Self-study
People were asked in a survey how old they felt. ████ ████████ ██████ ███████████ ███████ █ █████ █████████ ██ █████ ████ █ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ █ ███████ ██ █████████████ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ █████ ████ █ ███████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██ ██ █████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ █ ███ ██ ███ ███ ██ ██ ██ █████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ██ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ████ █ ██████
Argument Breakdown
The author concludes that there's an issue with understanding a survey result where people of many ages stated that they only felt as old as 75% of their actual age. The issue is because if you extrapolate backwards in time, assuming that at each previous point someone felt 25% younger than their actual age, eventually you would reach a point where the person felt like a child. And this is in conflict with the common-sense idea that adults saying they felt younger than they were didn't mean that they felt like children.
Objective: Describe the Method of Reasoning
To describe the method of reasoning, we want to make the argument more abstract so we can look at the pattern it follows rather than its factual details. In this case, the author reaches a conclusion by demonstrating that a claim's implications, taken to a logical extreme, are absurd. And in order to establish those implications, the author extrapolates data into a single hypothetical example that can be chained backwards in time.
Because describing an argument is an abstract exercise, the answer choices will also be abstract, which may make them difficult to untangle. One helpful strategy to make the answer choices more concrete is to break them into small parts and compare each part to the stimulus to see if it matches. The correct answer has to completely match; even a single incorrect element makes the answer choice incorrect.
24.
Which one of the following ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████████
a
projecting from responses █████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ██ ████████████ ███████ █████████ ██ █ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ████
The author does project many individuals' responses collected at one time, by using the survey data to construct a hypothetical example. And the hypothetical example is of a single individual, whose responses the author imagines at different ages in the past. This technique is used in the argument.
You might notice that this isn't a complete description of the argument, because it doesn't include the author's appeal to common sense. But that's okay! All of (A) is accurate even though there's still more to the argument, so (A) is still correct.
b
reinterpreting what certain ██████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███
The author arguably reinterprets what people actually said, by constructing those responses into a representative hypothetical example. However, the author never considers what would have been the most reasonable thing to say, so that's where (B) fails. The author never questions the reasonableness of individual responses.
c
qualifying an overly ████████ ██████████████ ██ █████ ██ █ ███████ ████ ██████ ██████████████
No part of (C) accurately describes the argument. There is no excessive generalization in the argument: the result of the survey isn't applied to anything beyond its scope. And the author doesn't use any counterexamples, only a hypothetical example that aligns with the survey results rather than countering them.
d
deriving a contradiction ████ █ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ █████
The author does rely on a contradiction, but the contradiction is between a logical implication of the survey results and common sense, not between any two specific statements. Perhaps more importantly, the author doesn't try to disprove anything. The point isn't that the survey results are wrong, nor that common sense is mistake, but just that there's an issue with interpreting the results.
e
analyzing an unexpected █████████ █████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ███ ██ █ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████ █████ ████████████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ ████████████ ██ █████ ███████████
While the survey responses are pretty unanimous, the author never states that this unanimity is unexpected. And more strikingly, the author never raises a question of manipulation—the survey results are treated as a legitimate finding, the issue is just with interpreting them.