Summarize Argument
The diplomat concludes that arms control agreements will preserve peace. She supports this by saying that every major war in the last 200 years was preceded by a rapid increase in weapons acquisition by the countries involved.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The diplomat argues that arms control agreements will stop major wars. She assumes that a war won't happen unless there’s rapid increase in weapon acquisition, just because every major war in the last 200 years followed this pattern. But past events don't guarantee future outcomes.
A
The argument infers, merely from the claim that events of one type have for a long time consistently preceded events of a second type, that an event of the second type will not occur unless an event of the first type occurs.
She infers, merely from the claim that increases in weapon acquisition have consistently preceded major wars, that major wars will not occur unless increases in weapon acquisition occur. But just because things happened this way in the past doesn’t mean they will in the future.
B
The argument reasons that, simply because weapons are used in war, a rapid, dramatic increase in the acquisition of weapons will always lead to war.
The diplomat never claims that we can’t have increases in weapons acquisition without subsequent wars. She claims that we can’t have wars without preceding increases in weapons acquisition.
C
The argument draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the conclusion is a restatement of a premise. The diplomat doesn’t make this mistake; her premise and conclusion are distinct.
D
The argument fails to consider that a short, sharp increase in the acquisition of weapons by a nation may be a response to the increased armament of neighboring nations.
The diplomat doesn’t mention this, but it isn’t a flaw in her argument. She’s arguing that arms control agreements will stop wars. Whether increases in weapon acquisition are a response to the armament of other nations is irrelevant because those increases may still precede wars.
E
The argument fails to consider that some of the minor wars that have occurred in the last 200 years may have been preceded by rapid increases in the acquisition of weapons by the nations that subsequently became participants in those wars.
The diplomat doesn’t mention minor wars but, if anything, (E) would strengthen her argument. She’s focused on the connection between major wars and weapons acquisition, but if minor wars are also preceded by weapons acquisition, this further supports her argument.
Summary
Most serious students are happy.
Most serious students go to graduate school.
All graduate students are overworked.
Most serious students go to graduate school.
All graduate students are overworked.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
Most serious students are overworked.
Some happy students go to grad school.
Some happy students are overworked.
Some happy students go to grad school.
Some happy students are overworked.
A
Most overworked students are happy students.
Unsupported. We know that some overworked students are happy, but we don’t know if most are. Let’s say there are 100 serious students: 51 are happy and 51 go to grad school. One student must be in both groups, but the other 99 could only be in the “happy” or “grad school” group!
B
Some happy students are overworked.
Must be true. Over 50% of serious students are happy; over 50% of serious students go to grad school and are therefore overworked. Thus, there must be overlap. Let’s say out of 100 serious students, 51 are happy and 51 go to grad school/are overworked. One student must be both!
C
All overworked students are serious students.
Unsupported. We know that most serious students are overworked, but that doesn’t tell us anything about how many overworked students are serious!
D
Some unhappy students go to graduate school.
Unsupported. While we can’t properly infer from the stimulus that all grad students are happy (although we can infer that some are), we also can’t rule out that possibility.
E
All serious students are overworked.
Unsupported. We can infer that most serious students are overworked, but there’s no evidence in the stimulus to support that all serious students are overworked.
Summarize Argument
The editorialist concludes that raising highway speed limits would greatly decrease highway safety. This is because people who currently speed would obey the new limit, while people who currently obey the limit would increase their speed to the new limit.
Notable Assumptions
The editorialist assumes that highway safety decreases when people drive faster, despite the fact the new limit would increase the speed of traffic to a more uniform rate. This means the editorialist believes that speed outweighs uniformity when it comes to highway safety.
A
Some drivers who obey current speed limits would not change their speeds after the introduction of the new speed limits.
If this were the case, then some portion of traffic would be moving slower than the rest. But the editorialist never says uniformity is important.
B
Uniformity of speeds among vehicles is more important for highway safety than is a low average highway speed.
The editorialist is entirely concerned with speed, but what really matters is speed uniformity. If the limits were raised, everyone would be driving the same speed. Thus, highway safety would actually improve.
C
Most drivers who drive 10 to 20 percent faster than current speed limits have never been involved in a highway accident.
We don’t care who’s actually been in an accident. Speeders may cause accidents without actually being involved in them (i.e. by causing people to change lanes).
D
Some drivers who violate current speed limits would also violate higher speed limits.
If anything, this would help the editorialist’s argument. High speeds make highways less safe, and this tells us some people will be exceeding even the raised speed limits.
E
Most drivers who violate current speed limits determine their speeds by what they believe to be safe in the situation.
If highway speed limits were raised, then the editorialist doesn’t believe many people would be violating the speed limit anymore. We’re not interested in why people currently choose to violate the speed limit.
Labor representative: Social historians have shown conclusively that if workers strike when the working conditions at their jobs are poor, those conditions usually significantly improve after five years. Although workers in this industry are familiar with this fact, they nonetheless refuse to strike even though their working conditions are poor.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do workers in “this” industry, which has poor working conditions, refuse to strike even though they know it has been shown that when workers strike while their working conditions are poor their conditions usually improve greatly after five years?
Objective
The correct answer must help explain why the workers in the industry discussed in the stimulus refuse to strike. The correct answer will either address a reason why striking may not help the workers or why the workers can’t or don’t want to strike.
A
Until recently it was widely believed that strikes do not generally improve working conditions.
It doesn’t matter how recently people began believing that strikes improve working conditions. The workers in “this” industry are aware that striking could improve their working conditions after five years, so we want to know why they refuse to strike.
B
Most factories in this industry change ownership every two years.
The turnover rate of factory owners is irrelevant. We want to know why workers in “this” industry refuse to strike even though it has been shown that striking while working conditions are poor generally improves working conditions greatly after five years.
C
Working conditions in many other industries are worse than conditions in this industry.
We’re not concerned with other industries. We want to know why workers in “this” industry refuse to strike.
D
Workers typically plan to work in this industry only three years.
If (D) is true, then workers in “this” industry may not be striking because they don’t think they’ll realize any benefits from striking before leaving the industry.
E
Wages in this industry have increased each year.
Wages in “this” industry are irrelevant. Working conditions are poor, so we want to know why workers in “this” industry refuse to strike even though they know that striking while working conditions are poor tends to lead to better conditions after five years.
Summarize Argument
The editorialist concludes that the proposed tax increase would to more harm than good. This is because the tax increase would cause a number of economic problems for the country in question.
Notable Assumptions
In order for the tax increase to do more harm than good, the economic problems the tax increase would cause must outweigh whatever benefits the tax would bring. The author must therefore assume that the economic problems are of greater concern for the country than whatever environmental and/or economic problems the tax may offset.
A
The editorialist’s country’s budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus benefiting the economy.
Contrary to what the editorialist suggests, the tax would in fact benefit the country’s economy. This weakens her argument.
B
Higher gasoline prices tend to lead to a cleaner environment, because people do less nonessential driving.
Despite the economic problems the tax might bring, the environmental benefits will be substantial. For one thing, people will drive less and consequently have a cleaner environment.
C
The proposed tax increase would be larger for some energy sources than for others.
The editorialist never specifies which energy source the tax will impact most. We don’t care about how the tax is distributed—we care about its effects.
D
Higher gasoline prices will encourage people to carpool, which will reduce individual transportation costs.
Even though the tax may hurt people in one way, the editorialist overlooks a distinct benefit: transportation costs will be lower.
E
The government would use the increase in tax revenue to create many more jobs than would be lost in the energy production sector.
While the tax would harm one sector, others would benefit from the tax increase. Thus, the editorialist can’t draw a broad economic conclusion from the tax’s effects on one sector.
Summarize Argument
Notable Assumptions
As we can see from the question stem, the stimulus is not an argument, but a claim. All the wrong answer choices will act as premises, offering us evidence to believe the claim is true. The right answer choice will have either a weakening effect on the claim, or no effect at all.
A
The compensation paid to midlevel managers is greater when they supervise more workers.
This strengthens the argument. It provides a reason for why midlevel managers don’t want a smaller team—they would get paid less!
B
Midlevel managers have less work to do when their departments are overstaffed.
This strengthens the argument. It provides a reason for why midlevel managers don’t want a smaller team—the managers would have more work to do.
C
Staff morale and productivity often suffer when workers are laid off.
This strengthens the argument. It provides a reason for why midlevel managers don’t want a smaller team—staff morale and productivity would decline.
D
Departmental workloads at most large corporations increase and decrease significantly and unpredictably.
This strengthens the argument. It provides a reason for why midlevel managers don’t want a smaller team—they are wary of the workload increasing suddenly and having too few unemployees.
E
Many large corporations allow managers to offer early retirement as a means of reducing staff.
This does not affect the argument. The fact that managers may be able to offer staff early retirement to reduce staff does not affect the assertion that they are nevertheless unlikely to suggest a reduction in staff.