Acquiring complete detailed information about all the pros and cons of a product one might purchase would clearly be difficult and expensive. It is rational not to acquire such information unless one expects that the benefits of doing so will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so. Therefore, consumers who do not bother to acquire such information are thereby behaving rationally.

Summary
The author concludes that consumers who don’t bother to acquire complete detailed info about all pros/cons are behaving rationally.
This is based on the following premise:
If you don’t expect that the benefits of acquiring the complete info will outweigh the cost and difficulty of acquiring that info, then it’s rational not to acquire the info.

Missing Connection
The premise allows us to reach the conclusion that not acquiring complete detailed info is rational — if you don’t expect the benefits of getting that info to outweigh the costs and difficulty of getting the info, it’s rational not to get the info. We want to learn that consumers who don’t bother to get the info do not expect the benefits of getting the info to outweigh the costs and difficulty of getting the info.

A
Rational consumers who do not expect that the benefits outweigh the cost and difficulty of acquiring detailed information about a product they might purchase usually do not bother to acquire such information.
(A) tells me about what rational consumers do. But we’re trying to prove that a certain kind of consumer IS rational. Learning something about what rational consumers do doesn’t prove that someone is rational.
B
Whenever it is rational not to acquire detailed information about a product, it would be irrational to bother to acquire such information.
(B) tells us what’s true “whenever it is rational not to acquire detailed info about a product.” But we’re trying to prove that it’s rational not to acquire such info. Learning about what would be true WHEN it’s rational not to get such info doesn’t establish that it IS rational not to get the info.
C
The benefits of acquiring detailed information about a product one might purchase usually do not outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so.
Whether the benefits actually outweigh the costs is irrelevant, because the premise concerns someone’s EXPECTATIONS about whether the benefits outweigh the costs. What matters is what consumers who don’t get complete info EXPECT about benefits/costs.
D
Rational consumers usually expect that the benefits of acquiring detailed information about a product they might purchase would not outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so.
(D) tells me about what rational consumers expect. But we’re trying to prove that a certain kind of consumer IS rational. Learning something about what rational consumers expect doesn’t prove that someone is rational.
E
Consumers who do not bother to acquire complete detailed information about a product they might purchase do not expect that the benefits of acquiring such information will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so.
(E) tells us that consumers who don’t get complete info do not expect the benefits of getting the info to outweigh the costs/difficulty of getting it. This triggers the rule in the premise and allows us to conclude that for these consumers, it’s rational not to acquire the info.

Original statement:
it is rational not to acquire such info unless one expects that the benefits of doing so will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so

Two ideas:
rational not acquire info
expects benefits outweigh c&d

Group 3 Rule: negate sufficient
[not] expects benefits outweigh c&d --> rational not acquire info

Contrapositive:
[not] rational not acquire info --> expects benefits outweigh c&d


41 comments

If one wants to succeed, then one should act as though one were genuinely confident about one’s abilities, even if one actually distrusts one’s skills. Success is much more easily obtained by those who genuinely believe themselves capable of succeeding than by those filled with self-doubts.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that to succeed, you should act confident in your skills, even if you doubt yourself. As support, he says that success is easier for those who truly believe in themselves than for those who are full of self-doubt.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that pretending to be confident in your skills can cause you to truly believe in yourself and to not be full of self-doubt, thus enabling you to succeed. In other words, he assumes that acting self-confident produces real self-confidence.

A
Those who convince others that they are capable of succeeding usually have few self-doubts.
The author discusses believing or convincing yourself that you’re capable of succeeding, not convincing others. (A) fails to address whether acting confident causes you to believe that you can succeed.
B
Genuine confidence is often a by-product of pretended self-confidence.
If pretended self-confidence produces genuine self-confidence, then you should act confident in order to succeed, since success is easier for people with genuine self-confidence.
C
Success is usually more a matter of luck or determination than of skill.
Even if luck and determination are also factors in achieving success, the author is only discussing self-confidence. (C) doesn’t address whether acting confident leads to real self-confidence, regardless of one’s luck or determination.
D
Many people who behave in a self-confident manner are genuinely confident about their abilities.
This suggests that many people are not pretending to be self-confident because they truly are confident. But it doesn’t help to determine whether pretended confidence produces real confidence in those people who are not already genuinely confident about their abilities.
E
Self-doubt can hamper as well as aid the development of the skills necessary for success.
The author establishes that success is more difficult for people with self-doubt. (E) suggests that self-doubt can also help success. But it doesn’t explain whether pretended confidence can reduce self-doubt and lead to real confidence.

16 comments

Science writer: Scientists’ astounding success rate with research problems they have been called upon to solve causes the public to believe falsely that science can solve any problem. In fact, the problems scientists are called upon to solve are typically selected by scientists themselves. When the problems are instead selected by politicians or business leaders, their formulation is nevertheless guided by scientists in such a way as to make scientific solutions feasible. Scientists are almost never asked to solve problems that are not subject to such formulation.

Summary

Scientists appear to have a very high success rate at solving problems they’re called upon to solve, and this creates the false impression that scientists can solve any problem. But the apparently very high success rate is a result of scientists’ ability to pick the problems they solve or to formulate the problems they’re asked to solve in a way that makes a scientific solution possible. In other words, the kinds of problems they’re tackling are an unrepresentative sample of problems overall.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The high problem-solving success rate of scientists wouldn’t be as high if they tried to solve the entire set of problems.

The public overestimates the ability of scientists to solve problems.

A
If a problem can be formulated in such a way as to make a scientific solution feasible, scientists will usually be called upon to solve that problem.

Unsupported. Although many problem scientists are called upon to solve can be formulated in ways that make science solutions feasible, this doesn’t tell us about most of the problems that can be formulated in that way.

B
Any problem a scientist can solve can be formulated in such a way as to make a scientific solution feasible.

Unsupported, because the stimulus doesn’t tell us about any problem a scientist can solve. We only know about problems scientists have been called upon to solve.

C
Scientists would probably have a lower success rate with research problems if their grounds for selecting such problems were less narrow.

Strongly supported, because we know that people have a false impression of scientists’ ability to solve problems from the success rate of problems they’re called upon to solve. These problems are likely unrepresentative set; success rate is likely higher for those problems.

D
Most of the problems scientists are called upon to solve are problems that politicians and business leaders want solved, but whose formulation the scientists have helped to guide.

Unsupported. We know that most problems scientists are called on to solve are selected by scientists. But we don’t know whether any portion of these are problems politicians and business leaders want solved.

E
The only reason for the astounding success rate of science is that the problems scientists are called upon to solve are usually selected by the scientists themselves.

Antisupported, because we also know that part of the reason for the success rate is scientists’ ability to formulate the problem chosen by politicians and business leaders in a way that makes scientific solutions feasible.


24 comments

Science writer: The deterioration of cognitive faculties associated with Alzheimer’s disease is evidently caused by the activities of microglia—the brain’s own immune cells. For one thing, this deterioration can be slowed by some anti-inflammatory drugs, such as acetylsalicylic acid. Furthermore, patients with Alzheimer’s are unable to eliminate the protein BA from the brain, where it accumulates and forms deposits. The microglia attack these protein deposits by releasing poisons that destroy surrounding healthy brain cells, thereby impairing the brain’s cognitive functions.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the deterioriation of mental faculties associated with Alzheimer’s is caused by microglia. This is based on the fact that this deterioriation can be slowed by acetylsalicylic acid. In addition, microglia attack certain protein deposits that build up in people with Alzheimer’s, and in the process the microglia damage healthy brain cells.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that acetylsalyclic acid’s slowing of deterioration involves slowing or otherwise affecting the activity of microglia.

A
The inability of Alzheimer’s patients to eliminate the protein BA from the brain is due to a deficiency in the brain’s immune system.
We already know that microglia attacks the protein BA, which hurts healthy brain cells. The origin of protein BA doesn’t add any relevant information, since we already have enough in the premises to understand the relationship between microglia and the protein BA.
B
Acetylsalicylic acid reduces the production of immune cells in the brain.
This strengthens by connecting the premise about acid to the conclusion. We know that microglia are the brain’s immune cells. If the acid can slow deterioriation, and it also reduces microglia, that suggests microglia might have a role to play in causing deterioration.
C
The activity of microglia results in a decrease in the buildup of protein deposits in the brain.
Even if microglia decreases the buildup of protein deposits, we already know how the microglia hurts healthy brain cells by attacking the protein BA. The missing part of the argument concerns the acetylsalylicic acid.
D
The protein BA directly interferes with the cognitive functions of the brain.
We know the microglia attack the protein BA. (D) therefore suggests microglia might have some protective effect on cognitive functions, which doesn’t strengthen the argument that microglia cause deterioration of those functions.
E
Immune reactions by microglia occur in certain diseases of the brain other than Alzheimer’s.
It’s not clear what “immune reactions by microglia” are or how they relate to damage to cognitive faculties.

43 comments