We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “the relationship of Ping’s response to Winston’s argument is that Ping’s response…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
This question presents us with two speakers. Right away, we should recognize that there are two conclusions and two reasons behind them. In this case we are analyzing two speakers taking varying positions on proposed budget cuts by the public transit authority. Our first speaker explains the transit authority cannot avoid a deficit unless it eliminates some services. Winston says that because the other means of avoiding the deficit (like fair increases) are not an option, the suggested cuts should be made. While our first speaker ends with a conclusion that affirms a recommendation on an action, our second speaker takes a different perspective. Winston’s argument seems to make sense as long as we are in agreement on what things should be done. If the city is interested in operating with a deficit, that would be evidence it should be pursued.
Ping responds to the first speaker’s argument without addressing Winston’s overall conclusion. Ping points out that there is potential for the budget cuts to not lead to much savings because the cuts would affect riders leaving home during the day but returning at night. By pointing out a possible event Winston does not think about, Ping explains how the first argument actually does not have the evidence necessary to support the conclusion that the budget cuts should be made.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice does not line up with the structure of our argument. While this answer choice states the argument “carefully refines terms,” we do not see the explanation of a term or disagreement with how Winston defined the different parts of their argument.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This answer choice correctly summarizes the different components of our argument by pointing out that Ping questions the first speaker’s evidence, but not the overall conclusion. We can confirm this answer choice by double checking to confirm Ping points out a group of riders left unconsidered rather than argue against Winston’s conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) We can eliminate this answer choice when it tells us that Ping is supplying a premise to Winston’s argument. Supplying a premise suggests that Ping is supporting Winston’s argument rather than questioning (weakening) the assumption on which Winston’s position depends.
Answer Choice (D) By claiming our argument introduces detailed statistical evidence, we know this answer choice does not line up with the structure of the stimulus. For this answer choice to be correct we would need to see a reference to statistical evidence, detailed or otherwise. Aside from that, this answer choice says the statistical evidence (that we do not have) is more persuasive - where does that idea come from?
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice does not line up with the structure of our stimulus most clearly because of the word contradicting. For this answer choice to be correct we need to see two ideas in the stimulus that don’t just appear inconsistent, but that directly contradict one another. Not only do we fail to see ping propose a solution as suggested by answer choice E, but we also cannot find contradictory ideas in the stimulus. We instead see factors that were previously unconsidered.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The sales manager counters the production manager’s argument by…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker. Immediately we should note we have two speakers in our stimulus. That means we need to be on the lookout for two conclusions and two sets of explanations. The production manager begins by explaining there are safety risks associated with the business’s current products. Thus, the production manager concludes, the company should instead produce only the new safe version of their product.
The sales manager disagrees with this position. Using a hypothetical the second speaker explains that without money, they cannot produce a safer product. This leads to the sales manager’s ultimate conclusion that the safer product cannot be a market success without continuing production of the less safe product.
Our second speaker furthers their point by laying out a hypothetical with a negative outcome - a world where we follow the production manager’s recommendations but ultimately end up without being able to produce the safer product everyone desires.
Knowing our correct answer choice will discuss the sales manager’s use of a hypothetical and the potential negative consequences of the alternative, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that points out what the sales manager knows is an issue – the existence of the safer product depends on the success in the market of the less safe product.
Answer Choice (B) If our speaker were challenging the authority of someone, we would anticipate language questioning someone’s qualifications or experience. Without this information we can eliminate answer choice B from consideration.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice accuses our speaker of a conclusion far beyond what we can find in the sales manager’s argument. Instead of assuming that a product is safe because it is comparatively safer than another product, our speakers are concerned with the ability to produce the products at all.
Answer Choice (D) We do not see any sort of suggested change in standards by which the safety of these products is judged.
Answer Choice (E) There is nowhere in the discussion where we see the potential impact of technology arise as some sort of reasoning for the conclusion. Without this information, we can eliminate answer choice E.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “the relationship of Y’s response to X’s argument is that Y’s response…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
This question presents us with two speakers. Right away, we should recognize that there are two conclusions and two reasons behind them. In this case we are analyzing two speakers taking varying positions on the topic of animal research. Speaker X concludes that medical research should not be reduced given the reason that the tradeoff between human and animal welfare is inevitable in these trials. And obviously, according to X, we should prioritize the humans who would benefit from the suffering of the animals. Essentially telling us that the harm is worth the gains.
Speaker Y undermines this position by changing the rules of the game. What if we can still value human welfare, and experiment on animals, but simply in a way that won’t cause them harm? In doing so, our second speaker points out that the assumption underlying X’s argument does not hold. We can conclude we should not reduce the experiments if there is no other alternative to completing them. Y points out exactly that alternative.
Knowing the conclusions of each speaker and the support behind them, we can jump into answer choice elimination about the methods employed in Y’s response.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This answer choice correctly describes the structure of our entire argument by pointing out that argument A relies on an argument (that experimentation cannot exist without animal suffering) and points out that it does not apply to the constraints of the debate.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice does not correctly summarize the structure of the argument. By telling us that Y “disagrees with X about the weight to be given to animal suffering” the answer is asserting information we do not see in Y’s argument. The weight of animal suffering is not the issue here. Instead, we are concerned with whether the process of animal suffering is required or not to continue these research projects.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice does not line up with what we are looking for. By stating that the argument is explaining a “logical consequence” of X’s argument, the answer claims our second speaker is using the reasoning of speaker X against them. But Y is not using the opinions of X - instead, our second speaker points out what assumptions weaken the initial argument.
Answer Choice (D) We can eliminate this answer choice immediately upon seeing the word strengthen. If speaker Y were strengthening speaker X’s argument, we would see something that is attempting to fix the assumption. Our second speaker is attempting to weaken the initial argument by pointing out the assumption speaker X bases their position on does not actually exist.
Answer Choice (E) We can eliminate this answer choice once we see the phrase “supplies a premise.”
Presenting a premise would suggest speaker Y is giving us evidence to go along with the position of speaker X. But we don’t see a premise presented for speaker X’s argument. Instead we see an assumption that makes speaker X unreasonable.