Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “How is Judy’s response related to John’s argument?”
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. Our first speaker, John, begins with a statistic. We learn that because 80% of fault accidents occur near the home, John concludes that people are driving less safely near the home. But where does that come from? Here, John is making an assumption. He presumes that because these accidents are congregated in one area, it must be the driver causing these accidents rather than the location contributing to that higher percentage.
Our second speaker, Judy, points out what John fails to consider. Rather than introduce her own conclusion Judy adds a consideration when evaluating John’s argument. While John assumes it’s the driver causing these accidents, Judy points out the frequency of the driving route plays a factor here. Explaining that most of our driving is done close to home provides an alternative explanation for the statistic John stated above. Giving us a reason to doubt John’s argument indicates that Judy is undermining the evidence used that would support John’s main point.
Knowing that our second speaker adds an alternative interpretation rather than a new claim, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is what we are looking for. Judy is giving us reason to question John’s argument rather than giving us a reason to support a new conclusion. This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies how Judy calls out the assumption in John’s argument.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice tells us that Judy restates the evidence provided by John rather than giving us a reason to question the evidence. In addition to this issue, if Judy were to “restate” the facts from John, we would expect to find only restated information we are already familiar with. For these reasons, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) Based on the stimulus, we know Judy is weakening rather than strengthening John’s position. Otherwise our second speaker would not be questioning the validity of the first speaker’s interpretation. Because this answer choice indicates Judy is supportive rather than against John’s reasoning, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice starts out strong by telling us Judy points out some sort of assumption. But, this answer choice does not correctly outline what that assumption is. Rather than assuming when people are going on long trips, Judy is questioning the amount of short trips (close to home) these drivers are making.
Answer Choice (E) Here comes circular reasoning! This answer choice claims Judy accused John of circular reasoning. This type of reasoning occurs when we conclude the conclusion happened, well, because the conclusion happened. We know the correct answer will point out Judy’s questioning of interpretation of the evidence rather than repetition of evidence, so we can eliminate this answer choice.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning in Thomas’ argument is flawed because his argument…”
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.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Although this question only requires us to understand what is happening in Thomas’s argument, we can use the second speaker as a means of confirming the flaw in question.
Our first speaker begins the discussion by telling us the club president had no right to disallow Jeffrey’s vote. The reasoning for this is that Jeffrey paid his dues, and only those who pay their dues are able to vote. On the basis of this Jeffrey concludes the club president acted in violation of club rules by disallowing Jeffrey’s vote.
Unfortunately, Thomas is making sufficient and necessary conditions here. We are told that P (paying dues) → G (makes a member in good standing). But as it stands there is no guarantee that simply because we are in good standing we are guaranteed the right to vote. Actually, it’s written by Thomas the other way around.
The stimulus affirms that if you are a V (voting member) → G (you are a member in good standing). But notice how there is no way to draw any sort of conclusion from the presence of being in “good standing” alone. Being in good standing does not guarantee you are able to vote – it simply means the possibility exists. Thus, we cannot confirm the validity of Thomas’s conclusion that the club president was objectively in the wrong. Because there is no guarantee that just because Jeffrey is in good standing, there is not some other requirement that makes him ineligible to vote.
Knowing we are looking for the answer choice that hits on this sufficient/necessary confusion, 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 lays out the exact flaw of our stimulus in a descriptively correct manner. Simply because Jeffrey has a prerequisite to vote doesn’t mean he has a guaranteed right to vote.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively correct. If Thomas were attacking the character of the club president, our evidence would be far less based in conditional reasoning.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is descriptively inaccurate due to the scope it contains. Answer choice C says that under any circumstances (not just in the world of Jeffrey’s club and their voting issues) whenever a statement is not denied, it is true. This answer choice goes far beyond the scope established by Thomas’s conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is descriptively correct but ultimately irrelevant when it comes to finding our flaw. Whether or not the exact issue being voted on is specified does not point out the sufficient and necessary confusion present in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice brings our second speaker into the mix. But without a reference to Althea’s position in Thomas’s argument, we can eliminate this answer choice as descriptively incorrect.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?” 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.
The speaker begins with a good contender for the conclusion - that weapons production plans are equally wasteful as inflated government spending. We know this is our conclusion because the speaker follows with the support behind it. The government is building a weapons plant that violates 69 laws when it could build a safer one. Huh? What does the passing or not passing of laws have to do with taxpayer dollars? This is where we can spot the assumption being made by the speaker. A comparative conclusion about wasteful spending needs some sort of support that confirms a comparative about wasteful spensing. This argument is flawed because the evidence they give for the conclusion does not actually respond to the issues being presented in this debate.
Knowing our correct answer choice will point out the irrelevant evidence introduced by our speaker, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in our stimulus. The argument is flawed because the evidence is irrelevant. Not because the author fails to provide us with some sort of evidence. Whether or not the alternative production site is actually safer does not impact our argument - it adds detail to evidence we already know is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. In order for our argument to be conceding something we need to see our author agree with a point that does not appear to be completely consistent with their position. Additionally, we do not see evidence that serves to undermine the conclusion in the stimulus. Instead of seeing harmful evidence, we see evidence that really does nothing at all.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice is the only one that points out the irrelevance of the evidence used in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Suggesting the argument confuses a necessary condition for wasteful research spending means our stimulus presents some sort of requirement for this research. Without any sort of reference to a requirement we cannot call this a conditional reasoning flaw as is suggested by answer choice D.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is factually correct, but not the ultimate issue in our stimulus. Our issue is not really that they haven’t explained the comparison between these two institutions. Our problem is that they are supporting the comparison using information completely unrelated to the topic that they are trying to use to compare these groups.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “Which one of the following describes a reasoning error in the argument?” 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.
The argument begins by telling us about a belief held by people who support the continued reading of Shakespeare. This group argues that appreciation for Shakespeare has always extended beyond the wealthy elites because the words were loved by uneducated people. This seems to be a fine argument, but our speaker disagrees. We are told the idea that uneducated people liked the works of Shakespeare is questionable because the books they were printed on were beyond the reach of people of ordinary means.
This is where we can see the assumption being made by the speaker. Our argument concludes that uneducated people are unlikely to appreciate Shakespeare because the print versions themselves are expensive. But a print copy is not the only way people may become familiar with Shakespeare’s plays. Maybe they were able to attend a show themselves. Knowing our speaker incorrectly concludes that obtaining a print version is the only way to become familiar with and appreciate the plays, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. This answer choice connects the popularity of the plays to the quality of the plays themselves. But our argument does not actually concern how good the plays are - instead, we are debating the groups that were able to access and appreciate them.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Although the basis of the conclusion does rest in evidence we could argue is economical, our stimulus does not come to an aesthetic conclusion about Shakespeare's works. This type of conclusion implies a discussion about the quality of the works as good or bad, which was the reason we could not select answer choice A.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Answer choice C accuses our stimulus of applying the standards of the 18th century in an anachronistically - or out of order way. Our stimulus focuses on the factual events known at one time rather than applying standards in an out of order fashion. For this reason, we can eliminate answer choice C.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice commits a similar error to the first two. This answer is not descriptively accurate because of its discussion of literary quality on the basis of print quality. Again, the stimulus does not actually tell us whether they think Shakespeare’s works were good or bad. Instead, we are entirely concerned with how individuals of uneducated classes obtained access to them.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice is the only option that points out the assumption made by our stimulus. If the author concludes a lack of access because of the expense of print books, they are assuming the people of these uneducated classes had no other means to access the content.