: computer; published
You: no computer; not published
—
You should use a computer – that'll ensure you get published.
Just because having a computer is correlated with getting published doesn't mean it is the cause.
After doctors began █████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████ ████████ ███████ ████████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████
The fastest way to eliminate (C) is to notice the mismatch in its conclusion. Like the stimulus, premise 1 establishes a negative correlation between two things (antibiotics and infections). To match, (C)'s conclusion should say "let's do [one of those]; that'll ensure [the other one]."
A bicycle should ███ ██ ██████ ███████ █ ███████ █████ █ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ █████ █ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██████████
One fast way to eliminate (D) is to notice that the causal language appears in a premise instead of the conclusion. The phrase "a good helmet can save the rider's life" is causal, but it's a premise.
It's a bit foggy whether we should read the first sentence (don't ride bikes helmetless) or the last clause (helmets are important) as the conclusion, but neither of those claims are causal.
The great cities ██ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ █████ █████ ██████████ ██████████████ █████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████ █████████ ███ ██ █████████ █████ █████ ██████ ████ ██ ████
(E) presents solid reasoning. Like the stimulus, it begins with a correlation: ancient cities are correlated with waterways. To match, the conclusion should say something like "we should build our city along a waterway [for reasons]."
But the recommendation (E) gives to archaeologists makes sense – they're hunting for cities, so they should look where cities are more likely to be. There's no implication that waterways caused cities or vice versa.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.