Summarize Argument
The chemist concludes that the data on the weed-killer's effects is likely misleading. She supports this by saying that the weed-killer’s molecules are present in two forms: one kills weeds, while the other doesn’t. The weed-killer’s effectiveness depends on which form is more concentrated in the soil, and this can vary a lot due to local soil conditions, which usually favor the breakdown of one form or the other.
Notable Assumptions
The chemist concludes that the data is misleading without explaining how it was collected. She assumes that the research on the weed-killer fails to account for the variability in local soil, ignoring the possibility that it might have been conducted in representative local conditions.
A
In general, if the molecules of a weed-killer are always present in two forms, then it is likely that weeds are killed by one of those two forms but unaffected by the other.
The chemist’s conclusion is about the reliability of the data; we need an answer choice that suggests that the data is indeed misleading. (A) simply reinforces the fact that one of the weed-killer’s molecules kills weeds and the other doesn’t.
B
Almost all of the data on the effects of the weed-killer are drawn from laboratory studies in which both forms of the weed-killer’s molecules are equally concentrated in the soil and equally likely to break down in that soil.
This suggests that the data is indeed misleading. If the data comes from lab studies where both molecules are equally concentrated and likely to break down, it doesn't reflect how the weed-killer works in local soil, where one form usually breaks down more than the other.
C
Of the two forms of the weed-killer’s molecules, the one that kills weeds is found in most local soil conditions to be the more concentrated form.
Even if the weed-killing molecule is more concentrated in most local soil conditions, this tells us nothing about whether the data is misleading. Did the data account for the fact that this molecule is more concentrated in most local soil conditions?
D
The data on the effects of the weed-killer are drawn from studies of the weed-killer under a variety of soil conditions similar to those in which the weed-killer is normally applied.
This weakens the chemist’s argument. If the data was drawn from studies that used a variety of representative local soil conditions, then it’s less likely that the data is misleading.
E
Data on the weed-killer’s effects that rely solely on the examination of the effects of only one of the two forms of the weed-killer’s molecules will almost certainly be misleading.
It’s true that data that examines just one form of the molecule is likely misleading. However, we don’t know if the data in the argument makes this mistake. It might examine both forms, in which case (E) doesn’t tell us anything about its reliability.
Conclusion: Officer Franklin should receive a Mayor’s Commendation but Officer Penn should not.
Summary
The author concludes: (1) Franklin should get the award; (2) Penn should not.
The principle:
If and only if an officer has an exemplary record, the officer is eligible for the award. (”But not otherwise” made this a biconditional relationship.)
If an officer who’s eligible saved someone’s life, and in saving that life did something that exceeded what’s reasonably expected of an officer, then that officer should get the award.
The principle:
If and only if an officer has an exemplary record, the officer is eligible for the award. (”But not otherwise” made this a biconditional relationship.)
If an officer who’s eligible saved someone’s life, and in saving that life did something that exceeded what’s reasonably expected of an officer, then that officer should get the award.
Missing Connection
To prove that Franklin should get the award, we want to know that he is eligible, that he saved someone life, and that he exceeded what’s reasonably expected of officers.
To prove that Penn should not get the award, we want to know that he is not eligible. To prove that he is not eligible, we want to know that he doesn’t have an exemplary record.
Note that whether Penn saved someone life or exceeded what’s reasonably expected doesn’t help establish that he shouldn’t get the award.
To prove that Penn should not get the award, we want to know that he is not eligible. To prove that he is not eligible, we want to know that he doesn’t have an exemplary record.
Note that whether Penn saved someone life or exceeded what’s reasonably expected doesn’t help establish that he shouldn’t get the award.
A
In saving a child from drowning this year, Franklin and Penn both risked their lives beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Franklin has an exemplary record but Penn does not.
(A) establishes that Franklin is eligible, saved a life, and went beyond what’s reasonably expected. So Franklin should get the award. (A) also establishes that Penn doesn’t have an exemplary record, which implies that he isn’t eligible. If he’s not eligible, then he shouldn’t get the award.
B
Both Franklin and Penn have exemplary records, and each officer saved a child from drowning earlier this year. However, in doing so, Franklin went beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer; Penn did not.
(B) doesn’t prove that Penn shouldn’t get the award. If Penn has an exemplary record, then he’s eligible. And although he didn’t go beyond what’s reasonably expected, that isn’t necessary to qualify as someone who should get the award. So Penn might be someone who should get the award, perhaps for some other reason unrelated to going beyond what’s expected.
C
Neither Franklin nor Penn has an exemplary record. But, in saving the life of an accident victim, Franklin went beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. In the only case in which Penn saved someone’s life this year, Penn was merely doing what could be reasonably expected of an officer under the circumstances.
If Franklin doesn’t have an exemplary record, then he’s not eligible. So we cannot conclude that Franklin should get the award.
D
At least once this year, Franklin has saved a person’s life in such a way as to exceed what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Penn has not saved anyone’s life this year.
(D) doesn’t establish whether Franklin is eligible or whether Penn is ineligible. So adding it to the argument would not prove that Franklin should get the award or that Penn should not.
E
Both Franklin and Penn have exemplary records. On several occasions this year Franklin has saved people’s lives, and on many occasions this year Franklin has exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. On no occasions this year has Penn saved a person’s life or exceeded what could be reasonably expected of an officer.
If Penn has an exemplary record, then he’s eligible for the award. The fact that Penn didn’t save a life or exceed what’s reasonably expected does not establish that he shouldn’t get the award. Penn might qualify as someone who should get the award for some reason unrelated to saving lives or exceeding reasonable expectations.
Professor: One cannot frame an accurate conception of one’s physical environment on the basis of a single momentary perception, since each such glimpse occurs from only one particular perspective. Similarly, any history book gives only a distorted view of the past, since it reflects the biases and prejudices of its author.
Summarize Argument
The professor concludes that any single history book gives a distorted view of the past, because it reflects its author's biases. She supports this with an analogy, saying that, similarly, you can't form an accurate view of your physical surroundings based on just one momentary glimpse, since each glimpse comes from a single perspective.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The professor supports her conclusion by using an analogy to show that her argument is relevantly similar to another compelling argument. By appealing to an analogous and compelling argument, the professor suggests that her argument is also compelling.
A
attempting to show that one piece of reasoning is incorrect by comparing it with another, presumably flawed, piece of reasoning
The professor attempts to show that one argument— that a history book distorts the past due to the author's biases— is correct by analogizing it with another, presumably reasonable, argument— that you can't get an accurate view of your surroundings from just one brief glimpse.
B
developing a case for one particular conclusion by arguing that if that conclusion were false, absurd consequences would follow
The professor doesn’t suggest that absurd consequences would follow if her conclusion were false. Instead, she analogizes her argument with a similar, strong argument to suggest that her argument is also strong.
C
making a case for the conclusion of one argument by showing that argument’s resemblance to another, presumably cogent, argument
The professor supports her argument by using an analogy to appeal to another, presumably compelling argument. By appealing to an analogous and strong argument, the professor suggests that her argument is also strong.
D
arguing that because something has a certain group of characteristics, it must also have another, closely related, characteristic
The professor simply doesn’t make this argument. Instead, she uses an analogy to support her conclusion by appealing to a similar and strong argument.
E
arguing that a type of human cognition is unreliable in one instance because it has been shown to be unreliable under similar circumstances
The author does implicitly suggest that a single history book is an unreliable source because it reflects a biased human perspective. However, a history book is not “a type of human cognition.” It might reflect human cognition, but it isn’t itself a type of human cognition.
Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that avoiding dairy foods will increase the probability of maintaining good health. This is supported by two premises: if you avoid eating dairy you’re less likely to eat fat, and avoiding eating fat reduces the risk of heart disease.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument claims that avoiding dairy is good for health overall, just based on claims about heart disease. This overlooks the possibility that avoiding dairy could also have negative impacts on health. For example, dairy may provide some critical nutrient, or might reduce the risk of a different disease.
A
The argument ignores the possibility that, even though a practice may have potentially negative consequences, its elimination may also have negative consequences.
Even though eating dairy could have the negative consequence of raising the risk of heart disease, avoiding eating dairy might also cause negative health effects. This possibility is ignored by the argument.
B
The argument fails to consider the possibility that there are more ways than one of decreasing the risk of a certain type of occurrence.
The argument isn’t claiming that there are no other ways to decrease the risk of heart disease, only discussing one possible way, namely avoiding eating dairy.
C
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that factors that carry increased risks of negative consequences ought to be eliminated.
The argument doesn’t make this presumption. It claims that avoiding dairy will increase the probability of maintaining good health, but it doesn’t tell us we “ought” to avoid dairy.
D
The argument fails to show that the evidence appealed to is relevant to the conclusion asserted.
All the evidence provided in the argument is directly relevant to the conclusion. The issue is just that the conclusion is broader than what the evidence allows, not that the evidence is irrelevant.
E
The argument fails to consider that what is probable will not necessarily occur.
The argument consistently sticks to discussing probabilities and likeliness, and never makes a jump to saying that something will definitely occur.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why didn’t the percent of people who judged Walker’s performance as mayor to be good or excellent go down after he was accused of ethics violations, even though almost half surveyed believe those accusations?
Objective
The correct answer should give us a reason to think that almost half of people believing Walker violated ethics would not impact the percent who judge his performance to be good or excellent. For example, maybe the people who believe his performance to be good or excellent are the ones who don’t believe he violated ethics. Or maybe ethics violations are not a factor people care about when judging a mayor’s performance.
A
Almost all of the people who believe that Walker is guilty of ethics violations had thought, even before he was accused of those violations, that his performance as mayor was poor.
If almost all who believe he violated ethics already thought his performance was poor, their new belief about his violations wouldn’t change the percent who judge his performance good/excellent. Their opinions weren’t going from good/excellent to poor; they were already poor.
B
In the time since Walker was accused of ethics violations, there has been an increase in the percentage of city residents who judge the performance of Walker’s political opponents to be good or excellent.
If this has any effect, it makes the discrepancy harder to explain. On top of the ethics violations, people’s opinion about Walker’s opponents is now more positive. So why would opinion about Walker’s performance not become more negative?
C
About a fifth of those polled did not know that Walker had been accused of ethics violations.
We already know about half believe Walker violated ethics. The 20% who weren’t aware of the accusations could be among the people who don’t believe he violated ethics. This doesn’t add information that could explain why opinion about Walker’s performance hasn’t declined.
D
Walker is currently up for reelection, and anticorruption groups in the city have expressed support for Walker’s opponent.
This doesn’t help explain how opinion about Walker’s performance hasn’t declined. If anything, we’d expect activities from anticorruption groups to negatively affect opinion about Walker’s performance.
E
Walker has defended himself against the accusations by arguing that the alleged ethics violations were the result of honest mistakes by his staff members.
Walker’s argument in his defense doesn’t explain why opinion about his performance hasn’t declined. We don’t have any reason to think people believe his defense or that his defense would cause people to give less weight to the violations when judging his performance as mayor.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people don’t need the long-term relaxation training. This is because studies show that anxiety is reduced to normal levels within the short-term-training time period.
Notable Assumptions
Base solely on the fact anxiety is reduced to normal levels during short-term training, the author concludes short-term training is adequate for most people. This means the author assumes most people either don’t need whatever benefits the long-term training provides, or that the long-term training provides no such benefits.
A
A decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention by a mental health professional.
We’re comparing between short-term and long-term relaxation training. We don’t care what happens when people get no treatment at all.
B
Short-term relaxation training conducted by a more experienced practitioner can be more expensive than long-term training conducted by a less experienced practitioner.
The author makes a general claim about how effective both types of training are. We don’t care about exceptional circumstances (differences between practitioners).
C
Recipients of long-term training are much less likely than recipients of short-term training to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety.
Short-term training lacks an important benefit of long-term training. Many people may want or need to reduce their likelihood of returning to high anxiety levels, so the long-term training offers a clear advantage.
D
The fact that an individual thinks that a treatment will reduce his or her anxiety tends, in and of itself, to reduce the individual’s anxiety.
We have no idea what people think these treatments will do.
E
Short-term relaxation training involves the teaching of a wider variety of anxiety-combating relaxation techniques than does long-term training.
We have no idea if teaching a variety of techniques makes a treatment less effective. The study cited suggests it doesn’t.