"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do some people who consume lots of salt have high blood pressure while others have very low blood pressure?
Objective
Any hypothesis explaining these results must state a distinction among people with high salt intake that explains why some have high blood pressure while others have low blood pressure. It may indicate that people react differently to a high salt intake, or it may be unrelated to salt intake altogether.
A
Study participants with high blood pressure who cut their salt intake only slightly during the study did not have significantly lower blood pressure by the end of the study.
This does not explain why people with high salt intake have such different blood pressures. It draws no distinction between groups of people who consume lots of salt.
B
Salt intake is only one of several dietary factors associated with high blood pressure.
This would explain why people with low salt intake have high blood pressure, but not why those with high salt intake have low blood pressure. It does not state that these dietary factors make low blood pressure possible despite a high salt intake.
C
For most people who have high blood pressure, reducing salt intake is not the most effective dietary change they can make to reduce their blood pressure.
This refers only to people with high blood pressure, and does not explain how people with high salt intake have very low blood pressure. It is not stated whether these other dietary changes will cause a person to have very low blood pressure.
D
At the beginning of the study, some people who had very low salt intake also had very high blood pressure.
This refers to people with low salt intake, not high salt intake. It does not explain why those with high salt intake can have low blood pressure.
E
Persons suffering from abnormally low blood pressure have heightened salt cravings, which ensure that their blood pressure does not drop too low.
This explains why some people with high salt intake have low blood pressure. They have very low blood pressure in the first place, and their salt consumption prevents it from dropping even lower.
Summary
The author concludes that Griley does not believe in democracy, because Griley is an elitist that doesn’t think popular art is typically good. The author also supports her conclusion by asserting that anyone who believes in democracy also respects the opinions of the general populace.
Missing Connection
The conclusion says Griley doesn’t believe in democracy. But what about Griley excludes him from believing in democracy? To validly conclude this, we need to know that Griley has failed the necessary condition for believing in democracy, which is respecting general populace opinion. We only know two things about Griley (elitist, doesn’t think popular art is likely to be good), so we need one of these things to be linked to a failure of respecting general opinion.
A
Anyone who believes that an artwork is unlikely to be good if it is popular is an elitist.
We do not need to conclude that Griley is an elitist—we were already told this.
B
Anyone who believes that if an artwork is popular it is unlikely to be good does not have a high regard for the wisdom of the masses.
This is a direct link from Griley’s belief about popular art to not having respect for general opinion. So, Griley fails the necessary condition for believing in democracy.
C
If Griley is not an elitist, then he has a high regard for the wisdom of the masses.
Griley is an elitist, so we cannot invoke this sufficient condition. The contrapositive would conclude that Griley is an elitist and, like (A), we already know that.
D
Anyone who does not have a high regard for the wisdom of the masses is an elitist who believes that if an artwork is popular it is unlikely to be good.
Like (A) and (C), we do not need to conclude that Griley is an elitist. Also, this is the contrapositive of (C).
E
Unless Griley believes in democracy, Griley does not have a high regard for the wisdom of the masses.
This could lead to a conclusion that Griley does believe in democracy, or that Griley does not have a high regard for the wisdom of the masses. Neither are what we need. We need to conclude that Griley does not believe in democracy.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the students shouldn’t unionize. He supports this with the following premises:
(1) A small group tried to unionize, but the majority of the students are unaware of this attempt.
(2) Of those who are aware, most believe that a union would not represent or pursue their interests well.
(3) So, the majority of the students disapprove of the union effort.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author concludes that most students disapprove of the union effort but his premises state that most students are unaware of it. So, he confuses a lack of awareness with active disapproval. Most students who are aware of the effort do seem to disapprove of it, but these students are not the majority.
In other words, it’s possible that only 10% are aware of the effort and disapprove, while 90% (the majority) are simply unaware and may or may not approve.
A
tries to establish a conclusion simply on the premise that the conclusion agrees with a long-standing practice
The author’s conclusion is based on the mistaken assumption that the majority of the students disapprove of the union effort. It’s not based on the premise that unionization agrees with a long-standing practice.
B
fails to exclude alternative explanations for why some graduate students disapprove of unionizing
The author is just arguing that because students disapprove of unionizing, they shouldn’t unionize. He doesn’t need to address all possible explanations for why the students might disapprove of unionizing.
C
presumes that simply because a majority of a population is unaware of something, it must not be a good idea
Instead, the author assumes that simply because a majority of the students are unaware of the unionizing attempt, those students must also disapprove of the attempt.
D
ignores the possibility that although a union might not effectively pursue graduate student interests, there are other reasons for unionizing
The author concludes that the students shouldn’t unionize because most students disapprove of unionizing. It doesn’t matter whether there are other reasons for unionizing.
E
blurs the distinction between active disapproval and mere lack of approval
The author assumes that the majority of students actively disapprove of the union effort simply because the majority of students are unaware of it. But just because these students merely lack approval for the effort doesn’t mean that they disapprove.
Madden: Industrialists address problems by simplifying them, but in farming that strategy usually leads to oversimplification. For example, industrialists see water retention and drainage as different and opposite functions—that good topsoil both drains and retains water is a fact alien to industrial logic. To facilitate water retention, they use a terrace or a dam; to facilitate drainage, they use drain tile, a ditch, or a subsoiler. More farming problems are created than solved when agriculture is the domain of the industrialist, not of the farmer.
Summary
Industrialists solve problems by simplifying them, but if this strategy were applied to farming the result would be oversimplification. For example, an industrialist sees water retention and drainage as opposite functions when in fact these factors aren’t necessarily so. Industrialists would facilitate retention by using a terrace or dam, and they would facilitate drainage using a drain tile, ditch, or subsoiler. In farming, more problems are created than solved using the industrialists’ methods.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Problems associated with farming should be addressed by recognizing the complexity of a given problem.
A
The handling of water drainage and retention is the most important part of good farming.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether drainage and retention are the most important factors of good farming. These factors were given as an example to illustrate how industrialists would oversimplify these issues.
B
The problems of farming should be viewed in all their complexity.
This answer is strongly supported. The Madden’s criticism with industrialists is that industrialists tend to simplify problems. Applying this strategy to farming would result in oversimplification.
C
Farmers are better than anyone else at solving farming problems.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether farmers are better than anyone else. At best, we only know that farmers are better suited than industrialists to solve farming problems.
D
Industrial solutions for problems in farming should never be sought.
This answer is unsupported. Saying industrial solutions should “never” be sought is too strong. We only know from the stimulus that these solutions usually lead to oversimplification. There could be some instances where these solutions don’t lead to oversimplifications.
E
The approach to problem solving typical of industrialists is fundamentally flawed.
This answer is unsupported. The Madden is not arguing that an industrialist approach to solving problems is “fundamentally flawed.” Rather, the Madden is arguing that these approaches are flawed when specifically applied to farming.
Summary
Proofs that rely on computers give less certainty than do proofs that don’t require using computers. This is because humans alone can’t verify computer-dependent proofs. With proofs that don’t require computers, we can verify them by human calculation. Note that although we often use computers to verify these non-computer-dependent proofs, we’re using these computers for convenience, not because we depend on the computers.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Computers can provide assistance concerning tasks for which computers are not necessary.
Whether humans can verify a proof without the aid of computers is a factor in the level of certainty that the proof provides.
Whether humans can verify a proof without the aid of computers is a factor in the level of certainty that the proof provides.
A
Only if a proof’s result is arrived at without the help of a computer can one judge with any degree of certainty that the proof is correct.
Unsupported. The stimulus acknowledges that computers can aid in the proof of non-computer-dependent proofs. So, it might be possible to judge that such proofs are correct even if we arrive at those proofs with the aid of computers.
B
We can never be completely sure that proofs relying crucially on computers do not contain errors that humans do not detect.
Strongly supported. We’re told that human cognition can’t verify computer-dependent proofs. And if they can’t verify such proofs, that suggests they can’t detect every single error in those proofs. So, some errors may slip by that humans can’t detect.
C
Whenever a computer replaces human calculation in a proof, the degree of certainty provided by the proof is reduced.
Unsupported. The stimulus acknowledges that we can use computers for convenience for non-computer-dependent proofs. And if such computer makes an error, we can catch the error through human calculation.
D
If one can corroborate something by human calculation, one can be completely certain of it.
Unsupported. Human ability to confirm something by calculation may mean we can be more certain about the thing, but that doesn’t imply we can be “completely” certain of it.
E
It is impossible to supplement the cognitive abilities of humans by means of artificial devices such as computers.
Unsupported. The stimulus tells us that when we use calculators to perform calculations that could be done by humans, we are not using calculators as a supplement. But that doesn’t imply it’s impossible for devices to supplement human cognition in other contexts.
Summarize Argument
The editorial concludes that the government must address the rising crime rate. It supports this by citing a survey showing that 77% of people believe crime is increasing and 87% believe the judicial system should give tougher sentences.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing belief and fact. The editorial concludes that the government needs to address the rising crime rate simply because most people believe that the crime rate is rising. To reach its conclusion, the editorial must assume that this belief is true and the crime rate actually is rising, but it presents no evidence to support this assumption.
A
appeals to survey results that are inconsistent because they suggest that more people are concerned about the sentencing of criminals than are concerned about crime itself
The survey results are not inconsistent, nor do they suggest that more people are concerned about sentencing than about crime. Just because more people want tougher sentences than think crime is rising doesn’t mean that sentencing is a bigger concern than crime.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that there is a correlation between criminal offenders being treated leniently and a high crime rate
The editorial never makes this assumption. It’s possible that the survey respondents assume this, but the editorial never makes an assumption about any correlation between lenient sentencing and high crime.
C
fails to consider whether other surveys showing different results have been conducted over the years
This doesn’t explain why the argument is vulnerable to criticism, because the editorial doesn’t need to address any contradictory surveys taken over the years. Instead, it’s vulnerable because it assumes that people’s beliefs about crime rates reflect the actual crime rate.
D
fails to distinguish between the crime rate’s actually rising and people’s believing that the crime rate is rising
The editorial assumes that because 77% of people “feel” that crime is increasing, crime actually is increasing. It fails to distinguish between most people’s belief about something and the factual reality of that thing.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that tougher sentences are the most effective means of alleviating the crime problem
The author argues that the government must address rising crime, but it never makes any assumptions about how the government should address it or what the most effective means of alleviating crime might be.