Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the company must give Vernon his job back. This is based on the fact that several higher-ranking employees engaged in behavior just as unprofessional as Vernon did, but haven’t been fired. In addition, the company should be consistent.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the fact that another consistent course of action would be to keep Vernon fired, but to also fire the other employees who engaged in unprofesional behavior.
A
illicitly using a key term in different senses during the course of the argument
There is no term that is used in different senses. “Unprofessional” means unprofessional.
B
confusing behavior that is sufficient to justify an action with behavior that is required to justify that action
The author admits Vernon’s behavior justified his firing. But the author does not assume that unprofessional behavior is necessary to justify his firing. The argument doesn’t concern what is required for firing; it concerns what is required in order for consistency.
C
offering as its primary evidence a premise that is equivalent to the argument’s conclusion
(C) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion is not restated in the evidence. The premises do not assert that Vernon should be given his job back.
D
treating behavior that can sometimes result in a certain consequence as behavior that always results in that consequence
We know that unprofessional behavior sometimes results in firing, as shown by the firing of Vernon. But the author does not assume that unprofessional behavior always results in firing. In fact, the author points to examples of people who were not fired, but unprofessional.
E
inferring that one specific response to a problem is necessary without considering another equally supported response
The author assumes that one specific response (give Vernon his job back) to a problem (inconsistency) is necessary without considering another equally supported response (firing the other employees).
Summary
All one-way streets have dedicated bike lanes. City buses do not travel on any street with a dedicated bike lane. Parking is not allowed on streets with a dedicated bike lane. City bus number nine travels through Batchelder Avenue.
Notable Valid Inferences
Batchelder Avenue is not a one-way street.
A
Batchelder Avenue is a one-way street.
Must be false. The stimulus tells us that if a street is one-way, then buses do not travel on it. A bus travels on Batchelder Avenue, so it cannot be a one-way street.
B
Batchelder Avenue is not a one-way street.
Must be true. As shown below, if a street is one-way then a bus cannot travel on it. Bus nine travels on Batchelder Avenue, so it must not be a one-way street. 
C
Parking is allowed on Batchelder Avenue.
Could be false. As shown on our diagram, no parking is a necessary condition in our logical chain. If there is parking on a street, we cannot determine from there if a city bus can or cannot travel on it.
D
Parking is not allowed on Batchelder Avenue.
Could be false. As shown on our diagram, no parking is a necessary condition in our logical chain. If there is no parking on a street, we cannot determine from there if a city bus can or cannot travel on it.
E
Parking is not allowed on any street on which buses do not travel.
Could be false. As shown on our diagram, there is no logical connection between no parking and no buses. We only know there is no parking and buses do not travel if the street is one-way and has a dedicated bike lane.
Elsa: If people hold radically different opinions, public art should emphasize that. No art form can do the impossible, which is what you are asking for.
Speaker 1 Summary
Laurie concludes that contemporary public art has failed to achieve its purpose. Its purpose in a democracy is to express a consensus on a subject or to help people reconcile their differences. Contemporary public art only creates bitterness among people.
Speaker 2 Summary
Elsa has a different take on what public art should do. She thinks it should emphasize radically different opinions. Elsa asserts that it’s impossible for art to either express a consensus on a subject or to help people to reconcile their differences.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree on what public art should do. Laurie thinks it should help bring people together. Elsa thinks it should emphasize different opinions.
A
what types of public art are most characteristic of contemporary democracies
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss different types of public art or what’s most common in a democracy.
B
whether it is possible in a democracy to create public art that people with radically different opinions can enjoy and support
Neither speaker has an opinion. Although both speakers discuss whether art can bring people together, they don’t discuss whether people with different opinion can enjoy or support public art. Enjoyment of art is different from art’s ability to bring people together.
C
what the criterion of success for public art in a democracy should be
This is a point of disagreement. Laurie thinks public art should bring people together. Elsa thinks public art should emphasize radically different opinions, and that it’s impossible for public art to bring people together.
D
whether contemporary public art creates only acrimony
Elsa has no opinion on this. She doesn’t discuss whether public art creates acrimony or other feelings.
E
whether it is wise for contemporary public art to help achieve a consensus on a subject
Laurie doesn’t have an opinion. She says public art should help bring people together by expressing a consensus or helping people to see that no opinion is definitive. But this isn’t the same as helping people to achieve a consensus.
Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that people become less happy as they get wealthier. She supports this by saying that while money can fulfill some desires, it also creates more desires that can never be satisfied.
Notable Assumptions
The columnist assumes that having more unsatisfied desires makes one less happy. She also assumes that wealth can only satisfy a limited amount of desires.
A
Extreme wealth impedes the attainment of the highest level of happiness.
The columnist doesn’t make any claims about “the highest level of happiness.” Instead, she argues that as people get wealthier, they also get less happy. (A) fails to address this conclusion.
B
The fewer unfulfilled desires one has, the happier one is.
The columnist assumes that having more unfulfilled desires makes one less happy. This is the same as saying that having fewer unfulfilled desires makes one more happy. Thus, (B) strengthens the argument by reinforcing this assumption.
C
One’s happiness tends not to increase each time a desire is satisfied.
The argument assumes that having more unsatisfied desires makes one less happy. Whether having satisfied desires makes one more or less happy is not relevant.
D
There are very few wealthy people who would not prefer to be wealthier.
The fact that wealthy people generally want to be even wealthier does not necessarily reflect those people’s happiness. (D) thus fails to address the conclusion that increased wealth leads to decreased happiness.
E
Satisfying one’s desires is not the only relevant factor to one’s happiness.
The columnist is discussing the link between desire satisfaction and happiness. The fact that there are other factors that can affect happiness actually weakens her argument by undermining this link.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The business owner argues that the overall number of jobs in the region would decrease by allowing coal mining despite some new jobs being created. This is because many local businesses depend on the region's beauty, and the presence of coal mining would force most of them to close.
Identify Argument Part
This claim is a premise that supports an intermediate conclusion which supports the main conclusion. The fact that many local businesses depend on natural beauty supports the claim that coal mining would cause them to close. This in turn, supports the main conclusion that more jobs would be lost than gained.
A
It is given as direct evidence for a statement that is used to support the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim supports the following clause that the coal mining would cause many of these local businesses to close, which in turn supports the main conclusion.
B
It is a premise that is offered as direct support for the overall conclusion of the argument.
This claim does not directly support the main conclusion. The fact that many businesses depend on the region’s natural beauty only supports the following clause.
C
It is an intermediate conclusion offered as direct support for the argument’s main conclusion.
This is not an intermediate conclusion. It does not receive support, it gives it.
D
It is the overall conclusion drawn in the argument.
This is not the overall conclusion. It does not receive support.
E
It is a hypothesis for which evidence is explicitly offered, but it is not itself intended to support the argument’s overall conclusion.
This statement is not a hypothesis, and it *is* intended to support the argument’s overall conclusion.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that sentimentality does not detract from aesthetic value. This is based on the fact that critics who claim that it does detract from aesthetic value hold that belief because absence of sentimentality is more interesting to people who watch a lot of movies.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the reason critics hold their belief constitutes evidence that the belief is wrong. This is flawed, because the reason the critics hold their belief doesn’t have anything to do with whether sentimentality does or does not detract from aesthetic value.
A
is based solely on an inappropriate appeal to authority
The author doesn’t argue that we should reject the critics’ claim because some authority also rejects the claim.
B
rejects a position merely on the grounds that someone who argues for it has an ulterior motive
The author comments on how the critics came to hold their belief. This is not a comment on any “ulterior motive.” There’s a difference between the origin of a belief and the motivation someone has in advocating for the belief.
C
takes a necessary condition for a movie’s being of high aesthetic value to be a sufficient condition for this
The argument doesn’t use conditional reasoning, so there isn’t a confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.
D
concludes that a view is false merely on the grounds of how people came to believe it
The author rejects the critics’ view merely on the grounds of how the critics came to believe that sentimentality detracts from aesthetic value.
E
takes what is sufficient for diminishing the quality of a work to be necessary for doing so
The argument doesn’t use conditional reasoning, so there isn’t a confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.
Summary
The author concludes that it was wrong for Kapp to use inferior materials in making the library. Why? Because Kapp must have realized that using inferior materials would put people at serious risk.
Missing Connection
What allows us to conclude that an action is wrong? We have no premise that establishes an action is wrong. So, at a minimum, we the correct answer must tell us what makes an action wrong.
To go further, we can anticipate a more specific connection. We want to connect what the premise tells us about Kapp’s action to being wrong. So we want to learn that if someone knows their action puts people at serious risk, then it’s wrong for that person to do the action.
To go further, we can anticipate a more specific connection. We want to connect what the premise tells us about Kapp’s action to being wrong. So we want to learn that if someone knows their action puts people at serious risk, then it’s wrong for that person to do the action.
A
Any knowledgeable and experienced builder would realize that using the inferior construction materials that Mr. Kapp used would put people at serious risk.
(A) doesn’t establish what makes an action wrong. Since neither this answer nor the premise tells us what makes an action wrong, (A) cannot make the argument valid.
B
An action can be wrong from a moral standpoint without necessarily being illegal.
(B) asserts that an action can be wrong without being illegal. But it doesn’t establish what conditions are sufficient to make an action wrong.
C
Mr. Kapp made a large profit from the construction and sale of the building.
(C) doesn’t establish what makes an action wrong. Since neither this answer nor the premise tells us what makes an action wrong, (C) cannot make the argument valid.
D
It is wrong to knowingly put people at serious risk for the sake of profit.
We know that Kapp realized his action would put people at serious risk. In addition, we know from the first contextual sentence that Kapp’s action was done to maximize his profit. According to (D), then, Kapp did something wrong.
E
Mr. Kapp either knew or ought to have known that using the inferior materials he used to build the library would put people at serious risk.
(E) doesn’t establish what makes an action wrong. Since neither this answer nor the premise tells us what makes an action wrong, (E) cannot make the argument valid.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that lycopene reduces the risk of stroke. This is based on a study of 1,000 middle-aged people over a 12 year period, which found that participants with low levels of lycopene were more likely to have a stroke than participants higher levels of lycopene.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s no other explanation for the correlation between lycopene and reduced risk of stroke.
A
Most fruits and vegetables that are rich in lycopene also contain high levels of several other nutrients that are thought likely to reduce the risk of stroke.
This suggests a potential alternate explanation for the correlation observed in the study. Maybe what reduced risk of stroke was not higher levels of lycopene, but other nutrients found in fruits/veggies that contain lycopene.
B
Countries in which people consume substantial quantities of lycopene-rich fruits and vegetables generally have lower rates of stroke than other countries.
This strengthens the argument by providing evidence that shows the correlation observed in the study is found more broadly, too.
C
Middle-aged people typically have lower lycopene levels than young adults.
This doesn’t have any impact, since we don’t know whether middle-aged people are more or less likely to have strokes than young adults. Even if we did, this might strengthen, because middle-aged people probably have more strokes.
D
Study participants with high levels of lycopene consumed, on average, twice the quantity of fruits and vegetables as those with low levels of lycopene.
This might explain how the participants with high levels of lycopene got their high levels of lycopene. But it doesn’t suggest there are alternate explanations for the lower risk of stroke.
E
There was wide variation in lycopene levels among study participants.
We know there was a correlation between higher lycopene and lower risk of stroke. This doesn’t mean everyone had similar levels of lycopene. So, (E) is consistent with the author’s reasoning.