Summary
Researchers staged a crime and showed a video of it to test subjects. A lineup of “suspects” was then shown to the test subjects. The person playing the criminal in the video was not in this lineup. When the test subjects were not told the suspect may not be in the lineup, most of them misidentified a person in the lineup as the criminal. When the test subjects were told that the suspect may not be in the lineup, less than half of them misidentified a person in the lineup as the criminal.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The more likely people expect to see something, the more likely people are to think they see something not actually there.
A
Eyewitnesses are no more likely to accurately select a suspect from a lineup than are people who are given an accurate verbal description of the suspect.
This answer is unsupported. There was not a test group in the stimulus where people were given a vernal description of the suspect.
B
People tend to want to satisfy the stated expectations of those who ask them for information.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the researchers stated to the test subjects that they expected them to identify the suspect in the lineup.
C
When specifically directed by a person of authority to say that something is among a group of things when it is not, most people will comply.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the researchers specifically directed the test subjects in this way.
D
People fail to recognize the physical similarities among a group of people unless they are given information in addition to visual clues.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the test subjects failed to recognize any similarities between people.
E
People are less likely to think they see something that is not actually present the less they expect to see it.
This answer is strongly supported. This would explain the effect of the amount of misidentifications decreasing after the information told to the test subjects by the researchers.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that using a journalistic writing style increases the chances that a novel will be popular. This is based on the fact that many popular novels have stylistic elements commonly associated with journalistic writing. In addition, many authors of popular novels began their careers as journalists.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes there’s a correlation between novels being popular and having a journalistic writing style or being written by people who were journalists. But this overlooks the possibility that just as many unpopular novels are written using a journalistic style or by authors who started their careers as journalists. So there might not be a correlation between popularity and having a journalistic style.
A
takes something that is required for a novel to be popular to be something that is certain to make a novel popular
The author doesn’t rely on conditional reasoning, so there isn’t a confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions. The author doesn’t present anything that’s required for a novel to be popular.
B
takes for granted that most journalists could become novelists if they wanted to
The author notes that many authors of popular novels began their careers as journalists. But this doesn’t imply a belief about what proportion of journalists could be become novelists if they wanted to.
C
fails to specify exactly what is required for a novel to be considered popular
The author doesn’t need to specify what is needed for a novel to be considered popular. The premises tell us there are popular novels that have a journalistic style. What exactly constitutes “popular” doesn’t affect the reasoning of the argument.
D
fails to consider how many unsuccessful novels have been written in a journalistic style
The author fails to consider that just as many unpopular novels have stylistic elements commonly associated with journalism. If this is true, this undermines the author’s assumption that there’s a correlation between having a journalistic style and popularity of a novel.
E
takes the fact that a novel is popular to indicate that it is well written
The author does not indicate that she believes popular novels are well-written.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
Lindsey concludes that many poets are made melancholy by writing poetry. She concludes this because the poets she has met are more often disposed to melancholy, and because everyone knows an activity like writing poetry can be depressing.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the last sentence is a premise used to support Lindsey’s conclusion.
A
It is a premise offered as evidence for another premise, which in turn is offered in support of the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim independently supports Lindsey’s conclusion. It is not offered as support for another premise.
B
It is a premise for which another premise is offered as evidence.
The claim independently supports Lindsey’s conclusion. It is not supported by another premise.
C
It is the overall conclusion of the argument.
The claim is not Lindsey’s main conclusion.
D
It clarifies a claim made within the overall conclusion of the argument.
The claim does not clarify another claim. It is used as direct support for Lindsey’s conclusion.
E
It is a premise offered as direct support for the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim is a premise and independently supports Lindsey’s conclusion.
Summary
A photosynthetic organism and a fungus growing symbiotically make up a lichen. Lichens absorb minerals from the air, rainwater, and the surfaces they grow on. Lichens cannot excrete elements they absorb. Some types of lichen are very vulnerable to toxic compounds, including toxins found in polluted air. These compounds can damage the photosynthetic organism and fungus that make up a lichen.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Serious air pollution can have adverse affects on lichen growing in the area.
A
Lichens would not be vulnerable to toxic compounds if they could excrete the elements that they absorb.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether absorbing toxic compounds is the only way that these compounds could be harmful for lichens.
B
The return of lichens to a region indicates that the air quality has improved there.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether lichens disappear in areas with poorer air quality.
C
The absence of lichens in a region indicates that the air is probably polluted in that area.
This answer is unsupported. There could be other variables besides air pollution that could affect the population of lichen. We cannot say if it is air pollution for certain.
D
The photosynthetic organism and the fungus that make up a lichen can also thrive independently of each other.
This answer is unsupported. We only know from the stimulus how these organisms function symbiotically with each other.
E
Serious air pollution in a region can cause problems for lichens.
This answer is strongly supported. If toxic compounds found in polluted air can harm either or both of the symbiotic partners, then these compounds can have adverse effects for lichens.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the dangers of mountain climbing have been greatly exaggerated. This is based on the fact that between 1922 and 2002, there have been fewer than 200 climbing deaths on Mt. Everest. But there were over 7,000 traffic deaths in France alone in 2002.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author fails to consider the number of people who climbed Mt. Everest between 1922 and 2002 and the number of people who drove in France in 2002. This is relevant to the overall fatality rate. For example, maybe there were only 200 people who climbed Mt. Everest during that time, and almost every one of them died. This would tend to show that climbing Mt. Everest was extremely dangerous.
A
whether the number of traffic fatalities in France was higher in 2002 than in other years
The author cited the numbers in France simply to show the large disparity in deaths from driving and from climbing. If in 2001, there were, for example, 6,900 traffic deaths, that has no impact. Or if 2000 involved 5,000 deaths, that’s still far more than 200 climbing deaths.
B
whether the number of traffic fatalities in France is usually higher than that in other countries
The author cited the numbers in France simply to show the large disparity in deaths from driving and climbing. If France usually has a higher number of traffic deaths than other countries, that changes nothing, because the disparity in fatalities from driving and climbing would still be large.
C
whether the number of fatalities among climbers on Mount Everest could be reduced by implementing stricter safety measures
The author doesn’t assume that we can’t make things safer. The argument is about the current danger presented by climbing, not whether climbing can be made safer.
D
how many climbers were on Mount Everest during those 80 years and how many people traveled on French roads in 2002
The author fails to consider that there might have been very few climers on Mount Everest, and many thousands of driver on French roads. This is relevant to the overall fatality rate, which is a more accurate measure of danger than simply counting the number of deaths.
E
how many climbing fatalities there were during those 80 years on mountains other than Mount Everest
The number of deaths on other mountains doesn’t tell us anything about the death rate on Mount Everest. What’s missing from this argument is information that bears upon the relative death rate on Mount Everest vs. driving in France in 2002.
Professor: During election years, voters often feel that they are insufficiently informed about election issues. And studies have revealed the surprising fact that regular subscribers to the few newspapers that do provide extensive coverage of election issues are no better informed about election issues than subscribers to newspapers that have very little coverage of these issues.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Subscribers to newspapers that cover election issues are no better informed than subscribers to newspapers that don’t cover election issues.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that gives us information about people who subscribe to newspapers covering election issues. This information must explain how these subscribers aren’t more-informed than people who subscribe newspapers that don’t cover election issues. The explanation will likely be that the people who read election coverage are confused by multiple perspectives, or that the subscribers don’t bother reading the election coverage that these newspapers run.
A
The newspapers that provide extensive coverage of election issues have a smaller circulation, on average, than the newspapers that provide very little coverage of these issues.
It doesn’t matter how many subscribers these newspapers are reaching. We need to know about the people who subscribe to them.
B
Many newspapers that once provided extensive coverage of election issues now provide very little coverage of these issues.
These newspapers would fall into the “not covering election” category. We need to know why people who subscribe to newspapers that do cover election issues aren’t more-informed than people who subscribe to other newspapers.
C
Most regular subscribers to the newspapers that provide extensive coverage of election issues rarely read the articles about these issues.
Rather than reading the election coverage, these subscribers do the crossword. They’re no better informed than the other subscribers because they don’t even read the coverage that these newspapers offer.
D
Many of the voters who feel that they are insufficiently informed about election issues do not subscribe to newspapers.
We care about people who do subscribe to newspapers.
E
Most voters get the majority of their information about election issues from sources other than newspapers.
We don’t care where most voters get their information from. We care about the ones who subscribe to newspapers.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people in industrialized societies today would probably become more close-knit if they undertook group tasks that required them to cooperate with each other. This prediction is based on the observation that what made medieval European communities close-knit was the fact that people had to cooperate with each other to meet basic needs.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s prediction for what would likely happen if people today undertook tasks similar to those that medieval communities had to undertake: “[I]f people in industrialized societies today undertook corresponding group tasks, their communities would probably become more close-knit.”
A
Much of what made medieval communities as close-knit as they usually were was the way they went about meeting basic needs.
This is part of the support. The author uses this fact to support a prediction about what would likely happen to people in industrialized societies today.
B
People in industrialized societies today should undertake group tasks similar to those that medieval communities undertook in order to meet their basic needs.
The author never tells anyone what they “should” do. The conclusion is simply a prediction about what is likely to happen.
C
In medieval communities, people went about meeting basic needs in ways that required them to come together in respectful cooperation, suspending any private grievances.
This is part of the support. This is an illustration of how medieval societies were close-knight because of group tasks. The author uses this fact to support a prediction about what is likely to happen to people in industrialized societies today.
D
Medieval communities were usually more close-knit than communities in industrial societies are today because, in medieval communities, people undertook group tasks requiring them to come together in respectful cooperation.
The author never states that medieval communities were more close-knit than communities in industrial societies today. The conclusion is a prediction about what is likely to happen to people in industrial societies today.
E
Communities in industrial societies today would probably become more close-knit if their members undertook group tasks requiring the participants to come together in respectful cooperation.
This is a paraphrase of the last sentence, which is the conclusion.