Summarize Argument
The author concludes that we should praise the council for hiring a long-term economic adviser. This is based on the subsidiary conclusion that the decision to hire the adviser is likely to have a big economic benefit in several years. The subsidiary conclusion is based on the fact that other cities in the region that have invested in economic development planning have earned large returns on those investments. In addition, the author supports that conclusion with an analogy to auto maintenance, which almost always is worth the cost.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the other cities that got large returns on economic development are relevantly similar to the council’s city. The author also assumes that auto maintenance is relevantly similar to economic development in its general likelihood of paying off.
A
Even some cars that receive regular preventive maintenance break down, requiring costly repairs.
We still know that auto maintenance “almost always pays off in the long run.” The author already acknowledges that it might not pay off in every case. Pointing out something the author already acknowledges doesn’t weaken.
B
The columnist’s city has a much smaller population and economy than the other cities did when they began devoting resources to economic development planning.
This shows that the cities the author cites to might not be relevantly similar. Cities with a smaller population and economy might get more value from economic development than a city like the council’s. This weakens the support provided by the author’s comparison.
C
Most motorists who fail to perform preventive maintenance on their cars do so for nonfinancial reasons.
The reason that some motorists fail to perform preventive maintenance doesn’t change the fact that auto maintenance “almost always pays off in the long run.” The argument concerns the value of maintenance, not the motivations behind failure to maintain.
D
Qualified economic development advisers generally demand higher salaries than many city councils are willing to spend.
This doesn’t suggest the adviser is unqualified. We have no reason to think the adviser was among those who demand more than many councils are willing to spend or that this city council wasn’t willing to spend to hire someone qualified. (D) also ignores the argument’s reasoning.
E
Cities that have earned large returns due to hiring economic development advisers did not earn any returns at all in the advisers’ first few years of employment.
The author believes the investment in the adviser will pay off in the long run. That acknowledges that there might not be a payoff in the first few years. So, lack of payoff in the first few years is consistent with the author’s position.
Summarize Argument
The editorialist claims that recent proposals allowing cell phones to be used on airplanes is a bad idea. Cell-phone usage on buses and trains annoys other passengers, and airplanes are configured in such a way that would make cell-phone usage even more annoying.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text supports the editorialist’s conclusion that recent proposals to allow cell-phone usage on airplanes are ill-advised. It’s also supported by two other premises, making it a sub-conclusion.
A
It is the main conclusion of the argument.
The author concludes that recent proposals are ill-advised. The referenced text supports this conclusion by showing that airplanes are a more extreme case than trains and buses, where cell-phone usage is already annoying.
B
It is a claim that the argument tries to rebut.
The editorialist doesn’t disagree that cell-phone usage on planes is more annoying than on trains and buses. In fact, he supports the claim with additional premises.
C
It is a premise that indirectly supports the main conclusion of the argument by supporting a premise for that conclusion.
The referenced text directly supports the conclusion, and is itself supported by other premises. Why are the proposals a bad idea? Because cell-phone usage is even more annoying on airplanes than on trains and buses.
D
It is a conclusion for which support is provided and that itself is used in turn to directly support the argument’s main conclusion.
The referenced text supports the claim that recent proposals are ill-advised, and is also supported by two claims. Why are cell phones more annoying on airplanes than buses? Because airplanes are tightly packed, and you can’t change seats mid-flight to avoid the annoyance.
E
It provides background information that plays no role in the reasoning in the argument.
The referenced text supports the argument. It gives a reason why recent proposals are a bad idea—cell-phone usage, while already annoying on buses and trains, is far worse on airplanes.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that Arnot’s conclusion is false. This is based on the fact that the argument Arnot made advocating his conclusion was based on the highly doubtful assumption that the government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the fact Arnot’s argument relied on an assumption that’s likely to be false proves that Arnot’s conclusion is wrong. But Arnot’s conclusion can still be correct, even if Arnot’s assumption is wrong.
A
it repudiates a claim merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for it
Arnot’s argument was inadequate in that his premises didn’t prove his conclusion, because he made a dubious assumption. But the fact his argument is inadequate doesn’t justify rejecting his conclusion. The author made this very mistake, however, and rejected Arnot’s conclusion.
B
it treats a change that is required for virtual elimination of society’s most vexing social ills as a change that will guarantee the virtual elimination of those ills
The author’s position is that we cannot eliminate our most vexing social ills by making changes to government. So the author doesn’t treat government changes as enough to guarantee elimination of those social ills.
C
it fails to consider that, even if an argument’s conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion may nonetheless be true
The author assumed “false assumption → false conclusion”. This overlooks that even if an ASSUMPTION is false, the conclusion can be true. (C) accuses the argument of assuming “false conclusion → false assumption.” That’s just reversing the argument’s actual assumption.
D
it distorts the opponent’s argument and then attacks this distorted argument
There’s no indication that the author distorted Arnot’s argument. We don’t know what Arnot originally argued or whether the author’s description of that argument is different from what Arnot originally argued.
E
it uses the key term “government” in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion
The word “government” means the same thing throughout. We have no reason to think it takes on different meanings in the argument.
Arnot's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will eliminate social ills.
Please note that we are not presented with Arnot's premises. Only his conclusion. In other words, we don't have Arnot's argument.
Author's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will NOT eliminate social ills.
Author's premise: Arnot's argument [which we didn't get to see] for "this claim" [references "Arnot's conclusion"] makes a bad assumption. That's fine. Arnot may well have made an unreasonable assumption. That doesn't mean that the author has proved anything about "making fundamental changes to our government will or will NOT eliminate social ills." The author only showed us that a person made a bad argument.
Let's say I make a really shitty argument for the claim that "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone." You call me out on my argument being shitty. Specifically, you claim that I made a bad assumption in my argument. Okay. Does that mean that therefore "the conclusion is obviously false"? In other words, it doesn't mean that you've proven "nuclear world war would NOT be really bad for everyone". You just showed that I made a bad argument.
The question of whether "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone" is still up in the air.
You can see why you can't just say "You made a bad argument for X. Therefore, not X is obviously true."
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did discovering so many new galaxies not change astronomers’ estimates of the universe’s total mass?
Objective
A hypothesis resolving this discrepancy must give information about the way astronomers calculate the total mass of the universe. It will imply that some property of the new galaxies kept astronomers from remaking their mass estimates, or that astronomers’ estimates depend little on the number of galaxies.
A
The mass of galaxies is thought to make up only a tiny percentage of the universe’s total mass.
This explains why the astronomers did not revise their mass estimates by much. If a large majority of the universe’s mass is not contained in galaxies, then finding new galaxies would not be cause to update the mass measurement by a significant amount.
B
The overwhelming majority of galaxies are so far from Earth that their mass can be only roughly estimated.
This does not explain why astronomers chose not to update their mass estimates. If the masses of the new galaxies can at least be estimated, their mass should have been added to estimates of the total mass of the universe.
C
The number of galaxies that astronomers believe exist tends to grow as the instruments used to detect galaxies become more sophisticated.
This gives context for the astronomers’ discovery, but does not explain why they opted to keep their current mass estimates. If astronomers routinely discover new galaxies, their estimates of the universe’s mass should also be updated routinely.
D
Theories about how galaxies are formed are rarely affected by estimates of the universe’s total mass.
This is irrelevant information. Astronomers did not update their estimates of the universe’s total mass, so theories about galaxy development would not have been so affected anyway.
E
There is no consensus among astronomers on the proper procedures for estimating the universe’s total mass.
This does not state that some astronomers disregard the number of galaxies when estimating the universe’s total mass. Whatever their methods, their decision not to update their measurements is a mystery.
Summary
Marital vows often contain a certain promise that uses the word “love.” The author concludes that “love” in this context should not be interpreted as referring to feelings. This is because the promise would make no sense if “love” referred to feelings.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts that we should not interpret the word “love” as referring to feelings in the context of a certain promise. But the premises do not establish when one should not interpret a word in a particular way. The premises only establish that interpreting “love” as referring to feelings makes no sense. So to get from the premise to the conclusion, what’s missing is the principle that if an interretation makes no sense, one should not use that interpretation.
A
None of our feelings are within our control.
(A) doesn’t tell us when we should not interpret a word in a particular way. So it cannot establish that we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.
B
People should not make promises to do something that is not within their control.
(B) concerns whether a promise should be made. But the argument concerns whether a certain word in a promise should be interpreted in a particular way. How a word should be interpreted has nothing to do with whether a promise should be made.
C
“Love” can legitimately be taken to refer to something other than feelings.
(C) establishes that “love” can refer to other things besides feelings. But it doesn’t guarantee that we SHOULD NOT interpret “love” as referring to something else besides feelings in the context of the promise.
D
Promises should not be interpreted in such a way that they make no sense.
We know from the premises that interpreting “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise makes no sense. (D) establishes that if an interpretation of a promise makes no sense, then we should not use that interpretation. So (D), combined with the premises, proves we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.
E
Promises that cannot be kept do not make any sense.
(E) doesn’t tell us when we should not interpret a word in a particular way. So it cannot establish that we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that certain lawmakers think that theft and bribery are equally harmful. She supports this by saying that they mandate identical penalties for both.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the lawmakers set penalties based on how harmful they believe a crime is. In other words, she assumes that a crime’s penalty accurately reflects the harm that the lawmakers think it causes.
A
In general, lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm they believe to result from those crimes.
If lawmakers generally mandate penalties that correspond to the harm that they think results from a crime, then it’s likely the lawmakers in these jurisdictions consider theft and bribery equally harmful, since the penalties for both are the same.
B
In most cases, lawmakers assess the level of harm resulting from an act in determining whether to make that act illegal.
The argument addresses how lawmakers set penalties for crimes, not how they decide if an act is illegal. Instead of (B), we need to know whether lawmakers assess the level of harm resulting from an act in determining the penalty for that act.
C
Often, in response to the unusually great harm resulting from a particular instance of a crime, lawmakers will mandate an increased penalty for that crime.
This suggests that a very harmful case of theft or bribery would lead lawmakers to increase the penalty. But the author is focusing on the harm of theft and bribery overall, not just extreme cases.
D
In most cases, a victim of theft is harmed no more than a victim of bribery is harmed.
The author only discusses how much harm lawmakers think bribery and theft cause; it doesn’t matter how much they actually cause. Even if they cause equal harm, this doesn’t help to determine whether lawmakers mandate penalties based on how much harm they think a crime causes.
E
If lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm resulting from those crimes, crime in those lawmakers’ jurisdictions will be effectively deterred.
The author doesn’t mention anything about crime being effectively deterred. Instead, we need to know whether lawmakers actually “mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm resulting from those crimes” in the first place.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do the busiest highways have the fewest fatal accidents?
Objective
Any hypothesis explaining this phenomenon must rely on a difference between the highways carrying the most traffic and other highways. This difference must explain why fatal accidents are less likely on the busiest highways than on other types of highways.
A
Drivers have more accidents when they become distracted.
It is not implied whether drivers on the busiest highways are more or less likely to become distracted than drivers on other highways, so this is useless without more information.
B
The highways that have the highest rate of fatal accidents have moderate volumes of traffic.
This adds more detail to the phenomenon without explaining it. It does not address the busiest highways, or explain why they have fewer fatal accidents than other types of highways.
C
Most of the motorists on very heavily traveled highways tend to be commuting to or from work.
It is not implied whether commuters are more or less likely than other drivers to be in a fatal accident, so this is useless without more information.
D
Most serious accidents occur when vehicles are moving at a high rate of speed.
This explains why the busiest highways have the lowest rate of fatal traffic accidents. Because of their congestion, these highways are less likely to carry fast-moving vehicles, and so are less likely to be the site of fatal accidents.
E
Heavily traveled highways do not always carry a higher proportion of large trucks.
This does not imply that the busiest highways carry fewer trucks than other highways. It allows for the possibility that they often or usually carry a higher proportion of large trucks than other highways.
Saldana: Political debates almost always benefit the candidate who has the better debating skills. Thus, they don’t really help voters determine which candidate is most qualified for office.
Speaker 1 Summary
The public should demand political debates before elections. Why? Because by watching a debate, voters are better able to choose which candidate is best suited for office.
Speaker 2 Summary
Political debates don’t help voters determine which candidate is best suited for office. Why? Because debates benefit the candidate who has the better debating skills.
Objective
We need a statement that Tanner and Saldana disagree on. Tanner thinks that debates help voters determine which candidate is best suited for office. Saldana thinks that debates don’t really help voters make this determination.
A
Political candidates with strong debating skills are more likely to win elections than those with weak debating skills.
Tanner does not express an opinion on this statement. We only know that Tanner believes political debates help voters make their decisions.
B
A voter who watches a political debate will likely be better able, as a result, to determine which candidate is more qualified for office.
Tanner and Saldana disagree on this statement. Tanner agrees and that’s why he thinks there should be political debates before every election. Saldana disagrees because she thinks debates only reflect a candidate’s debating skills, not whether they are best suited for office.
C
Debating skills are of little use to politicians in doing their jobs once they are elected to office.
Tanner does not express an opinion on this statement. Tanner may think that debating skills help voters determine a candidate’s suitability, but he does not express whether these skills are useful or not after candidates are elected.
D
The candidates with the best debating skills are the ones who are most qualified for the political offices for which they are running.
Tanner does not express an opinion on this statement. We only know that Tanner thinks that debates are informative for voters. We don’t know whether Tanner thinks the debating skills specifically are indicative of a candidate’s suitability.
E
Political debates tend to have a major effect on which candidate among those participating in a debate will win the election.
Tanner does not express an opinion on this statement. We don’t know whether Tanner thinks that debates causally effect a candidate’s chances of winning an election.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that an overabundance of algae is harmful to smaller fish in this pond. This is based on the fact that over the past 15 years, the few times that the author has seen a lot of dead small fish has coincided with the times that he has noticed unusually large amounts of algae in the water.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the correlation between lots of dead small fish and lots of algae is explained by algae causing harm to the small fish. This overlooks alternate explanations for the correlation. Perhaps there’s a third factor that causes both the algae and the dead fish. The author also assumes that his own observations of the timing of dead small fish and lots of algae is representative of the general pattern of dead small fish and lots of algae in the pond.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that smaller fish are somehow more susceptible to harm as a result of overabundant algae than are larger fish
The author never compares the effects of algae to the effects of larger fish.
B
fails to consider that the effects on smaller fish of overabundant algae may be less severe in larger bodies of water with more diverse ecosystems
The author’s conclusion doesn’t concern other bodies of water besides “this pond.”
C
ignores the possibility that the same cause might have different effects on fish of different sizes
The author’s conclusion only concerns the effects of algae on “smaller fish.” Fish of other sizes are not relevant to the argument.
D
ignores the possibility that the overabundance of algae and the deaths of smaller fish are independent effects of a common cause
This possibility presents an alternate explanation for the author’s evidence. Perhaps algae isn’t harmful to smaller fish, but rather the algae and deads of small fish are both results of some other cause.
E
ignores the possibility that below-normal amounts of algae are detrimental to the pond’s smaller fish
The author didn’t say that below-normal amounts of algae are not harmful to smaller fish. The conclusion is that overabundance of algae is harmful, but this doesn’t imply that the author thinks less than abundant algae isn’t harmful.
Yoko: Children’s stories still tend to have clearly immoral characters in them, but now these characters tend not to be the sort that frighten children. Surely that’s an improvement.
Speaker 1 Summary
Peter argues that children’s stories should include clearly immoral characters (which they usually did in the past, but now do not). Why? Because it’s important to teach children the consequences of being bad.
Speaker 2 Summary
Yoko doesn’t make an argument, but does make several factual claims. First, modern children’s stories usually do have clearly immoral characters. Second, these characters are less frightening than in the past. And finally, it’s a good thing to avoid frightening children.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement between Peter and Yoko. The two disagree about whether modern children’s stories usually contain clearly immoral characters.
A
should be less frightening than they are
Neither speaker makes this claim. Yoko is the only one to talk about stories being frightening, but never says that stories should be less frightening than they currently are.
B
tend to be less frightening than earlier children’s stories were
Yoko agrees with this, but Peter doesn’t express an opinion. Peter doesn’t talk about children’s stories being frightening at all, either now or in the past.
C
differ significantly in overall quality from earlier children’s stories
Neither speaker talks about the overall quality of children’s stories, currently or in earlier times, let alone to compare the two.
D
tend to have clearly immoral characters in them
Peter disagrees with this but Yoko agrees, so this is the speakers’ disagreement. Peter states that modern stories, unlike earlier ones, don’t usually have clearly immoral characters. Yoko, however, says that modern stories usually do have clearly immoral characters.
E
should help children learn the consequences of being bad
Peter agrees with this, but Yoko doesn’t express an opinion. Yoko never discusses what kinds of lessons children’s stories should impart on their readers.