We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Which one of the following most accurately characterizes Dr. Santos’ response to the hypothesis advanced by Dr. Libokov?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Our first speaker, Dr. Libokov, tells us about the “S” reptile (whose technical name is far too long to recall). The speaker explains that the S reptile has disappeared throughout the rest of the world with the exception of a few islands around New Zealand. Dr. L concludes the explanation for this is simple, on account of the development of mammal species on larger islands that feed on the S reptile’s eggs, leading to extinction.
This first argument doesn’t have any glaring issues. While Dr. L certainly assumes that mammals became enough of a threat to the S reptile that it considerably reduced their numbers, the reasoning behind the speaker’s conclusion lines up. This very well may be why our second speaker, Dr. Santos, provides support to affirm Dr. L’s position. Dr. Santos explains that in addition to what we heard from the first speaker, any islands where mammals have been introduced ultimately see an extinction of the S reptile.
In this way Dr. Santos does fill in the itty bitty gap in Dr. L’s argument. While we can conclude a major predator would have an impact, we don’t quite have the information to assume the mammals would lead to inevitable extinction. But Dr. Santos confirms that actually we can say there is a guarantee if we introduce mammals the S reptile will decline in population. Knowing our correct answer choice will highlight how our second speaker adds to the first, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) Identifying a flaw means Dr. Santos would be weakening the argument. Knowing our second speaker supports (perhaps more importantly, does not discredit) we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (B) If our second speaker were adding nothing to the discussion as claimed by this answer choice, we would expect to see an exact repetition of Dr. L’s argument. We can eliminate this answer choice because there is new information presented by Dr. Santos.
Answer Choice (C) Similarly to answer choice A, this answer accuses Dr. Santos of weakening rather than strengthening our first speaker’s argument. And if we did not like this in A, we should eliminate answer choice C as well.
Answer Choice (D) It almost feels like these wrong answers say the exact same thing in different ways. Again, this answer choice accuses our second speaker of weakening or taking away from the first speaker’s argument. Like A and C, we can eliminate D for this reason.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly highlights the additional positive information Dr. Santos contributes to the first speaker’s position.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “T responds to S by showing that…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Our first speaker, S, begins with their conclusion; S’s nation is becoming too averse for risk. We know this is the conclusion because our “why” follows - why is the nation too risk averse? Well, S tells us, that is because modern society will boycott foods despite the minimal risk of toxic chemical exposure. S assets that Columbus never would have sailed west with this attitude, circling back to our mail point - the nation is too risk averse.
In making this argument S is making an assumption about what it means to embrace risk. According to our first speaker, if you boycott these toxic foods you won’t think like Columbus and as a result become too risk averse. But simply because the public is not adventurous like Columbus (his questionable ethics aside) S cannot say the public is overall too averse to risk. Perhaps the risk taken by Columbus only his crew and the native people compared to contaminated foods which may be sold throughout the whole globe. But let us see what our second speaker has to say about this.
In response, T points out the assumption of our first speaker’s argument. It is not the case that being risk averse in one single way translates to being risk averse in all ways. As T points out, it could be that Columbus did sail the ocean blue in 1492 and also would have been on the boycott bandwagon of toxic foods.
Knowing we are looking for the answer choice that identifies the strict definition S is applying to risk averse we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer sounds good at first by telling us that a distinction about risk should be made. But, not the distinction we want. We don’t care whether the risks are avoidable or not - but whether people are just going to embrace them generally.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for. This is the only answer choice that identifies that what is defined as “risk” depends on the context of the situation.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice accuses our second speaker of making a conclusion about something confusing the minds of the public. Without referring to the confusion on the people specifically (rather than simply in the disagreement between our speakers) we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) The topic of math does arise in S’s argument, but it is not a concern in speaker T’s discussion. So, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) almost seems to be a contender with the mention of a definition. We know the definition of risk averse is at odds between the speakers. However, our speakers are not concerned in establishing the perceived probable “benefit” of taking risks.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “The method of the argument is to…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
The speaker begins by telling us Juanita has two options to get to the zoo; taking the number 12 bus or the subway. This indicates we’re using an exclusive “or.” We know Juanita cannot physically take the bus and the subway at the same time. Next we learn that Juanita does in fact end up at the zoo by the end of the day, but the number 12 bus is not in operation. Thus, the argument concludes that Juanita must have used the other available option – using the subway.
Thinking in terms of conditional reasoning, we could sketch the relationships by identifying:
Getting to the zoo → riding the bus or the subway
From here we can use the contrapositive to confirm the validity of our argument. When we use the contrapositive of an “or” statement, it turns into and.
If we don’t ride the bus and we don’t ride the subway → Juanita isn’t getting to the zoo.
Determining an argument to be valid means we can prove the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. That’s the reason we know we are dealing with a valid argument here. The conclusion affirms one option must have happened for Juanita to get to the zoo. So if one of the two options are closed, the conclusion does follow that Juanita must have used the alternative form of transportation.
Knowing the breakdown of our stimulus, we can jump into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. If our argument concerned a group having knowledge of some concept, the discussion would go beyond Juanita’s use of transportation.
Answer Choice (B) If the argument were proving that something is not exclusive, we would expect our conclusion to assert that “these two things can happen at the same time.” But this does not align with the content of our conclusion, meaning we can eliminate this answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that highlights how our argument comes to its conclusion by outlining the alternative given an impossible option.
Answer Choice (D) There is no reference in the text to say there is some sort of exception in the case of Juanita making their way to the zoo. We can eliminate this answer choice for that reason.
Answer Choice (E) To say that the argument discusses what “typically occurs” indicates our stimulus would discuss the frequency at which Juanita takes transportation or goes to the zoo. Without this information in our stimulus we can eliminate this answer choice.
This is a sufficient assumption question because of the question stem: “…conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that…” Note that there are two speakers in this stimulus – our job is to address the missing SA in the environmentalist’s argument, but since the environmentalist is responding to the oil rep, we must read both blurbs.
Sufficient assumption questions tend to be very formal. We’re looking for a rule that would 100% validate the conclusion, specifically by bridging the premise and conclusion through the rule. Not only are we extrapolating the rule from our argument, but we’re also using that rule to render the argument “valid.” The way to prephrase our answer choice is by tying our premises and conclusion together into a rule: “If [premise] → then [conclusion].”
The oil company rep’s argument is pretty straightforward: we spent more money cleaning otters hurt by the spill than any other rescue project we’ve been involved in, and this shows their concern. While it’s straightforward, it’s not a solid argument. There are many reasons they could have spent the money… maybe it was a PR move and they have no real concern for the otters.
We’re given the environmentalist’s (E) thoughts on this immediately: they do not believe the rep from the oil company. Why? E says that the rep’s real concern is clear in their admission that photography of the oil-covered otters would damage the oil company’s public image and sales.
E’s argument could definitely weaken and call into question the true motive of the oil company’s motive in trying to help the otters – as we said above, it would be a PR move. However, to claim that the oil company has no concern for the environment is wrong given the information we currently have. Can’t the oil company care about its public image and the environment? E is assuming that if the company has other reasons to help the otters beyond saving the environment, the concern is not real. What we need to bridge the gap and render E’s conclusion valid is to say: if you have any motive beyond saving the environment, your concern is not real.
Correct Answer Choice (A) While it’s not a perfect match to our prephrase, it does get at the “you can’t have both/you can only have one reason” language. This answer choice works because we already know they admitted to cleaning the otters because photography of them covered in oil would have damaged the company’s image and sales. If that’s a reason and we plug A into E’s premises, then the oil company rep’s claim is thrown out the window.
Answer Choice (B) This is not correct – it doesn’t matter that they were saved by the rescue project, nor do we care about the results. We care about the motive for the project.
Answer Choice (C) This is not correct and doesn’t do anything to help the conclusion. This is just adding more information about how important sales are to the company, but they could just as equally have concern for the environment.
Answer Choice (D) This information is irrelevant to the premise and conclusion. Just because the government would have helped, doesn’t mean that the oil company’s concerns aren’t actually for the environment.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is saying that the rescue project was more successful than any other of their projects – but that has nothing to do with their motives. This is wrong.
The question stem says “The main point of the argument is that…” so we know it must be a main conclusion question. We are looking for the claim that is most supported, or made more likely to be true, by the other claims in the argument.
First, we hear about a claim that is a “scientifically well-established fact.” Smells like context or background information to me, serving to make sure we are all on the same page going into the argument. The fact that smoking cigarettes over a long period of time can lead to intense health complications is accepted and rooted in empirical evidence. Okay, cool. How does the argument build off of this?
We leap into the next sentence guided by the phrase “contrary to what many people seem to believe.” This wording sets up a structural shift or contrast, further cemented with the “however.” At this point I’m really wondering if our conclusion is going to follow, as I have seen a shift like this act as an introduction to our main point before. The claim follows, wrapped up in a convoluted sentence ridden with double––no, triple––negatives. Let’s digest it bite by bite. The first sentence fragment states, “It is not necessary to deny this fact.” Vague referential language again. Which fact? A quick scan leaves us with no other option than the “well-established” fact above, so that fragment can be rephrased as “one doesn’t have to claim that cigarettes do not lead to these health problems,” or even more bluntly, “you don’t have to think cigarettes aren’t bad for you...” The second half of the sentence, beginning with “in order to reject the view that,” can be rephrased as “in order to claim tobacco companies should not be responsible for poor smoker health.” Let’s combine and rephrase again: you don’t have to think cigarettes are fine for your health to agree that tobacco companies shouldn’t be blamed when smokers fall ill. Ah, now I see where this argument is going. This claim is a strong contender for our main conclusion due to the indicator words (and that we have no reason thus far to believe otherwise), but we need support. If the next sentence makes it more likely that this one is true, we’ve got our winner.
Ooh! An analogy! I was kind of bored before, but now I’m paying more attention. The author is setting up a similar situation in which a substance (candy) that is detrimental to one’s health in the long run, but the big difference between candy and cigarettes here is apparently that “no one” really thinks candy addicts should have the right to sue candy companies for tooth decay. Eh, I can come up with a few holes to poke in this argument right away, but that’s not my job for this question. I’m only concerned with the role played by each claim here, and it would not follow that this last sentence is the main conclusion. We already determined that it’s an analogy meant to set up a comparison, and it demonstrates a supposed inconsistency in the logic of the argument this author sets out to disprove. In other words, the argument follows as such: the fact that smoking is bad for you isn’t enough on its own to say that tobacco companies should be morally or legally responsible for smoking-related health issues, in the same sense that candy being bad for you isn’t enough to claim that candy companies should have similar responsibilities for their over-consumers’ health complications.
Recap: where was the main conclusion? Well, if we don’t have to go as far as to say cigarettes are good for you to believe that tobacco companies aren’t at fault when smokers get sick, and if we would never make the same claim about candy manufacturers even though candy is proven to be unhealthy in excess, then accepting the proven fact that cigarettes are bad isn’t sufficient on its own to be able to say tobacco companies should be liable for Grandma’s 3-pack-a-day cough. All I did was rephrase the argument––each of those “ifs” in my rephrase are more clearly premises that made the conclusion more likely to be true: that we can’t sue tobacco companies just because smoking kills. I’m looking for a rephrase of this in my correct AC, and I’m going to identify if each AC is stated in the argument and if it’s the main conclusion––check both boxes and, bingo, we’ve got our pick!
Answer Choice (A) Eh, no, I don’t even think this was stated or implied by the argument. I see what they did here by throwing in a lot of buzzwords we recognize from the argument, but I’m not so easily tricked. Never was it stated that “no one should feel it necessary” to claim smoking isn’t bad for health. Instead, we just know that it isn’t necessary to claim smoking isn’t bad for health in order to agree that tobacco companies aren’t at fault. Nuanced difference, but completely changes the implied meaning.
Answer Choice (B) This was kind of stated in our argument, but isn’t the main conclusion. It references the final line of the stimulus, where the author posits that “no one seriously believes” that candy eaters should get to sue candy manufacturers. So, it was a piece of the analogy that serves as support for the main conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (C) Wait, yes. This matches our paraphrase, which was difficult to get to, but must be the main conclusion! In other words, the fact that smoking is bad for you isn’t enough on its own to say smokers can sue tobacco companies. No qualms here, it's both stated (although not word-for-word) in the argument, and it expresses the author’s main idea. We know exactly why the author wants us to believe this (because who would hold candy companies legally responsible in that way?), so it’s supported.
Answer Choice (D) Was this stated? Nope. This AC goes way too far and there isn’t anywhere in the argument I can point to that communicates this idea. The only comparison we make between candy and cigarettes is that they are both bad for your health, but we don’t know how likely each is to lead to health problems.
Answer Choice (E) Tempting, but absolutely not. Test takers may gravitate towards this AC because it mentions buzzwords from the argument and talks about the comparison between candy and cigarettes and holding the respective corporations accountable. However, is this actually stated in the argument? No. Maybe the author would agree with this, but that’s not even what our job is to figure out. We want to find what was both stated in the argument and is the author’s main point.
This is a descriptively weakening/flaw question, and we know this because of the question stem: The reasoning is flaw because the argument...
This first sentence is a conditional: (announcement authorized by dept. head) → (important)
The next sentence denies the sufficient condition and the concludes that because of this, some announcements are not important. The flaw here is that you cannot conclude anything by denying the sufficient condition. Just because the head of the department can announce important stuff, that does not make him the only person allowed to announced important things. Once you deny the sufficient condition, the rule falls away. What this argument is doing is confusing the sufficient condition for a necessary condition: (important) → (announcement authorized by dept head). If we deny the necessary condition, then we can conclude that some announcements are not important. But the arguments stands right now, this is an invalid conclusion.
Answer Choice (A) is descriptively accurate but it’s not the flaw. Differentiating between announcements and other communications is not relevant to the argument.
Answer Choice (B) is descriptively accurate but it is not the flaw. The argument is whether these are important and that the argument too quickly denies that they’re are not important.
Answer Choice (C) is descriptively accurate, but this isn’t a flaw. The conclusion is about other announcements made by people other than the head of the department. If the head of the department doesn’t make any announcements ever, that’s fine!
Correct Answer Choice (D) is descriptively accurate and it is the flaw. This answer choices takes into account the sufficiency-necessity confusion.
Answer Choice (E) is descriptively accurate but we don’t care about opinions here.