A Premise:

hacking medical records could damage systems where human lives depend.

A Conclusion:

computer systems also cause harm.

I missed this the first time. It is obvious that there is a could vs. cause situation here (probability vs. certainty). It could cause these situations, but we cannot definitively conclude that it will cause harm. This is just one POSSIBLE example, by no way is it binding or expected as a sure cause.

A) this is not a flaw for this argument. What distinction?

B) provides evidence of some sort.

C) correct answer - this is it. relies on actuality (causation/certainty) that he has shown to be possible (probability/one-time possible occurrence).

D) did not confuse s for n.

E) evidence is consistent with the conclusion. Does not logically follow but is consistent.

Conclusion:

Critics evaluation (director undersold + violated position as trustee) is correct.

Premise:

Director sold paintings. Critics condemned the sale.

A few months later, paintings sold at 2-3 times the price in what had been a relatively stable art market.

A) We do not know how many critics there are. We do not know what side has more people supporting it. Plus, the argument does not do what the answer choice suggests.

B) first of all, who is the expert? the director? stimulus does not indicate that there are any experts. we also do not know that the director is the most knowledgable in this area.

C) this is tempting but is wholly irrelevant to the argument. provides no evidence or indication that is a proven means of accomplishing something.

D) what about this includes a "speculative state of affairs". this would be like saying, 2 years from now, the painting might sell at a higher price.

E) correct answer - the facts are: violated responsibility as trustee and the art sold at higher prices. These two facts could have been caused by something else.

The key here is to zero in on premise --> conclusion. It makes it much easier to anticipate the right answer choice.

Conclusion:

She used neither sleight of hand, nor trick deck, nor planted volunteer.

Premise:

Skeptic recorded her 3 times, each time, skeptic ruled out one of the 3 methods.

It is clear that the flaw is she could have switched up her approach on each video trial.

A) correct answer - if she used a different method each time, the conclusion would not follow. This is a flaw b/c you cannot conclude she used a different method on the basis of the premises.

B) irrelevant.

C) she doesn't though, she used them independently of one another.

D) she might have but this does not point out a flaw for this particular argument.

E) what?

Conclusion:

Mr. Smith is guilty of assault.

Premise:

no eyewitnesses

Mr. Smith is violent

he threatened her and did not refute it.

I got this wrong b/c I did not properly understand the question stem. Always read the question stem and understand it. Anyway the question stem asks us to outline the reasoning that leads the attorney to the flawed argument. Which is, since he did not refute, he must have threatened her, therefore, he is guilty.

A) this is sort of a flaw in the argument but the question stem is asking us to outline the reasoning.

B) no it does not reason this.

C) correct answer - this is what the argument reasons. Mr. Smith did not refuse the claim, thus, the attorney argues, that he did threaten her. This is right b/c it clearly outlines the fallacious argument that the question stem asks for.

D) not even close.

E) this is a flaw in the argument, being violent does not mean you are guilty or even capable of a violent crime.

Conclusion:

the scientific community are directed toward enhancing the status of the community as whole, and truth is pursued incidentally.

Premise:

professional activities of most scientists are directed toward career enhancement, truth is incidental.

This is a part vs. whole flaw. It is concluding that an entire community does something b/c individuals within the community do it.

A) the conclusion is wrong in this. It does infer that each and every scientist, instead, it infers the community.

B) correct answer - it draws an inference about the whole community from a premise about individual scientists.

the rest are just not true, not even close.

Premise:

Random experiment, older people did not answer questions, younger people did.

Conclusion:

Younger people are more willing to answer questions than old people.

It is clear that the flaw is a correlation does not entail causation flaw. However, I had trouble with the answer choices. Here, we need something that suggests something else might have caused this. A is the correct answer choice. Since no baseline was provided, we are left to assume that these two separate cohorts would have changed their answers in years prior. For example if a 18 year-old was interviewed in 1990 and again in 2020, we would be able to make a generalized claim for that.

Premise:

some art represents something and this is relevant to our aesthetic experience.

representation is an aesthetically relevant experience.

representation is context dependent.

no criteria for determining representation is present in an object.

Conclusion:

cannot be clear criteria to determine whether an object is art.

the flaw here is a common flaw. it is assuming that if one solution does not work, no other solution works. Specifically, if we cannot determine whether something is art through representation, then there is no other way. Answer choice C picks up on this. There could be other properties that allow us to determine if something classifies as art.

Premise:

Improve process by adapting a new, but expensive process. More cost overall.

Conclusion:

it will cost a lot but lead to no profit.

Flaw --> how does the conclusion go from cost a lot to no profit. We have no evidence that this will not lead to profit. Makes a wild assumption.

A) correct answer - the conclusion is a net effect (cost and profit) but it only focuses on one of the factors (cost) and not the other (profit).

B) this might be true but this does not seem to be the flaw.

C) this is not a circular argument, the conclusion has a new idea.

D) there is no indication that the premises are probably true.

E) cost is relevant to the argument.

Premise:

Y testifies crime happened between certain time and admits if it happened earlier, there would have been sufficient light to ID the robber. However, the prosecution conclusively proves that the crime happened earlier.

Conclusion:

Therefore, there was enough light for Klein to make a positive ID.

I understand the argument, but I cannot point out any flaw. The answer choices also stump me. I need to read more carefully and rely on the process of elimination for question like these.

A) we know for sure what time the robbery happened.

B) how is this relevant to having enough light to ID?

C) this might weaken but how is it a flaw. What does this have to do with there being enough light to ID.

D) This attacks a premise. he already admits that there would have been light at that time.

E) correct answer - this is more direct in terms of the p --> c. If this is true, it attacks the support relationship, saying that there may have been another factor preventing the conclusion from following.

Conclusion:

Safe to assume over or under inflated tires harm the tread.

Premise:

No one has been able to show that these do not harm the tread.

Flaw is that if nobody has shown the phenomenon to be false, then it must be true.

A) this argument does not presuppose what it sets out to demonstrate.

B) why is it not susceptible to proof? it might be.

C) irrelevant.

D) correct answer - what has not been proven is that these do not harm the tread, but it can be true, it can harm the tread.

E) irrelevant.

Conclusion:

the claim that there are a large # of crimes in society are false.

Premise:

claim is based on large # of news stories.

violent crimes are rare occurrences, making newspapers likely to print them.

The argument participates in circular reasoning. We are trying to conclude that crimes are rare, and the premise simply states that. We provide no proof or explanation for why crimes are rare, it is just stated. As such, the argument is faulty due to circular reasoning.

M:

Greek alphabet invented by someone who knew P alphabet as a way of recording and preserving oral poetry.

P:

Disagrees with hypothesis - if you know it enough to write it down, no need to write it down, plus nobody else could read them.

This one was tough, I only got it right in BR. Best way to approach is by process of elimination.

A) this kinda supports P, does not point out a flaw.

B) does not assume this.

C) what are these requirements? we do not know of any requirements.

D) it says the hypothesis is false, not true.

E) correct answer - if this is true, then people could read the poetry, pointing out a flaw in P's argument.

When I read this, I was very confused but just focus on the argument.

Premise:

States off two beliefs in a causal mechanism.

Conclusion:

Concludes that on the basis of this belief, something must be true.

The flaw here is belief vs. what is true.

Conclusion:

the law serves no purpose.

Premise:

people who would do it, do it anyway.

people who don't follow the law, will not.

Flaw here is false dichotomy as it divides the world into those who follow the law and those who do not. What about people do both? Follow and do not follow? This is what the correct answer choice does. D highlights the people who might violate the law.

First pass, I missed the principle but it clearly states the principle in the stimulus: those that expose others to risk, should pay for the risk.

A) they do not know who caused the damage, people who did not expose to risk would end up paying for it.

B) correct answer - p: sports cars more likely to cause accidents (exposure to risk), c: should pay higher insurance (should pay for the risk).

C) where is the financial risk.

D) no.

E) no.

Conclusion:

E fail to consider the negative impact of spacecraft that can be damaging.

Serious enough to discontinue.

Premise:

Use of spacecraft can predict problems before we they happen, allowing us to intervene.

A) correct answer - they fail to consider = ignore.

B) this is the opposite of what the author is saying.

C) similar to B.

D) Is it making it worse? no.

E) technology is broad.

Sufficient Assumption:

- Not having one does not ruin the argument. A sufficient assumption, if true, can lead to the conclusion but by no means is necessary for the argument to work. Sufficient to make the conclusion valid.

Necessary Assumption:

- Not having it will ruin the argument; however, does not fully fill the gap to make the argument valid. It is just a required element of the argument.

T:

Employers complain graduating students lack skills.

We should require people work part-time jobs to acquire these skills.

M:

Already too few part-time jobs. Requiring people to work will not create jobs.

A) she does not explicitly address a result, she just says there are not enough jobs to do this. If she did this, she would say, "if this happens, there will be not enough jobs for those who need it."

B) nope.

C) nope.

D) correct answer - consideration is that too few jobs, assumption is that there is enough jobs, M undercuts this assumption with her statement.

E) no alternate solution is presented by M.

S Premise:

95% of people who purchased a S car last year were satisfied.

if car has defect, people would not be satisfied.

S Conclusion:

S cars have no defects.

T:

Defects show up after several years of use.

T introduces a consideration that undermines the argument, weakens the support structure.

A) it does not argue that the conclusion is correct.

B) it does not do this. It does not criticize the attitudes of those surveyed.

C) correct answer - the consideration is that defect show up after several years, and this undermines the support structure between the premise and conclusion.

D) does not point out a circular argument.

E) big difference in pointing out a fact and saying that one's conclusion is false. T might still think that S cars have no defects.

Conclusion:

Tom is likely an extreme insomniac.

Premise:

Research shows that 90% of extreme insomniacs consume large amounts of coffee.

Tom drinks a lot of coffee.

The flaw here is we know that EI drink a lot of coffee but we do not know if people who drink a lot of coffee are extreme insomniacs.

A) not really, the conclusion says likely. this is not even the flaw. nothing to do with the argument. there is also a reversal in the relationship.

B) this does not describe the flaw. We are not concerned of the other causes.

C) correct answer- the evidence does not indicate that those who drink a lot of coffee are extreme insomniacs.

D) this is not the flaw.

E) it does not do this at all.

Conclusion:

Some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters.

Premise:

All reporters know come from the press agent.

If press agent told every reporter everything, then no reporter knows more than the other.

If no reporter knows any more that the other, no reporter can scoop.

The press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the accident.

The argument is assuming that the press agent told one person everything, and everyone else much less. What if he told two people everything? He could not scoop all the reporters then.

A) this is not a flaw because it is a possibility. The conclusion could still follow.

B) they can scoop, they do not have to scoop.

C) this is a possibility but it does not point out the flaw.

D) this is not consistent with the facts.

E) there is a possibility that the press agent told everyone the same amount to everyone, thus there can be no scoop. This ruins the assumption that the argument depends on.

Conclusion:

Critics should leave the team alone.

Premise:

Critics: team has been criticized for enthusiasm, claimed this behaviour to be unprofessional.

Coach: Draws comparison to professional sports.

The flaw here is the coach defines unprofessional in a different way than the critics. Where the critics define it as a trait of sportsmanship, the coach misinterprets this as whether a player is a pro or not.

A) there is no mention of what is ethical or unethical.

B) correct answer - this is the right answer. The coach defines unprofessional in a different way than set out by the critics.

C) this may be true but there is no generalization.

D) there is no shifting of the blame.

E) there is not mention of this in the stimulus.

Conclusion:

It is law-abiding people whose actions make them truly responsible for crime.

Premise:

Criminals actions (all actions) are a product of the environment that they are in.

These actions are created by law-abiding citizens.

Okay hold up, if all actions are a product of the environment and we cannot place the blame on criminals for these actions, why can we not say the same for law-abiding citizens. There is some sort of contradiction here.

A) environment is used consistently in both instances.

B) this is not the flaw.

C) the argument does not distinguish between criminals and crimes, instead, it focuses on who is responsible for a crime.

D) this is not a survey, we do not know the sample size.

E) correct answer - the conclusion contradicts the principle of all actions are products of one's environment. If we cannot hold criminals accountable for their actions, we cannot hold law-abiding citizens accountable for their actions. Thus, there is an implicit contradiction on which the argument is based.

Premise:

the music is divinely inspired.

Conclusion:

his music is religious.

divinely inspired is not the same as religious. It can be inspired but not be religious.

A) no, this is not it. what would sound better is all inspiring music is religious.

B) correct answer - in the sense of Handel, the music is set to religious texts, in the other example, the music is divinely inspired.

C) we are not talking about all organ music. we are considering just this person's music.

D) these two uses of the same word seem to have the same meaning.

E) does not do this. just focusing on one artist. the argument does not base its conclusion on it being organ music, it bases it on it being inspired.

This question stumped me. I knew that retirement claim was inconsistent but I just did not zero in on the right answer.

Premise:

Ms. Chan said she retired from a specific company.

Her colleague said she is working harder than ever.

This does not sound like retirement.

Conclusion:

At least one of them must be not telling the truth.

A) this is descriptively accurate but it does not explain the flaw.

B) this is not ad hominem.

C) correct answer - the word retirement is used very differently. The first instance claims that she retired from a company, and the second claims that she retired overall.

D) he kind of is considering this as per the conclusion.

E) irrelevant.