We should recognize this is a strengthening question, since it asks: Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?
Our stimulus begins by telling us that advertisers are often seen as unscrupulous (lacking restraint, essentially) in how they manipulate people’s desires. However, we’re then told that there is some evidence to the contrary; some advertisers are ethically motivated! That’s nice I guess, but I’m a bit skeptical; ‘ethical’ and ‘advertiser’ just don’t seem to go together often! Let’s see what evidence we have for this claim.
The argument cites a particular incidence where advertisers withdrew from a newspaper as it began to concentrate on sex and violence. Seems like the newspaper wants to profit from people’s desires! Our argument concludes the advertisers must have withdrew because they didn’t approve morally of the newspaper’s decision. This is the interpretation of the event which we want to support. What initially occurs to me is that it is entirely possible that the advertisers thought it would reflect badly on them if they were in the newspaper and could lose them money, and therefore their decision could have been entirely cynical. An answer choice which eliminates this alternate hypothesis that the advertisers were financially-motivated would be a good one. Let’s see what we get:
Answer Choice (A) Interesting, but this could be true if the advertisers withdrew for cynical reasons. This answer doesn’t give us enough information about the advertisers motives which is what we are interested in.
Answer Choice (B) We aren’t interested in those advertisers, we want to support a particular explanation of why some existing advertisers withdrew.
Correct Answer Choice (C) Bingo! If the advertisers knowingly took a haircut on their profits, that eliminates the alternate explanation that they did it all out of fear of losing money from not withdrawing.
Answer Choice (D) Ok? This, if anything, would lend support that the advertisers were motivated by financial rather than ethical considerations, and not strengthen our hypothesis.
Answer Choice (E) We don’t know whether this income group is poorer or richer and how that would affect the advertisers. Even if we did, how would it support our hypothesis that the advertisers withdrew because they were moral?
This is a sufficient assumption question, as the question stem asks: Which one of the following is an assumption that would permit the conclusion above to be properly drawn?
We’re told that every photo must in some ways be true - that stuff in between the commas is science stuff that basically means that because the light of what we capture hits the film. The next sentence begins with a “but” which indicates a potential pivot; the argument goes on to say because of things like Photoshop or angles/posing (cue social media) it doesn’t show the whole trust and is false. Our conclusion comes in and says nothing can ever be proven with photos. First, “nothing” is very strong. Second, being false and proving something are two different, albeit related, ideas. What if you can prove something to be false with an altered photograph by comparing it to what’s actually the case? Let’s link these ideas up with a rule: “If a photograph can be altered to prevent showing the whole truth and is therefore false, then nothing can be proven with it.”
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is correct because it links up our premises with the conclusion and forced our conclusion to be true. While it’s not a perfect paraphrase of our rule, it conveys the same thing.
Answer Choice (B) We’re told that photographs cannot express the whole truth. What does knowing the whole truth have to do with our argument? With our premises and this answer, we cannot force the conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) Being able to figure out whether or not a photograph is truthful does not help push out our conclusion; we still won’t know what is true or false, and this answer choice does not bridge the gap between something being false and figuring out what is not provable.
Answer Choice (D) This does not help justify that nothing can be proven with a photograph. The answer choice adds more information about finding out the truth of the scene of the photograph and then determining what we can use to photograph as evidence. This is more information unrelated to justifying our conclusion.
Answer Choice (E) This would weaken our argument - this is out.
This is a flaw question type, and we know this because of the question stem: Which one of the following most clearly identifies an error in the author’s reasoning?
A gas tax of 1 cent per gallon would raise revenue by 1 billion dollars. Since the tax would be 50 cents per gallon would raise the revenue by 50 billion, the author concludes that this would be a great way to deal with the federal deficit. He continues by saying this would result in lower consumption of gas, presumably because the increase in price causes people to stop buying so much of it. Additionally, it would keep them from being too dependent on foreign companies for oil, too.
There is an internal inconsistency - if something would raise revenue, how could its effect also be to lower consumption? The implication here is that if consumption is lowered, the revenue is also going down.
Answer Choice (A) is not descriptively correct; there is no irrelevant data.
Answer Choice (B) is not correct: “relies on incorrect... figures?” How would we know these figures are incorrect? This is out.
Correct Answer Choice (C) reflects the two assumptions about increased revenue and decreased consumption.
Answer Choice (D) is not correct because there is no confusion between cause and effect.
Answer Choice (E) is not correct because the author is not trying to appeal to conscience.
To see the War Powers Resolution in effect, see the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which we covered in this Optional Quiz.