Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The argumentative strategy of the investigator quoted is to…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker.
The stimulus begins by providing us with a phenomenon. Disturbances in the desert are found that appear on footpaths that expand for long distances. The question requires us to describe the reasoning used by the quoted investigator. The investigator concludes the discovered paths could not have been incan roads because the roads would be of little use to the incas due to their adjacent placement and abrupt ending point.
Knowing that our correct answer will highlight how the investigator questions the value the roads would have served the Incas, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate because it brings up the idea of counterevidence. Our investigator does not depend on additional evidence to make their claim. Instead the investigator reinterprets the evidence we already have. For this reason we can eliminate answer choice A.
Answer Choice (B) Similarly to answer choice A, this is not descriptively accurate based on the answer choice’s summary of evidence. This answer choice suggests that the investigator provides new information to support their conclusion. Knowing our investigator questions the evidence we already have, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for. This is the only answer choice that points out the investigator’s questioning of current evidence. This answer choice correctly highlights how the investigator’s conclusion only goes so far as to say what the function of the pathways likely did not serve.
Answer Choice (D) In order for this answer choice to be correct our stimulus would have to refer to the methods used by various investigators to determine their conclusions. Without any reference to the methods used to compile this information we can eliminate answer choice D.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not correct because it claims that our stimulus reconciles two different perspectives. If this were correct we would expect our stimulus to discuss the joining or explanation of a conflict between two different theories. Without this information we can eliminate answer choice E.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “the conclusion that the first sentence in the passage is flawed because…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
This flaw question requires us to have a strong understanding of the argument’s structure. The stimulus begins by telling us the role of the supreme court in this particular country is to protect human rights. Makes sense enough. Things get complicated when our author tells us that the court sometimes needs to go outside of the country’s constitution to figure out how to make decisions on rulings. This is a problem because, as the speaker explains, needing to go outside the constitution inherently makes the court likely not to uphold human rights (by putting themselves at the whim of whoever holds power.) We see the conclusion arise within a linking clause at the end of the text where we are told “it cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.”
So, according to our first sentence the court’s role is to protect against human rights abuses. But our author is concluding that contrary to the premise (hey, aren’t we supposed to accept those?) the role of the supreme court is not to protect human rights. Our speaker is telling us the first premise is wrong because premise #3 (needing to adhere to one specific source) exists. Remember the role of our conclusion here. The conclusion is a statement that absolutely must follow based on the truth of the premises. But the truth of premise #1 directly contradicts with our conclusion!
Knowing that our speaker makes a conclusion by rejecting the truth of one of the premises, we can get into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. The argument is accused of ignoring data, but we do not see information aside from overall general trends and requirements here. On top of that this answer choice states that the argument uses a “single example” which we can reject for the same reason. Our stimulus focuses on the requirements of a goal rather than a specific instance of that thing happening.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. When it says “seeks to defend a view on the grounds…” The answer choice is assuming the stimulus of using the following information directly in the argument. But nowhere in the stimulus do we see a reference to a view being “widely held” in order for the conclusion to be accepted.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. When saying the argument “rejects a claim as false on the grounds…” the “grounds” have to line up with the evidence we saw in the stimulus. But the topic of profit appeared nowhere in the discussion of the role of the court.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. But we can categorize this common logical flaw by its name; part-to-whole. For this answer choice to be correct, we would need to see a reference to some individual trait of each member of the court and connection to the traits of the whole. This definitely does not line up with our stimulus.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively accurate flaw answer choice is difficult to unwind. By suggesting it is “equally possible for that premise to be true and some other premise false,” we see the alternative hypothesis. Just as we can conclude premise #3 right and premise #1 wrong, we can reverse our reasoning the same way. This is the only answer choice that points out that our argument ignores the fact that premises are accepted as equally true statements in the absence of any conclusion indicating language.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “which of the following techniques of reasoning is employed in the argument?”
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.
Our speaker lays out a survey and the results surrounding it. We are told a survey asked respondents how old they felt. The respondent almost unanimously said that they felt 75% of their actual age. Our speaker claims that there is a problem with this result because of the undesirable effect of a hypothetical scenario; if we repeatedly asked the respondents this question they might continue to give the exact same answer. Thus, the author concludes, this undesirable outcome means the survey results are problematic.
Our author makes a conclusion about the survey results on the basis of a situation that is unlikely to happen. The survey probably is not going to repeatedly ask the same person the same question. Because even if they did, there is no telling that the respondents would change their askers! If someone asks me how old I feel and the answer is 23, the answer is not going to change just because someone bugs me with the same question repeatedly.
Knowing that this argument uses an unreasonable hypothetical to support their claim, we can jump into the answer choices.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This answer choice correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. By telling us that the argument references “hypothetical earlier responses of a single individual…” we can identify this to be the only answer choice hitting on the repetition assumed by the argument. Additionally, the answer choice echoes how the argument uses a comparison between one individual and a quality we can give to the results of a group of people.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice incorrectly describes the issue our author has with the survey. By telling us that the stimulus questions the results based on what would “have been the most reasonable thing for them to say,” this answer choice goes beyond the scope of the stimulus. In fact, the problem is that our argument does not consider the reasonable interpretations we can actually draw from the survey.
Answer Choice (C) We do not see an “overly sweeping” generalization in our argument as suggested by this answer choice. While the author does conclude something about all the survey results on the basis of one hypothetical, the problem is that the hypothetical chosen is unreasonable. Because of this, our prediction actually contradicts this answer choice. From the beginning, we can identify that the author’s “counterexample” is certainly poorly chosen rather than well chosen.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice does not line up with what we see in the structure of the argument. This answer tells us that a contradiction is used to prove that one of two statements is false. But we do not quite see a contradiction in our argument. Instead, we are told about an end result that would be silly or nonsensical rather than one that is in contradiction with another idea. Additionally, our argument strives to prove there is a problem in understanding the survey results rather than to prove the results are false.
Answer Choice (E) Our argument does not contain “manipulation of the questionnaires,” as suggested by this answer choice. On top of that, the survey results are being used to prove whether the results can be interesting rather than for the purpose of showing what the questionnaires were trying to accomplish. Furthermore, this is descriptively inaccurate based on the second premise which tells us we do not have completely unanimous results when it comes to the survey.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: A flaw in the reasoning of the passage is that it…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
Our stimulus begins by laying out factual information about the difficulty of giving birth over 40, and the likelihood of a difficult birth leading the child to be ambidextrous. The author claims the facts above prove there must be more ambidextrous babies born to mothers over 40 than there are born to younger mothers.
In order for a comparison conclusion to hold up we need to be able to assume our groups are, well, comparable. This is where we can identify the assumption being made in the argument. Our stimulus supports its conclusion by comparing two groups (younger and older mothers) that are clearly different in one clear regard. A woman is more likely to give birth below the age of 40 than they are above the age of 40.
Let’s consider this to the extreme to best see the problem in this stimulus. Say that we have 10 mothers who gave birth under 40 and only 1 mother who gave birth after 40. This scenario would not allow us to draw the conclusion we see in the stimulus. Sure, the older mother is more likely to have an ambidextrous baby and that mother is more likely to have a difficult birth, but there is no guarantee there will be more ambidextrous babies born to mothers over 40. For all we know, very few women give birth above the age of 40 based on the strictions of our stimulus.
Knowing our flaw that we can’t definitively prove more babies are born to mothers in this age range, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) We know this answer is not descriptively accurate because it accuses our argument of circular reasoning - when we can conclude A happened because A happened. But we do not see an instance of our conclusion being used as evidence for our main point.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice hits on the problem that the increased likelihood of something occurring does not equal a higher number of that thing will result.
Answer Choice (C) This answer is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate problem in our stimulus. The percentage of people who are ambidextrous in the entire population does ont weigh on our conclusion comparing specifically those born to older or younger mothers.
Answer Choice (D) This answer is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate problem in our stimulus. The age of a child in determining handedness is not an issue - if anything, what matters in our discussion is the age of the mother.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is descriptively accurate but not our overall flaw. We care about the number of children with this trait rather than the means through which they acquire it. For this reason, we can eliminate answer choice E.