Summary
Whenever considering voting in an election, and there’s at least one issue important:
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but if disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → acceptable to vote for candidate X.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but do NOT disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → NOT acceptable to vote for candidate X.
In the upcoming election, there’s only 1 issue important. Kay agrees with Medina on that issue. Kay does not agree with Legrand or Norton on that issue.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but if disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → acceptable to vote for candidate X.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but do NOT disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → NOT acceptable to vote for candidate X.
In the upcoming election, there’s only 1 issue important. Kay agrees with Medina on that issue. Kay does not agree with Legrand or Norton on that issue.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
It is not acceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton. This is because she disagrees with them on an important issue, but she does not disagree with all other candidates on a greater # of important issues. (She agrees with Medina on the 1 important issue, and there are no other important issues. So if she disagrees with Legrand and Norton on that issue, there’s no way that she can disagree with all other candidates, including Medina, on a greater # of important issues.)
A
it is acceptable for Kay to vote for either Medina or Legrand, but it is unacceptable for her to vote for Norton
Anti-supported, because it is not acceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand. (See summary for explanation.)
B
the only unacceptable courses of action are for Kay to vote for Norton and for her to vote for Legrand
Supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton. (See summary for explanation.)
C
it is unacceptable for Kay to vote for any of the candidates
Not supported, because it’s possible that voting for Medina is acceptable. We have no reason to think it’s unacceptable to vote for Medina, because Kay agrees with Medina on the 1 important issue.
D
the only unacceptable course of action is for Kay to vote for Medina
Anti-supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton.
E
it is acceptable for Kay to vote for any of the candidates
Anti-supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton.
Summary
The argument concludes that it’s ill founded to call Linsey a bad songwriter because her lyrics are disjointed and subjective. Why? Because many modern novelists write in a way that is disjointed and subjective, but are considered to be good writers.
Notable Assumptions
The argument defends Linsey based on an analogy between her songwriting and the writing of modern novelists. For this analogy to make sense, the argument must assume that songwriting and modern novels are relevantly analogous—that this writing style has a similar effect in both types of writing.
A
Disjointed and subjective writing has a comparable effect in modern novels and in songs.
In other words, modern novels and songwriting are relevantly analogous when considering this writing style. This is the only way that modern novels can provide any insight into the quality of Linsey’s songwriting, making it a necessary assumption.
B
Some readers do not appreciate the subtleties of the disjointed and subjective style adopted by modern novelists.
This just doesn’t make any difference—we already know that these novelists are “widely held” to be good writers, so whether some people don’t like them isn’t relevant, much less necessary.
C
Song lyrics that are disjointed and subjective have at least as much narrative structure as any other song lyrics do.
The argument never brings up the idea of narrative structure as a way to assess the quality of songwriting, so this is irrelevant.
D
A disjointed and subjective style of writing is usually more suitable for novels and song lyrics than it is for any other written works.
The argument is only focused on song lyrics and novels, so whether or not this writing style is suitable for other works makes no difference.
E
The quality of Linsey’s songs is better judged by the quality of their lyrics than by the quality of their musical form.
The argument only talks about Linsey’s merit as a songwriter, so it’s irrelevant to say whether her songwriting or her musical form is more important.
Summary
The argument concludes that predictions of the future are particularly unreliable when they relate to societies with frequent scientific and technological discoveries. This is supported by the claim that scientific and technological discoveries have significant effects on how a society develops.
Notable Assumptions
The argument’s inference between discoveries impacting the future and the future being harder to predict when there are frequent discoveries only makes sense if discoveries make the future harder to predict. This means the argument must assume either that the discoveries themselves are difficult to predict, or that their effects are difficult to predict.
A
Predictions of scientific and technological discoveries, or predictions of their effects, have harmful consequences in some societies.
The argument doesn’t depend on whether predictions are harmful or not—the conclusion is just about how reliable predictions are, not their consequences.
B
The development of a society requires scientific and technological discoveries.
The argument isn’t concerned with what it takes for a society to develop, only how reliable predictions are under certain conditions.
C
Forecasts of scientific and technological discoveries, or forecasts of their effects, are not entirely reliable.
In other words, it is difficult to predict discoveries, or to predict their effects. Without this assumption, there would be no link between frequent discoveries and difficulty predicting the future, so this assumption is necessary for the argument to hold up.
D
An advanced scientific and technological society frequently benefits from new discoveries.
The consequences of discoveries are irrelevant to the argument, which is just focused on how discoveries impact the accuracy of future predictions.
E
It is not as difficult to predict scientific and technological discoveries in a technologically more advanced society as it is in a technologically less advanced society.
Whether discoveries are easier or harder to predict in certain societies has no impact on the argument, which just generally claims that discoveries make predictions less accurate.
Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that introducing predators to eradicate rodents on dirt embankments will prevent the embankments from eroding. Why? Because the rodents, which are attracted by grass clippings that cause plant roots to rot, burrow into the ground and further damage the roots. These roots are what prevent erosion.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument concludes that eliminating rodents would stop erosion, because rodents are one factor in causing the erosion. However, this overlooks the other cause of erosion: the clippings causing plant roots to rot.
A
Two events that merely co-occur are treated as if one caused the other.
The argument doesn’t mistake a correlation for a causal relationship: the cause-and-effect relationships discussed are genuine.
B
A highly general proposal is based only on an unrepresentative set of facts.
The argument doesn’t make a general proposal based on unrepresentative facts. The facts offered are about a specific set of embankments, and the proposal is about those same embankments.
C
The conclusion is no more than a restatement of one of the pieces of evidence provided to support it.
The conclusion, that bringing in predators to eliminate rodents would prevent erosion, is not a restatement of any of the supporting evidence.
D
One possible solution to a problem is claimed to be the only possible solution to that problem.
The argument never claims that bringing in predators to eliminate rodents is the only possible solution to erosion.
E
An action that would eliminate one cause of a problem is treated as if it would solve the entire problem.
The argument concludes that eliminating rodents would solve the entire problem of erosion, but rodents are only one cause. This conclusion doesn’t address the other cause of root rot.
Second legislator: Considerations of male/female balance such as this are inappropriate with respect to research; they have no place in science.
Summarize Argument
The second legislator concludes that considerations of male/female balance have no place in science, since such considerations are inappropriate in research.
Notable Assumptions
The second legislator assumes that what’s inappropriate in research (considerations of male/female balance) have no place in science. He also assumes that considerations of male/female balance wouldn’t helpfully affect the outcomes of the research in question, which may deal with physiological factors that differ between male and female participants.
A
Government-sponsored research is supported by all taxpayers, both male and female.
We would need a principle telling us that taxpayers should be equally represented in scientific research for this to be true. As it is, the second legislator simply argues that concerns about a male/female balance has no place in science.
B
Serving as a subject for medical research can provide a patient access to new treatments but also can subject the patient to risks.
We don’t care about the individual participants. We need to weaken the second legislator’s argument about male/female balance considerations.
C
Government-sponsored medical research is often done in military hospitals or prisons that hold only male residents.
This explains why research is often done only on male participants. We need to know why male/female balance considerations may in fact have a place in science.
D
The training of male and female scientists does not differ according to their sex.
We’re not interested in scientists. We need to know whether the participants’ sex is relevant to research.
E
Restriction to males of the patient base on which data are collected results in inadequate science.
Studying on males produces data that falls short of proper science. Thus, considerations about the male/female balance are in fact justified.
Company representative: We have distributed nearly 3,000 copies of the upgrade and we have received fewer than 100 calls saying that it has caused problems. So it is very unlikely that you will experience any problems with the upgrade.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The company representative concludes that the consumer is very unlikely to encounter problems with a software upgrade. As support, the representative cites the fact that the company has distributed many copies of the upgrade but has received only a few calls from users who had problems.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The representative draws a conclusion about the likelihood of a problem based on evidence about how many people have called the company about that problem. This fails to consider the possibility that more users may have had problems with the upgrade, but did not call the company about their problems.
A
the company will issue another upgrade that corrects the problems with the current upgrade
Whether the company plans to correct any problems is irrelevant to the argument, which is about whether problems are likely to occur in the first place.
B
some of the problems people have experienced with the upgrade have been quite serious
The representative’s argument isn’t about how serious people’s problems may have been, only about how likely people are to encounter problems at all—so this is irrelevant.
C
a significant number of people have experienced problems with the upgrade but have not reported them
The representative’s conclusion is that a problem is unlikely, based on how many people have reported problems to the company. The possibility that many people may have had problems without reporting them undermines the representative’s ability to support that conclusion.
D
the consumer will experience software problems if the upgrade is not installed
The likelihood of a problem if the consumer doesn’t install the upgrade is irrelevant, because the representative’s argument is only about the likelihood of a problem if the upgrade is installed.
E
some of the reported problems were a result of users failing to follow instructions
The reasons that users may have encountered problems are irrelevant. The argument is about the overall likelihood of a problem, no matter what the reason.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
How did the Inuit settlers in Greenland survive the temperature drop that occurred around 1500, while the Norse settlers were killed?
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference between the Norse settlements and the Inuit settlements. That difference will provide insight into why the former group disappeared and the latter survived following the temperature drop that occurred around 1500 in Greenland.
A
The drop in average yearly temperature was smaller in Greenland than it was in the world as a whole.
This does not explain why the Inuit and Norse settlements were affected differently by the temperature drop in Greenland.
B
The Norse settlers’ diet, unlike that of the Inuit, was based primarily on livestock and crops that were unable to survive the temperature drop.
(B) offers a key difference that helps explain the phenomenon. Because the Norse settlers lost their food sources due to the temperature drop while the Inuit did not, it’s understandable why the Norse settlers were unable to survive the cold.
C
There were settlements in North America during the fifteenth century that were most likely founded by Norse settlers who had come from Greenland.
(C) does not offer information that is relevant to explaining the phenomenon described in the stimulus.
D
The Inuit and the Norse settlements were typically established in coastal areas.
(D) offers a similarity between the Norse and Inuit settlements. The correct answer will offer a difference that explains why the latter group survived the temperature drop while the former group did not.
E
The Norse community in Norway continued to thrive long after 1500.
The stimulus is concerned with Greenland, not Norway.
Monica: The sculpture commissioned for our town plaza has been scorned by the public ever since it went up. But since the people in our town do not know very much about contemporary art, the unpopularity of the work says nothing about its artistic merit and thus gives no reason for removing it.
Hector: You may be right about what the sculpture’s popularity means about its artistic merit. However, a work of art that was commissioned for a public space ought to benefit the public, and popular opinion is ultimately the only way of determining what the public feels is to its benefit. Thus, if public opinion of this sculpture is what you say, then it certainly ought to be removed.
Speaker 1 Summary
Monica believes that the sculpture’s lack of popularity isn’t a good reason to remove the sculpture. Why not? Because the public is ignorant about contemporary art, and so lack of popularity tells us nothing about its artistic merit. For Monica, any reason to remove the sculpture must be related to its artistic merit.
Speaker 2 Summary
Hector disagrees; he says that if people don’t like the sculpture, then it should be removed. Why? Because the sculpture should benefit the public, and popular opinion is the only way to know whether people think the sculpture benefits them.
Objective
We need a principle that Monica and Hector disagree on. They disagree about the rationale for removing a sculpture. Monica thinks it’s necessary to consider artistic merit. Hector thinks artistic merit doesn’t matter if the public believes the sculpture is of no benefit.
A
Public opinion of a work of art is an important consideration in determining the work’s artistic merit.
Monica’s opinion is unclear. She disregards public opinion in this case because the townspeople are ignorant about contemporary art, but she doesn’t suggest that public opinion never matters. Meanwhile, Hector says she may be right, so he doesn’t disagree with her.
B
Works of art commissioned for public spaces ought at least to have sufficient artistic merit to benefit the public.
Neither has an opinion. Monica never considers public benefit, and Hector doesn’t draw any connection between artistic merit and public benefit.
C
The only reason for removing a work of art commissioned for a public space would be that the balance of public opinion is against the work.
Hector’s opinion is unclear. He believes that this is a sufficient reason for removing a work of art, but he doesn’t suggest that it’s the only reason.
D
The sculpture cannot benefit the public by remaining in the town plaza unless the sculpture has artistic merit.
Neither has an opinion. Monica never considers public benefit, and Hector doesn’t draw any connection between artistic merit and public benefit.
E
In determining whether the sculpture should remain in the town plaza, the artistic merit of the sculpture should be a central consideration.
Monica agrees, Hector disagrees. Monica suggests that artistic merit is key—if there’s not an issue with the sculpture’s merit, there’s no reason to remove it. Hector says that poor public opinion is enough reason to remove the statue, regardless of artistic merit.