This is a Parallel Flaw Method of Reasoning question.
The question tests your understanding of quantifier and conditional logic.
The argument in the stimulus translates to:
fl-journalist ←s→ sell-lax-mag → /self-respecting
__________________
/fl-journalist ←s→ self-respecting
The conclusion is flawed. The valid conclusion that could have been drawn is:
fl-journalist ←s→ /self-respecting
Generalizing from this particular flawed argument, the form is this:
A ←s→ B → /C
__________________
/A ←s→ C
We need to find the same form in one of the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A)’s premise translates to:
high-school ←s→ bio → /kindergarten
In order for (A) to be right, the conclusion should have said:
/high-school ←s→ kindergarten
Or in English, “Some kindergarten teachers are not high school teachers.” But it doesn’t say that. It says “Biology is not taught by all teachers.” That’s a valid conclusion. It follows simply from the premise that kindergarten teachers don’t teach biology.
Answer Choice (B)’s premise translates to:
sbm —m→ teacher → /prefer
Like (A), this is a good setup for (B) to be right. In order for (B) to be right, the conclusion should have said:
/sbm ←s→ prefer
Or in English, “Some non-school board members prefer admin work to teaching.” But it doesn’t say that. It says, “Few school board members prefer admin work to teaching.”
Correct Answer Choice (C)’s premise translates to:
student ←s→ prefer → /member
In order for (C) to be right, the conclusion needs to say:
/student ←s→ member
Or in English, “Some members of the Calculus Club are not students.” That’s exactly what the conclusion in (C) says. This is an invalid conclusion. The valid conclusion is “student ←s→ /member” or “Some students are not members of the Calculus Club.”
Answer Choice (D)’s premise translates to:
princ ←s→ harsh-disc → /adviser
In order for (D) to be right, the conclusion should have said:
/princ ←s→ adviser
Or in English, “Some advisers to a debate team are not principals.” But it doesn’t say that. It says, “Some principals are not advisers to a debate team.” That’s a valid conclusion.
Answer Choice (E)’s premise translates to:
popular ←s→ leave-early
coaches → /leave-before-3
(E) is already wrong for the fact that the premises do not connect.
As a Blind Review exercise, we can fix (E) up:
popular ←s→ leave-early → /coach
Fixing the premises like this gives (E) a chance. (E) could say that, therefore, some coaches are not popular teachers. That would be the same formal flaw in the stimulus and therefore make (E) the right answer.
This is a Parallel Flaw Method of Reasoning question.
The question tests your understanding of quantifier and conditional logic.
The argument in the stimulus translates to:
fl-journalist ←s→ sell-lax-mag → /self-respecting
__________________
/fl-journalist ←s→ self-respecting
The conclusion is flawed. The valid conclusion that could have been drawn is:
fl-journalist ←s→ /self-respecting
Generalizing from this particular flawed argument, the form is this:
A ←s→ B → /C
__________________
/A ←s→ C
We need to find the same form in one of the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A)’s premise translates to:
high-school ←s→ bio → /kindergarten
In order for (A) to be right, the conclusion should have said:
/high-school ←s→ kindergarten
Or in English, “Some kindergarten teachers are not high school teachers.” But it doesn’t say that. It says “Biology is not taught by all teachers.” That’s a valid conclusion. It follows simply from the premise that kindergarten teachers don’t teach biology.
Answer Choice (B)’s premise translates to:
sbm —m→ teacher → /prefer
Like (A), this is a good setup for (B) to be right. In order for (B) to be right, the conclusion should have said:
/sbm ←s→ prefer
Or in English, “Some non-school board members prefer admin work to teaching.” But it doesn’t say that. It says, “Few school board members prefer admin work to teaching.”
Correct Answer Choice (C)’s premise translates to:
student ←s→ prefer → /member
In order for (C) to be right, the conclusion needs to say:
/student ←s→ member
Or in English, “Some members of the Calculus Club are not students.” That’s exactly what the conclusion in (C) says. This is an invalid conclusion. The valid conclusion is “student ←s→ /member” or “Some students are not members of the Calculus Club.”
Answer Choice (D)’s premise translates to:
princ ←s→ harsh-disc → /adviser
In order for (D) to be right, the conclusion should have said:
/princ ←s→ adviser
Or in English, “Some advisers to a debate team are not principals.” But it doesn’t say that. It says, “Some principals are not advisers to a debate team.” That’s a valid conclusion.
Answer Choice (E)’s premise translates to:
popular ←s→ leave-early
coaches → /leave-before-3
(E) is already wrong for the fact that the premises do not connect.
As a Blind Review exercise, we can fix (E) up:
popular ←s→ leave-early → /coach
Fixing the premises like this gives (E) a chance. (E) could say that, therefore, some coaches are not popular teachers. That would be the same formal flaw in the stimulus and therefore make (E) the right answer.
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question.
The stimulus starts with distinguishing categories of celestial objects. Stars versus planets. Stars generate light. Planets do not generate light, they only reflect it. Next, the argument defines a domain: this galaxy. It says that under this domain (in this galaxy), there are celestial objects that are neither stars nor planets, but it doesn’t give them names. (Fortunately, we already know their names: moons, asteroids, black holes, etc.) The argument then concludes that these nameless objects (i.e., these celestial objects that are neither planets nor stars) generate light.
Wait, what? The premises don’t support the conclusion at all! The premises establish that planets don’t generate light. It also establishes that there are other non-star, non-planet, nameless objects. But it says nothing about whether those nameless objects generate light. Where did that even come from?
As it turns out, Correct Answer Choice (E) reveals that the argument made the oldest mistake in the book: sufficiency-necessity. But this was such an unforced and bizarre error that it very successfully obscured itself. I certainly didn’t see this coming because I never would have expected the argument to confuse “planets don’t generate light (p→/gl)” with “only planets don’t generate light (/gl→p).” Had the premises established that “only planets don’t generate light” and there are non-star and non-planet objects, then those nameless objects would generate light. But the argument in fact only established that “planets don’t generate light.” It failed to consider the possibility that planets are not the only celestial objects that don’t generate light. For example, moons and asteroids also don’t generate light.
Answer Choice (A) says the argument failed to consider the possibility that this galaxy contains no celestial objects that reflect light other than planets. This is such an irrelevant consideration that I guess the argument failed to consider it. But that’s not why the argument’s reasoning is flawed. The conclusion is claiming that the nameless objects generate light. (A) is concerned with whether these nameless objects reflect light. Who cares if they reflect light or not?
Answer Choice (B) says the argument failed to consider the possibility that celestial objects in this galaxy comprise only a minute percentage of all the celestial objects in the universe. Similar to (A), this is such an irrelevant consideration that I guess the argument failed to consider it. But that’s not why the argument’s reasoning is flawed. The argument already established its domain: this galaxy. The conclusion does not exceed the bounds of that domain.
Answer Choice (C) says the argument failed to consider the possibility that celestial objects in this galaxy are not the only celestial objects that generate light. Similar to (A) and (B), this is such an irrelevant consideration that I guess the argument failed to consider it. But that’s not why the argument’s reasoning is flawed. (B) claims that there may be celestial objects in other galaxies that generate light. Okay, but who cares? The argument already established its domain: this galaxy. The conclusion does not exceed the bounds of that domain.
Answer Choice (D) says the argument failed to consider the possibility that there are numerous features that distinguish stars from planets besides the ability to generate light. Similar to (A), (B), and (C), this is such an irrelevant consideration that I guess the argument failed to consider it. But that’s not why the argument’s reasoning is flawed. It doesn’t matter what other features distinguish planets from stars. Stars tend to be bigger. Stars tend to live longer. Great. Who cares?
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question.
The stimulus starts with distinguishing categories of celestial objects. Stars versus planets. Stars generate light. Planets do not generate light, they only reflect it. Next, the argument defines a domain: this galaxy. It says that under this domain (in this galaxy), there are celestial objects that are neither stars nor planets, but it doesn’t give them names. (Fortunately, we already know their names: moons, asteroids, black holes, etc.) The argument then concludes that these nameless objects (i.e., these celestial objects that are neither planets nor stars) generate light.
Wait, what? The premises don’t support the conclusion at all! The premises establish that planets don’t generate light. It also establishes that there are other non-star, non-planet, nameless objects. But it says nothing about whether those nameless objects generate light. Where did that even come from?
As it turns out, Correct Answer Choice (E) reveals that the argument made the oldest mistake in the book: sufficiency-necessity. But this was such an unforced and bizarre error that it very successfully obscured itself. I certainly didn’t see this coming because I never would have expected the argument to confuse “planets don’t generate light (p→/gl)” with “only planets don’t generate light (/gl→p).” Had the premises established that “only planets don’t generate light” and there are non-star and non-planet objects, then those nameless objects would generate light. But the argument in fact only established that “planets don’t generate light.” It failed to consider the possibility that planets are not the only celestial objects that don’t generate light. For example, moons and asteroids also don’t generate light.
Answer Choice (A) says the argument failed to consider the possibility that this galaxy contains no celestial objects that reflect light other than planets. This is such an irrelevant consideration that I guess the argument failed to consider it. But that’s not why the argument’s reasoning is flawed. The conclusion is claiming that the nameless objects generate light. (A) is concerned with whether these nameless objects reflect light. Who cares if they reflect light or not?
Answer Choice (B) says the argument failed to consider the possibility that celestial objects in this galaxy comprise only a minute percentage of all the celestial objects in the universe. Similar to (A), this is such an irrelevant consideration that I guess the argument failed to consider it. But that’s not why the argument’s reasoning is flawed. The argument already established its domain: this galaxy. The conclusion does not exceed the bounds of that domain.
Answer Choice (C) says the argument failed to consider the possibility that celestial objects in this galaxy are not the only celestial objects that generate light. Similar to (A) and (B), this is such an irrelevant consideration that I guess the argument failed to consider it. But that’s not why the argument’s reasoning is flawed. (B) claims that there may be celestial objects in other galaxies that generate light. Okay, but who cares? The argument already established its domain: this galaxy. The conclusion does not exceed the bounds of that domain.
Answer Choice (D) says the argument failed to consider the possibility that there are numerous features that distinguish stars from planets besides the ability to generate light. Similar to (A), (B), and (C), this is such an irrelevant consideration that I guess the argument failed to consider it. But that’s not why the argument’s reasoning is flawed. It doesn’t matter what other features distinguish planets from stars. Stars tend to be bigger. Stars tend to live longer. Great. Who cares?
This is a Method of Reasoning question.
We’re asked to describe Espinosa’s argument, how he responds to Jones. Jones speaks first. She argues that a budget deficit is good for the country’s finances because it discourages excessive government spending.
Espinosa responds. He says, “That’s like saying…” Okay, pause. At this point, we already know that he’s arguing by analogy. And that’s already enough to hunt out Correct Answer Choice (A). It’s the only one that describes Espinosa’s argument as an argument by analogy.
Okay, so what is it like? It’s like arguing that reaching the credit limit is good for your finances because it discourages excessive spending. He concedes that reaching the credit limit will likely discourage excessive spending. But reaching the credit limit is still a poor financial decision. That never should have happened in the first place. The same goes for the government, meaning the government never should have had a budget deficit to begin with.
(A) accurately describes Espinosa’s argument. His argument about reaching the credit limit is clearly fallacious. He uses that to show that Jones’s argument is analogously fallacious.
Answer Choice (B) says Espinosa demonstrates that Jones’s argument is circular. That it begs the question. That it presupposes what it sets out to prove. That’s not right. Jones’s argument isn’t circular. The premise and the conclusion are different claims. Espinosa doesn’t mistake Jones’s argument for a circular one. Here’s a circular argument that Jones could have made: A budget deficit is good for the country’s finances because spending in excess of revenues improves a nation’s financial situation.
Answer Choice (C) says Espinosa offers empirical evidence that undermines Jones’s conclusion. No, he doesn’t. Here’s what empirical evidence might look like: Back in 2010, France experienced a budget deficit which caused it to default on its treasury bond interest payments. That shattered international confidence in the French government, which resulted in a decade of economic decline. That’s empirical evidence that a budget deficit isn’t good for a country's finances.
Answer Choice (D) says Espinosa launched a source attack against Jones. Come on. Espinosa knows better than that. Whether Jones’s personal finances are managed well is irrelevant to Jones’s argument. Espinosa doesn’t go there.
Answer Choice (E) says Espinosa suggests that Jones overgeneralized. That’s not right. Jones’s argument didn’t overgeneralize. And Espinosa certainly didn’t claim that it did. Here’s what Jones might have argued that would have been an overgeneralization: Back in 2010, France experienced a budget deficit which caused it to impose austerity measures. Those policies resulted in a decade of economic boom that the country has never seen before. Therefore, a budget deficit is good for a country’s finances. Jones is a bit too eager. Just because it worked out for France doesn’t mean it’s generally good. That’s overgeneralization.
This is a Method of Reasoning question.
We’re asked to describe Espinosa’s argument, how he responds to Jones. Jones speaks first. She argues that a budget deficit is good for the country’s finances because it discourages excessive government spending.
Espinosa responds. He says, “That’s like saying…” Okay, pause. At this point, we already know that he’s arguing by analogy. And that’s already enough to hunt out Correct Answer Choice (A). It’s the only one that describes Espinosa’s argument as an argument by analogy.
Okay, so what is it like? It’s like arguing that reaching the credit limit is good for your finances because it discourages excessive spending. He concedes that reaching the credit limit will likely discourage excessive spending. But reaching the credit limit is still a poor financial decision. That never should have happened in the first place. The same goes for the government, meaning the government never should have had a budget deficit to begin with.
(A) accurately describes Espinosa’s argument. His argument about reaching the credit limit is clearly fallacious. He uses that to show that Jones’s argument is analogously fallacious.
Answer Choice (B) says Espinosa demonstrates that Jones’s argument is circular. That it begs the question. That it presupposes what it sets out to prove. That’s not right. Jones’s argument isn’t circular. The premise and the conclusion are different claims. Espinosa doesn’t mistake Jones’s argument for a circular one. Here’s a circular argument that Jones could have made: A budget deficit is good for the country’s finances because spending in excess of revenues improves a nation’s financial situation.
Answer Choice (C) says Espinosa offers empirical evidence that undermines Jones’s conclusion. No, he doesn’t. Here’s what empirical evidence might look like: Back in 2010, France experienced a budget deficit which caused it to default on its treasury bond interest payments. That shattered international confidence in the French government, which resulted in a decade of economic decline. That’s empirical evidence that a budget deficit isn’t good for a country's finances.
Answer Choice (D) says Espinosa launched a source attack against Jones. Come on. Espinosa knows better than that. Whether Jones’s personal finances are managed well is irrelevant to Jones’s argument. Espinosa doesn’t go there.
Answer Choice (E) says Espinosa suggests that Jones overgeneralized. That’s not right. Jones’s argument didn’t overgeneralize. And Espinosa certainly didn’t claim that it did. Here’s what Jones might have argued that would have been an overgeneralization: Back in 2010, France experienced a budget deficit which caused it to impose austerity measures. Those policies resulted in a decade of economic boom that the country has never seen before. Therefore, a budget deficit is good for a country’s finances. Jones is a bit too eager. Just because it worked out for France doesn’t mean it’s generally good. That’s overgeneralization.
This is a Strengthening question.
The psychologist's argument uses scientific reasoning, so we have a phenomenon and a hypothesis. The stimulus describes some observations, which can easily sound like an experiment. If interpreted as an experiment, it's a pretty badly designed experiment. So thinking about what controls we need to improve this "experiment," in other words, contrasting this with what an ideal experiment would look like, will help you solve this question.
The stimulus says most people's blood pressure rises when they talk, but extroverted people experience milder surges when they speak than do introverted people, for whom speaking is more stressful. So we have kind of a classic setup in the premise with two different groups of people and two different results. And the conclusion, or the hypothesis, is that this suggests that blood pressure increases result from the psychological stress of communicating rather than from the physical exertion of speech production.
This is strange. What if physical exertion is something that does affect blood pressure? It sounds reasonable to say that this might be a competing explanation that we would want to examine. If the psychologist had said that it is stress that causes blood pressure to increase and not, for example, the color of the hat someone is wearing, then sure. It makes sense that we would not examine the color of people’s hats since this is unlikely to affect blood pressure.
But the conclusion is ruling out physical exertion while the premise did not give us reasons to do so. In fact, physical exertion is not mentioned at all. And that is why this is a badly designed "experiment." It is not really even an experiment, but rather just an observation, as it does not control for physical exertion or anything else, for that matter. Imagine how weak this argument would be if introverts happened to physically exert more when they spoke than extroverts. Now not only does stress vary with blood pressure, physical exertion also varies with blood pressure. How can you say it is the stress, and not the physical exertion, that is causing the surge in blood pressure?
If you really wanted to figure out if it is psychological stress that causes increases in blood pressure, you would collect a bunch of people and randomly split them into two groups. You would not care if they were introverts or extroverts because these distinctions only mattered since they were thought to be good proxies for the speakers’ stress levels. The conclusion wasn't that introversion caused an increase in blood pressure. It was that stress caused the increase. And because the groups are totally random, people who do a lot of physical exertion and people who do not would be spread out across the two groups as well. Now you have controlled for physical exertion.
And then you intervene in one of the groups. It does not matter which one because they are equalized at the moment. You intervene by stressing out one of the groups as they speak (maybe by inducing conversation on controversial topics), and whatever differential blood pressure you observe, you can be pretty sure it was due to your psychological intervention. That is how you design an ideal experiment.
So you have two options if you want to strengthen this crappy argument. One option is to control for physical exertion: say that the amount of physical exertion is the same for both introverts and extroverts. Another is to say that physical exertion simply does not matter for blood pressure, just as the color of somebody’s hat does not matter.
Correct Answer Choice (D) strongly suggests that physical exertion doesn't matter. On first blush, (D) might seem irrelevant because it does not mention introverts, extroverts, or blood pressure. This is why I generally try not to anticipate answers in Strengthening or Weakening questions, especially in scientific reasoning. LSAT writers can always think of things I cannot think of, and I might be digging myself into a hole by trying to anticipate the answer.
(D) says deaf people experience increased blood pressure when they sign, i.e., communicate, but no change when they move their hands for any other reasons. So (D) is suggesting that it is not the physical exertion that is causing blood pressure to increase. If it were, you would expect to see an increase in both situations.
Do you see how physical exertion, while not equalized, has now at least been somewhat accounted for? (D) does not control for differences in physical exertion between the two groups (for example, it could still be the case that introverts move their hands more than do extroverts) but it does strongly suggest that even if there were differences in physical exertion, it would not be relevant, like the color of your hat.
So what is causing this blood pressure increase? In one situation, they are communicating, and in the other, they are not. So (D) is in fact also hinting that the stress attendant with communication might be causing blood pressure to increase. So (D) is great. Even with (D), you can still poke holes in the argument, but this is okay. In Strengthening questions, you just need to make the argument a little bit better.
Answer Choice (C) says introverted people who do not have chronically high blood pressure often sense the rises in blood pressure that occur when they speak in conversation. So there is a subset of introverts who do not have chronic high blood pressure, and this subset can sense their blood pressures go up. Maybe they feel flushed, dizzy, etc. This doesn't help the argument. Imagine if this group was not so sensitive and could not sense this increase. This would not change the fact that the blood pressure for this group still went up.
In addition, how does this group of introverts relate to introverts in general? And what about introverts who do have chronically high blood pressure? Are they as sensitive? What about extroverts who do or do not have chronic high blood pressure? (C) is silent on all of these questions and completely useless.
Answer Choice (E) is a little better than (C) in that at minimum, it is a comparison. (C) just told us something about a random subset of introverts, but (E) says extroverts are more likely to have chronically high blood pressure than are introverts. On top of that, extroverts are also more likely to take medication to lower their blood pressure.
So (E) is actually kind of relevant, and if anything, it is revealing another hole in the reasoning. It is telling us that extroverts are potentially carrying in this baggage that could undermine the conclusion. If extroverts are taking medication to lower their blood pressure, the observed difference in blood pressure between the two groups could just have been the result of this medication. (E) is offering a competing explanation for why the extroverts’ blood pressure did not go up as much. And I rarely say this, but if this were a Weakening question, I think (E) would actually be a great answer choice.
Answer Choice (A) is kind of interesting in its relationship to (E). (A) says medications designed to lower blood pressure do not keep people who take them from experiencing blood pressure fluctuations when speaking. We saw how (E) weakened the argument by presenting a potential alternative hypothesis. (A) is addressing this very weakness by saying that the extroverts’ medications do not prevent blood pressure surges. Maybe they are designed to just lower ambient levels of blood pressure and do not work when your blood pressure surges.
I do not think (A) is very relevant without its relation to (E), because when we consider (A) alone, we do not even know which group is taking this medication. So where (A) might be relevant is precisely when it saps energy away from (E). But notice how we are now just back to where we were in the beginning. The argument is not any stronger.
Answer Choice (B) says that in general, the lower one's typical blood pressure, the more one's blood pressure will increase under stress. Fair enough, but it seems like (B) is ignoring the argument and just reiterating the conclusion that stress makes your blood pressure go up. This is a classic wrong answer choice in Strengthening questions. It just leaves our argument as good or bad as it ever was.
First, we do not know who has the lower baseline blood pressure since the stimulus just said extroverts experience a milder surge than introverts. And even if we say that the higher surges for introverts were due to a lower baseline and milder surges for extroverts were due to a higher baseline, we are still left with the original hole in the argument. We do not know if it is the stress or the physical exertion that causes surges in blood pressure.
This is a Strengthening question.
The psychologist's argument uses scientific reasoning, so we have a phenomenon and a hypothesis. The stimulus describes some observations, which can easily sound like an experiment. If interpreted as an experiment, it's a pretty badly designed experiment. So thinking about what controls we need to improve this "experiment," in other words, contrasting this with what an ideal experiment would look like, will help you solve this question.
The stimulus says most people's blood pressure rises when they talk, but extroverted people experience milder surges when they speak than do introverted people, for whom speaking is more stressful. So we have kind of a classic setup in the premise with two different groups of people and two different results. And the conclusion, or the hypothesis, is that this suggests that blood pressure increases result from the psychological stress of communicating rather than from the physical exertion of speech production.
This is strange. What if physical exertion is something that does affect blood pressure? It sounds reasonable to say that this might be a competing explanation that we would want to examine. If the psychologist had said that it is stress that causes blood pressure to increase and not, for example, the color of the hat someone is wearing, then sure. It makes sense that we would not examine the color of people’s hats since this is unlikely to affect blood pressure.
But the conclusion is ruling out physical exertion while the premise did not give us reasons to do so. In fact, physical exertion is not mentioned at all. And that is why this is a badly designed "experiment." It is not really even an experiment, but rather just an observation, as it does not control for physical exertion or anything else, for that matter. Imagine how weak this argument would be if introverts happened to physically exert more when they spoke than extroverts. Now not only does stress vary with blood pressure, physical exertion also varies with blood pressure. How can you say it is the stress, and not the physical exertion, that is causing the surge in blood pressure?
If you really wanted to figure out if it is psychological stress that causes increases in blood pressure, you would collect a bunch of people and randomly split them into two groups. You would not care if they were introverts or extroverts because these distinctions only mattered since they were thought to be good proxies for the speakers’ stress levels. The conclusion wasn't that introversion caused an increase in blood pressure. It was that stress caused the increase. And because the groups are totally random, people who do a lot of physical exertion and people who do not would be spread out across the two groups as well. Now you have controlled for physical exertion.
And then you intervene in one of the groups. It does not matter which one because they are equalized at the moment. You intervene by stressing out one of the groups as they speak (maybe by inducing conversation on controversial topics), and whatever differential blood pressure you observe, you can be pretty sure it was due to your psychological intervention. That is how you design an ideal experiment.
So you have two options if you want to strengthen this crappy argument. One option is to control for physical exertion: say that the amount of physical exertion is the same for both introverts and extroverts. Another is to say that physical exertion simply does not matter for blood pressure, just as the color of somebody’s hat does not matter.
Correct Answer Choice (D) strongly suggests that physical exertion doesn't matter. On first blush, (D) might seem irrelevant because it does not mention introverts, extroverts, or blood pressure. This is why I generally try not to anticipate answers in Strengthening or Weakening questions, especially in scientific reasoning. LSAT writers can always think of things I cannot think of, and I might be digging myself into a hole by trying to anticipate the answer.
(D) says deaf people experience increased blood pressure when they sign, i.e., communicate, but no change when they move their hands for any other reasons. So (D) is suggesting that it is not the physical exertion that is causing blood pressure to increase. If it were, you would expect to see an increase in both situations.
Do you see how physical exertion, while not equalized, has now at least been somewhat accounted for? (D) does not control for differences in physical exertion between the two groups (for example, it could still be the case that introverts move their hands more than do extroverts) but it does strongly suggest that even if there were differences in physical exertion, it would not be relevant, like the color of your hat.
So what is causing this blood pressure increase? In one situation, they are communicating, and in the other, they are not. So (D) is in fact also hinting that the stress attendant with communication might be causing blood pressure to increase. So (D) is great. Even with (D), you can still poke holes in the argument, but this is okay. In Strengthening questions, you just need to make the argument a little bit better.
Answer Choice (C) says introverted people who do not have chronically high blood pressure often sense the rises in blood pressure that occur when they speak in conversation. So there is a subset of introverts who do not have chronic high blood pressure, and this subset can sense their blood pressures go up. Maybe they feel flushed, dizzy, etc. This doesn't help the argument. Imagine if this group was not so sensitive and could not sense this increase. This would not change the fact that the blood pressure for this group still went up.
In addition, how does this group of introverts relate to introverts in general? And what about introverts who do have chronically high blood pressure? Are they as sensitive? What about extroverts who do or do not have chronic high blood pressure? (C) is silent on all of these questions and completely useless.
Answer Choice (E) is a little better than (C) in that at minimum, it is a comparison. (C) just told us something about a random subset of introverts, but (E) says extroverts are more likely to have chronically high blood pressure than are introverts. On top of that, extroverts are also more likely to take medication to lower their blood pressure.
So (E) is actually kind of relevant, and if anything, it is revealing another hole in the reasoning. It is telling us that extroverts are potentially carrying in this baggage that could undermine the conclusion. If extroverts are taking medication to lower their blood pressure, the observed difference in blood pressure between the two groups could just have been the result of this medication. (E) is offering a competing explanation for why the extroverts’ blood pressure did not go up as much. And I rarely say this, but if this were a Weakening question, I think (E) would actually be a great answer choice.
Answer Choice (A) is kind of interesting in its relationship to (E). (A) says medications designed to lower blood pressure do not keep people who take them from experiencing blood pressure fluctuations when speaking. We saw how (E) weakened the argument by presenting a potential alternative hypothesis. (A) is addressing this very weakness by saying that the extroverts’ medications do not prevent blood pressure surges. Maybe they are designed to just lower ambient levels of blood pressure and do not work when your blood pressure surges.
I do not think (A) is very relevant without its relation to (E), because when we consider (A) alone, we do not even know which group is taking this medication. So where (A) might be relevant is precisely when it saps energy away from (E). But notice how we are now just back to where we were in the beginning. The argument is not any stronger.
Answer Choice (B) says that in general, the lower one's typical blood pressure, the more one's blood pressure will increase under stress. Fair enough, but it seems like (B) is ignoring the argument and just reiterating the conclusion that stress makes your blood pressure go up. This is a classic wrong answer choice in Strengthening questions. It just leaves our argument as good or bad as it ever was.
First, we do not know who has the lower baseline blood pressure since the stimulus just said extroverts experience a milder surge than introverts. And even if we say that the higher surges for introverts were due to a lower baseline and milder surges for extroverts were due to a higher baseline, we are still left with the original hole in the argument. We do not know if it is the stress or the physical exertion that causes surges in blood pressure.