Weaken
Last year pharm manufacturers increased money spent promoting new drugs which is usually used by sending sales reps to visit doctors.
Two years ago there was an average 640 visits per rep.
Last year there were 501 visits per rep.
The additional promotion must have been counter productive.
I need to find an AC that weaken the argument.
A) Correct. This shows that the money was spent to hire more sales reps which enabled more visits to be performed.
B) So what. This does nothing to weaken the argument.
C) Doesn't take a stance on whether or not the new promotion was counterproductive.
D) Does this mean the promotion was worth it???
E) This still doesn't tell us why the change in visits per reps dropped.
Resolve Reconcile Explain
C: Hours after birth infants are able to distinguish faces from other images.
P: Infants stare at drawings of faces for longer periods of time than they do at blank ovals or drawings in which facial features are scrambled.
What I am looking for: Something that connects the premise to conclusion and explains how they might be able to recognize faces hours after birth.
A) Correct. This explains how they might be able to recognize faces mere hours after being born.
B) Interest is different than recognition. This would explain why they might focus on drawings of faces but not how they would distinguish faces from other images.
C) I don't think it would be possible to learn this association in a few hours. Not likely and therefore not a strong AC.
D) This explains nothing from our stimulus and is too vague.
E) Again a few hours would not be adequate time to learn this association.
Weaken
Premise: People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue are systematically excluded form juries for trials where that issue is relevant.
Conclusion: Trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving such issues.
Need to find an answer that weakens the connection between premise and conclusion or if true would wreck the argument. Ideally something that says it is fair for jurors with specialized knowledge relevant in cases should be excluded and that it is a fair practice.
A) This answer choice could almost strengthen or weaken either side of the argument. If a person was unable to understand testimony in the trial, that would be a reason for them to be excluded as a juror (justifying conclusion). This is not the answer we are looking for.
B) Correct. This AC gives a reason why excluding the jurors would be a fair practice.
C) This has nothing to do with what's being discussed in our argument. Irrelevant.
D) This has to do with expert witness testimony not juror exclusion on basis of relevant specialized knowledge. Wrong.
E) This also has nothing to do with juror exclusion and fair practice of jury trials. Wrong.
Necessary Assumption
Premises: In 1963 a young monkey was seen going into a hot spring to retrieve food. Soon other monkeys began to enter the spring and over time this behavior was adopted by the entire troop of monkeys. Prior to 1963, no monkeys had ever been seen in the hot spring. By 1990 the troop was regularly spending time in them during the winters.
Conclusion: These monkeys are able to adopt and pass on new patterns of social behavior, and are not complete captives of their genetic heritage.
What Im looking for: An assumption made which holds the argument together, without which the argument would fall apart.
A: This does not support the idea of monkeys learning new behavior outside of their genetics and therefore is not necessary for the argument.
B: Correct. If negated the argument falls apart.
C: Who cares, this has nothing to do with the argument. This describes conditions for a genetic mutation but does not take a stance on what's being argued.
D: If negated this would not wreck the argument. Strongly worded but not necessary.
E: This points to genetics not learned behavior.
Flaw/Weaken
Conclusion: Those economists who claim that consumer price increases have averaged less than 3 percent over the last year are mistaken.
Premises: They clearly have not shopped anywhere. Gasoline is up 10 percent over the last year; my auto insurance, 12 percent; newspapers, 15 percent; propane, 13 percent; bread, 50 percent.
Politician claims that those who state that consumer price increases have averaged less than 3 percent over the last year are mistaken. Offers evidence by claiming that if one shopped anywhere recently that would know better. States that gas prices, his own auto insurance, newspapers, propane and bread have all increased by various percentages above 3 percent.
What I'm looking for: Where the reasoning in the politicians argument is most vulnerable to criticism.
A: He does nothing to impugn the character of economists.
B: He mentions nothing in regards to whether or not the economists discussed are experts in the area of consumer prices.
C: The premises do not claim that the conclusion is true because it has not been proven to not be so, it simply states that it is not true.
D: Correct. The evidence used by the politician in arguing prices have increased could very well be a small representation of a much larger whole. There is nothing stating that prices everywhere else are the same percentage increase. What if this is just a small city in a small state and the rest of the country/world/area has prices much lower than the politicians sample.
E: While he may be emotional it must be because his argument is not a good one. There is no emotional appeal present in his argument.
I believe social problems are irrelevant in this question. What is being discussed is fringe subcultures and their effect on national identities. The stimulus states that modern culture is rapidly creating fringe (or minority/small) subcultures which are threatening the makeup or composition of a national identity. Our goal in this question is to weaken the connection between premise and conclusion or find a way to deny the argument.
Premise: The great centrifugal engine of modern culture turns faster and faster, spinning off fashions, ideologies, religions, artistic movements, economic theories, cults and dogmas in fabulous profusion.
Conclusion: Modern culture threatens the national identities that now exist in the world.
Answer choice E says something about a solid national identity tending to contain more social problems than a nation without a solid national identity. This answer choice does not work to weaken the connection between premise and conclusion. It's just saying something kind of random while accepting that modern culture threatens national identity. It doesn't really matter if there are social problems or not. Either way we can still assume what's stated in the stimulus is true (that modern culture threatens identity). This does not contradict what the argument in the stimulus is stating and does not weaken the argument.
Answer choice B directly attacks the argument made by stating that a solid national identity is in fact made up from a staggering stupid ridiculous amount of subcultures (fringe movements) brought about by modern culture (helped not hurt). Another way of saying it would be that modern culture, by creating all these fringe movements, helps establish solid national identities. This goes against the assumption in the argument and unlike E weakens the connection between premise and conclusion.
Answer choice B does the best to weaken the argument. The other answer choices are simply irrelevant or do not weaken the argument.
@doneill3389668oshun1 I like the timer idea. Thanks for sharing!
@xlvovska162 That sounds interesting! I’ll have to check it out.....after my test of course! ; )
What distracts you most while studying? What attempts do you make to stay focused and overcome distractions?
Lately I find myself checking for news on social media once I’ve worked through a problem set as a sort of break. I start to reach for my phone more and more and soon it becomes a distraction. Dang Facebook!
Method of Reasoning
Y: Yeast has long been known to be a leaven, substance used in baking to make breads rise. Since biblical evidence ties the use of leavens back to events dating back to 1200 BC, we can infer that yeast was already known to be a leaven at that time.
C: I find your inference unconvincing; several leavens other than yeast could have been known in 1200 BC.
C counters Y's argument by....
A: This is not what C is doing.
B: Correct. C is questioning the truth that just because yeast might be tied to that biblical time period, it had to be a known leaven agent at that time.
C: He is not denying the conclusion without considering the reason given. He is questioning the supporting reason given.
D: He does not suggest any other conclusions.
E: He does not attack the premise, but the presumption.
Flawed Method of Reasoning
MHSL → MFI
LII → RSL
--------------------------------------
RSL → LII
This is answer choice D.
Mistaken sufficiency for necessity.
Jedi → Force does not mean Force → Jedi
Method of Reasoning
Phoebe: There have been many reporting of strange lights. They have a straightforward, natural explanation. They occurred clustered in time and location around earthquake epicenters, and so were almost certainly earthquake lights, ball lightning caused by stress in the ground.
Quincy: Skeptical association between lights and earthquakes is anything more than coincidence. The theory is extremely speculative.
In responding to Phoebe, Quincy....
A: Quincy does not do this. Phoebe does.
B: No mention of data accuracy.
C: Correct. Q mentions the theory is extremely speculative (based on conjecture rather than knowledge..
D: Q does not do this.
E: No mention of irrelevant information.
Necessary Assumption: Western economies use more energy to operate buildings than transportation. Much of this decline is due to more efficient energy use in homes and offices since the oil crisis. New technologies cut billions of dollars from energy bills in the West. Since energy savings from these efficiencies save several billion dollars per year today, we can conclude that 50 to 100 years from now they will save more than $200 billion per year.
Which AC does the arguement depend on? Need something that states that no big changes will occur from now until future date.
A: Correct. Technology will not become more expensive allowing more money to be saved through energy efficiency technologies.
B: This could help explain future savings but argument doesn't depend on it.
C: This will not prohibit money savings.
D: This could help explain savings but still not dependent.
E: Not dependent.
MSS: Some argue laws are instituted in part to establish moral fabric in society. Primary function of law is surely to help order society so it can work harmoniously regardless of moral aims of law. The higest courts have treated moral beliefs based on conscience or religious faith as grounds for making exceptions in the application of laws.
Which AC is most strongly supported.
A: Correct. The highest courts have made exceptions in applications of law based on people's beliefs (religion).
B: Devoid of moral aims? Not according to last sentence of stimulus.
C: "Tend" implies majority of the time. Not supported.
D: "Ought" There is nothing in the stimulus that speaks of how society ought to be ordered according to moral convictions.
E: We do not know what the best way to promote cooperation among society's institutions is from the stimulus.
RRE: Trade doubled in Glasgow between 1750 (when the first bank opened there) and 1765 (when government regulations on banking were first implemented in Scotland).
Each of the following could contribute to an explanation of the doubling described above EXCEPT:
A: Sure why not.
B: Sure, this would have been between 1750-1765 and explain increased trade.
C: Sure, more efficient transactions could mean more trade.
D: Sure, better roads could mean more trade between 1750-1758.
E: Correct answer. This is supported in the stimulus to be the point at which doubled trade ceased.
Flaw/Descriptive Weakening
Env contend emissions from factory pose a health risk to those living downwind. Only testimony in support of this comes from residents surrounding factory. Only a trained scientist can determine whether or not emissions are dangerous. Hence, factory emissions present no health risk.
Reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument:
A: This doesn't happen.
B: Outside of stimulus scope.
C: Correct. Fails to prove the emissions are safe from lack of scientific testimony proving emissions are dangerous.
D: Outside of scope.
E: This doesn't happen.
MSS: Living in the country permits a slower and more natural rhythm of life and is supposed to be more healthy and relaxed than living in the city. Surveys show people living in the country become ill as often and seriously as people living in the city, and they experience equal amounts of stress.
Which one of the answer choices is most strongly supported?
A: Correct answer. This is supported by the stimulus.
B: This is not directly supported.
C: No evidence of this.
D: Who cares what people believe, this information is not supported by stimulus.
E: No link between rhythm of life and stress in stimulus.
MBF
S→O
S→G
F→(G→/O)
Max 1 & Min 0
A: This could be true.
B: This could be true.
C: This could be true.
D: This could be true. Her friends don't have to like any teas.
E: This has to be false. Samantha likes two kinds of tea. The Max number of teas her friends are permitted to like is one.
Weaken
P: People cannot increase their spending if they have no jobs and no money for anything other than basic necessities, so
C: price collapses cannot lead to economic improvement.
Which answer choice most undermines Terry's argument?
A) Terry is talking about what leads to economic improvement not what happens after it has improved.
B) What about spending?
C) This is correct. This weakens Terry's argument. People can spend money from savings whenever the prices collapse.
D) This supports Terry's argument.
E) What about spending?
MSS: Tech improvements will enable food production to increase as population increases. Increase in food production will be negligible (insignificant) unless societies become more centralized so that all factors contributing to production can be better coordinated. Historically, the more centralized a society was the greater percentage of its people who perished if and when it collapsed. Thus, increasing centralization of societies in an effort to increase food production via better tech will exacerbate disasters associated with societal collapse.
A) Not supported. Ability maybe but not need.
B) This is correct and supported by stimulus. According to the passage it is not just a matter of if, but when, a society will collapse despite technological capabilities.
C) Not supported. We do not know that the population will increase indefinitely.
D) Not supported. There may be other ways to increase food production. The stimulus does not explicitly limit it to technological advances.
E) Not supported. There is no evidence of this statement in the stimulus.
MBF: Domain is that of immoral actions.
P→O & G
A) Correct answer. This must be false. Per the stimulus, all immoral actions are accompanied by feelings of guilt.
B) We don't know what is right or wrong.
C) "Some actions" could be actions other than immoral actions. This could be true.
D) "Some actions" once again outside the domain of immoral actions.
E) Could be true.
RRE: Experts expect improvements in job safety training to lead to safer work environment. Survey found that manufacturers in the 80s who improved job safety training had an increase in on-the-job accidents immediately following changes in the training program.
What could explain this apparent discrepancy?
A) We are not discussing transportation sector. We are talking about manufacturers in the 80s.
B) This is the correct answer. More employees could mean more injuries while safety still increases in the big picture.
C) This still does not explain why there was an increase in injuries.
D) Who cares if it was not merely a random fluctuation? We want to know why there was an increase in injuries after training.
E) If these were in place you would think that there would be more of a reason for injuries to not occur. Not helping explain our discrepancy.
Weaken
An independent computer service company tallied service requests for brands of computers.
If found that after factoring in market shares, KRV had largest proportion of service requests, Probit had smallest. Probit is the more reliable personal computer brand.
I need to find an AC that attacks/most weakens this argument.
A) We are only talking about KRV and Probit, not other brands. Irrelevant.
B) Correct. This gives us reason to believe that the independent company's tally is non representative of service requests as a whole and ultimately renders the conclusion of the argument incorrect.
C) If this is true, and after the tally KRV still had more service requests, it could support the argument.
D) The difference in market share is accounted for in the argument.
E) This could support the argument.