This is a flaw/descriptive weakening question, and we know this because of the question stem: Which one of the following is a flaw in the argument?
The stimulus says that the 1980s has been characterized by a time of selfishness that is dangerous for our cohesiveness. The author then introduces his conclusion that selfish individualism that threatens the cohesion of society is true of any time. He supports this by saying that throughout history all humans have been motivated by selfishness. Then, he provides more support by saying even those acts that would be seen as “unselfish” were actually motivated by selfish concern for the human species.
Hold on - isn’t “selfish concern for the human species” not selfish? If you’re concerned for humans as a species, that’s not the same thing as selfish individualism.
Answer Choice (A) is not descriptively accurate - this claim is very important to providing support to the conclusion.
Answer Choice (B) is descriptively accurate but it’s not the flaw. We don’t need statistical evidence to prove the conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) is descriptively inaccurate; the argument says that selfishness occurs throughout history.
Answer Choice (D) is descriptively accurate; however, whether or not other species are selfish is inconsequential to the argument. We’re talking specifically about humans.
Correct Answer Choice (E) points out the equivocation flaw within the argument; there are two meanings of “selfish” being used: selfish individuals and self concern for the human species.
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.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument uses which of the following argumentative techniques?”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker.
The stimulus begins with the author’s conclusion; the government has no right to tax earnings from labor. This conclusion follows with the reasoning of the argument. Taxes would require the employee to work for another’s purpose (the government) and it therefore meets one of the qualifications of indentured servitude. This connects back to our overall conclusion because the speaker uses the connection between taxes and indentured servitude to justify a moratorium on taxing labor.
By using indentured servitude as the reasoning for the main point our author is already making an assumption. If this type of work brings us to a conclusion about taxes, our argument assumes that these are two very comparable things. But we don’t know they share every quality – only that both taxing and indentured servitude are both working for another’s purpose. Perhaps taxation includes some sort of greater benefit that would make it ideal despite technically working for “another’s purpose.”
Knowing our correct answer choice will point out our author uses one quality to relate the entirety of two different things, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice starts out strong by telling us the stimulus outlines a general principle. But our stimulus does not justify that principle on the basis of a governmental obligation as claimed by this answer choice. For that reason we can take this one out of the running.
Answer Choice (B) By saying that the stimulus infers what will happen on the basis of what happened previously, this answer choice accuses our speaker of using the past as evidence for the future. But instead, our speaker uses a similarity between two ideas to support the conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This correct answer choice aligns well with our prediction by saying that the author compares two institutions who could have one very contrasting quality.
Answer Choice (D) Citing the authority of a theory means this answer accuses our speaker of using some well respected or renown information to support the conclusion. We can eliminate this answer choice because we know what the author uses as evidence: a comparison, rather than a respected figure.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice accuses our speaker of presupposing an inevitability - something that is absolutely going to occur. But our stimulus does not get that far. While the speaker asserts that the government has no right to collect labor taxes, we do not know whether the lack of collection will be inevitable.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “James responds to Maria’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. Our first speaker, Maria, begins by introducing her conclusion; calling a state totalitarian is misleading. Already we can identify that Maria takes issue with the application of this definition. The reasoning she presents is that no government can truly express total control of every aspect of life. From this we can see the definition Maria approves when it comes to totalitarian regimes. To use the word totalitarian, she expects that country to have total control. Makes sense enough. But is it possible there is another definition of totalitarianism that would make the label accurate?
This question is answered by our second speaker. James widens the interpretation of the term totalitarian. In contrast to Maria, he tells us a totalitarian system is one that tries to control most aspects of society. Just because the government does not succeed in taking total control does not reflect that they really did at least try to seize that control. By doing this we know James is introducing a new possible definition of totalitarianism.
Knowing that our correct answer choice will highlight the way James alters the definition used by Maria, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is incorrect because it focuses on inconsistencies. This answer claims John points out contradictory information in Maria’s argument. We can eliminate this answer choice knowing that John responds by bringing his own interpretation of an important term into the mix.
Answer Choice (B) This answer does not line up with the argument John presents. Instead of providing an explanation of the political conditions as claimed by this answer choice, the second speaker presents us with a different explanation of the definition itself.
Answer Choice (C) By claiming that James “rejects evidence,” this answer choice accuses the second speaker disagrees with one or more of the premises introduced by Maria. But John does not disagree with what Maria has claimed - degree of control is inevitably partial rather than total. It’s the interpretation of the definition that John takes issue with in Maria’s argument. For this reason we can eliminate the answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly indicates that James questions Maria’s position by concluding a different definitions applies to the term totalitarian.
Answer Choice (E) Our second speaker concludes their own definition using considerations not introduced by our first speaker. Instead of explaining that Maria’s premises lead to a different conclusion, James presents new information to support his own position on the definition of totalitarian.
From the question stem, we can tell that our only job here is to find the main point of the argument of the first speaker, Maria. It asks, “Which one of the following most accurately expresses Maria’s main conclusion?” Therefore, let’s read Maria’s argument first and put her conclusion into our own words. If we’re really lost, we can read James’ argument to see how it is different from or echoes Maria’s, but it won’t be absolutely necessary.
Maria begins with a claim that doing something is misleading for a specific reason. Doing what? Well, calling any state totalitarian. And why can’t we say that a state is totalitarian without being deceptive? We learn that doing so assumes that the government has total control over all aspects of life. Not quite sure yet why that’s misleading, but I can make a few guesses… maybe that’s unrealistic in practice. The rest of the argument might make this connection more clear. As of now, though, the second claim (what happens if one calls a state totalitarian) increases the likelihood of truth of the first (that this action is actually deceiving). So, we’re guessing the first part of the sentence before the colon is the conclusion. Let’s read on to confirm.
Here we go! This claim adds information about something true in the “real world,” that a political entity with “literally total control” over any given piece of life simply does not exist. There’s the practical application falling short that we were expecting. We then gather some sort of support for this claim: it’s true because systems of control are always inefficient, which means their degrees of control are incomplete. Now, our only job is to decipher whether the claim about the real world, or the claim about calling any state totalitarian, is the author’s ultimate conclusion. Both have supporting claims, or premises. Does the fact that totalitarian states don’t exist in the real world make us more likely to believe that calling any state totalitarian is misleading? Well, yes, because if totalitarian states don’t actually exist, it would be incorrect to call a state totalitarian. I’m searching my AC’s for a rephrase of the claim that one can’t call a state totalitarian without being misleading.
Correct Answer Choice (A) Right on the money. This is a perfect rephrase, just like we wanted. Let’s make sure none of the other AC’s are contenders, but it looks like we don’t even have to read James’ argument after all!
Answer Choice (B) A couple things are wrong here. On one hand, did Maria write this argument to set up some conditional statement about the requirements for being a totalitarian state? No, she wrote it to claim that you can’t correctly call any state totalitarian. It might describe a premise, but not her conclusion. Furthermore, Maria never specifically said that it was necessary for a state to totally control society in order to be totalitarian, just that total state control was implied by calling a state totalitarian.
Answer Choice (C) This looks like a rephrase of a fragment of that final premise that also involves some inferences. Any system of control (a state’s power over society, I suppose) is inefficient, and is therefore necessarily partial. However, this ended up supporting that first sentence, making it a premise instead of the main conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) This is a rephrase of that first premise, telling us, hey! In the real world, total state control over even one aspect of life doesn’t exist! We know this is a premise because it makes the conclusion––that calling a state totalitarian is misleading––more likely to be true. See how predictable these wrong AC’s get?
Answer Choice (E) Again, another rephrase of a claim that isn’t the conclusion! This matches what was stated in the first part of the final sentence, which we have already deemed a premise supporting our conclusion.
This is a Necessary Assumption question which we know because the question stem is indicating the correct answer is required. If Bart’s argument is going to work, then the correct answer must be true. Or said another way, if the correct answer is not true, then Bart’s argument will fail completely.
So, our argument starts with what seems like context. A supercomputer solved a math problem that had gone unsolved for centuries. Okay, that’s really cool, but what about it? Well, the supercomputing process to solve the problem is so mind-bendingly complicated that it’s beyond the comprehension of literally everyone. No one actually fully understands the computer’s process. Ok, sure, but why is the result necessarily unacceptable just because of that? This feels like the conclusion because it has given us a reason for why we should accept this claim as true. It’s not a very well developed argument. We’re drawing our conclusion from just a single premise: “No one understands the computer’s process. Therefore, the result is unacceptable.”
There’s a huge gaping hole in this argument. Structurally, this argument is just:
Because A,
therefore B.
Well, you can’t just say “A therefore B.” However intuitively related our terms may seem, this argument is structurally terrible. We haven’t established any logical connection between our premise and conclusion. It may be a bad argument, but it makes our job easy. We’re almost certainly going to be seeing an answer that ties A and B together. Specifically, an “if A then B” answer would always be a winner here. This is a bit tricky, though, because “if A then B” would not just be necessary but also sufficient. Sometimes, you can get an answer that is both, though, and this specific argument structure is one where we see this a lot. Remember that the question is asking about what’s necessary for the argument as a whole, not just for what’s necessary for the conclusion. So while the conclusion by itself does not require an “if A then B” premise, the argument does because “the argument” refers to both the premises and conclusion. That is why this sufficient assumption will also be absolutely necessary here.
So, we’re expecting an “if A then B” sort of answer that should say something to the effect of “if no one can wrap their head around the computer’s process, then the result is unacceptable.”
Answer Choice (A) No, this doesn’t have to be true. It’s unacceptable because we don’t understand what the super computer did, not because it was the computer that solved it. If we could understand how the computer solved it, I don’t see any reason why Bart would have a problem with this.
Correct Answer Choice (B) Correct. This is exactly what we should have been expecting. Someone has to understand what happened for the result to be acceptable. If no one understands it, the result is unacceptable. That’s our “if A, then B.”
Answer Choice (C) Just like with answer choice A, this really just doesn’t matter. Our only premise is that no human understands what the computer did to solve it. That reason alone is why the result is unacceptable. So all the supercomputers in the world can solve this thing if they want, the result would still be unacceptable (according to Bart) if no human could figure out what they’re doing and how they’re deriving the solution.
Answer Choice (D) Maybe a less complex result would be insufficient to solve it. Or maybe a less complex solution is still too complex for humans to understand. Who knows. Whatever the case, this just doesn’t have to be the case.
Answer Choice (E) Well this one is interesting. According to Bart, it certainly hasn’t. But that is not to say it can’t. Maybe there is another way the computer could process the problem that would be possible for someone to figure out. This possibility is certainly not precluded because Bart’s conclusion is only addressing this one, specific result. That allows for different conclusions concerning different results.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Dr. Nash responds to Dr. Godfrey’s argument by doing which of the following?”
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. Our first speaker, Dr. Godfrey, points out a correlation. We learn that high school students who are now working over 15 hours per week receive lower grades than their peers. Dr. Godfrey concludes that because these overlap that the first (working) must be causing the second (lower grades). While that is one possible interpretation of a correlation, we know that just because two things happen at the same time does not mean they happen because of each other.
Dr. Nash points out the interpretation Dr. Godfrey has forgotten is just as likely. It does not have to be the case that having a job causes low grades. It could just as easily be the case that students receiving low grades turn to after school jobs to begin building careers or their self esteem. Using structural analysis we can identify the first speaker incorrectly concludes A because B. Meanwhile, Dr. Nash points out it is just as likely we have B because A.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice does not match the structure of our argument. By telling us that the argument attempts to “downplay the seriousness of the problems,” the answer ascribes a position to Dr. Nash that cannot be supported. Dr. Nash makes no comment on how serious these problems are. They could be big, they could be small. The only information Dr. Nash responds with is the direction of causation the arrow could be pointing toward.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for. This answer choice correctly summarizes the structure of our entire argument by affirming that Dr. Nash points out a possible alternative outcome. This is the only answer choice that points out how Dr. Nash corrects Dr. Godfrey’s causation mistake.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice does not line up with the structure of the stimulus. This answer choice claims Dr. Nash has a problem with the accuracy of Dr. Godfrey’s evidence. But a conclusion built on this argument would reference the validity of the numbers in some way shape or form. We know that accuracy of the evidence isn’t the problem in our argument - it’s the interpretation of that evidence. Dr. Godfrey forgets about one way we could interpret the facts rather than questioning whether the facts were good to begin with.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice does not accurately summarize what is going on in our stimulus. This answer claims that the fault of the academic problems is what Dr. Nash is concerned about. But Dr. Nash does not come to the defense of the schools as this answer choice claims.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not what we are looking for. Our second speaker simply suggests the causal relationship simply in the opposite direction. This does not align with what answer choice (E) suggests, which is that there is no relationship between these variables at all.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?” 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 by telling us about the existence of correlation between chronic fatigue syndrome and low magnesium levels. We also learn that malabsorption of magnesium is associated with some types of fatigue. The author concludes on the basis of this information that raising the level of magnesium in the blood would serve as an effective cure for chronic fatigue syndrome sufferers.
The stimulus concludes a casual relationship on the basis of a subset of a correlation. Our argument lays out low magnesium levels in tandem with fatigue, but we do not know that magnesium will change anything for fatigue. It could be the case that there is a third underlying factor causing both fatigue and low magnesium levels in these sufferers. Or, potentially, that the relationship works in exactly the opposite direction - maybe fatigue causes low magnesium levels. In that case, increasing magnesium levels would do nothing to help our fatigue.
Knowing our conclusion assumes a causal relationship from a correlative one, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not our ultimate flaw. The stimulus does bring up the correlation between magnesium malabsorption and some types of fatigue. But our argument does not need to establish that all low magnesium levels are the result of malabsorption.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice points out a completely different but valid way to interpret the relationship between these variables. It could be that rather than magnesium levels causing fatigue, it very well could be the other way around.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the ultimate flaw with our stimulus. The fact that levels can fluctuate does not tell us they even fluctuate to a degree that would be significant.
Answer Choice (D) This answer is descriptively accurate but not the true issue in our argument. What the exact measurement for a normal level of magnesium is does not identify the misinterpretation of our correlation.
Answer Choice (E) While this answer choice is technically accurate, it is not the ultimate problem with our stimulus. Whether or not the author tells us the most effective way of raising magnesium levels does point out the incorrect interpretation of our correlation.
We know this is a main conclusion question due to the question stem, “The main point of the argument above is that…”
The stimulus opens by introducing a commonly held view, and then making a claim about it. We learn that it is often expressed that written constitutions (ones that exist on paper) are intrinsically “more liberal” than unwritten ones. Furthermore, the author is claiming this belief is false. Now it’s our job to figure out if this claim ends up supporting or being supported by any other claims in this argument. If it’s supported by the other claim or claims, then we’ve got our conclusion!
We learn some new information in the second sentence––a definition of written constitutions that tells us these are simply pieces of paper bearing words until the interpretation and application of those words actually happens. What is the relationship between this sentence and the previous one? Well, it wouldn’t make sense if the claim that written constitutions are no more liberal than unwritten ones was supposed to support the claim that written constitutions are effectively meaningless until applied. Instead, the second claim might support the first by explaining the lack of inherent difference between written and unwritten constitutions. Therefore, I’m going to go ahead say that the first claim could be our conclusion, and the second is a premise. Let’s keep reading to confirm this prediction.
The word “then” helps us understand that the claim in this third sentences builds off of the previous claim. Apparently, when one has the correct understanding of constitutions, one knows that they are effectively the combination of the actual procedures that exercise, and limit, the government’s power. Okay, so if this is our working definition of all constitutions within this stimulus, and we just learned that written constitutions are nothing more than words on a paper if they lack interpretation and application, it looks like those procedures are what actually adds meaning and value to a constitution. If I were to predict how the author might connect all of these sentences together, I might be thinking that these procedures, the ways the state truly exercises their power, are what gives constitutions liberal (or nonliberal) qualities. Let’s see!
Our prediction is confirmed! “Therefore” tells us that, based on the previous claims, we can understand that a liberal-mannered interpretation and application is absolutely necessary in order for even written constitutions to be deemed liberal ones. Now I can see how the author took us from point A to B to C here, which all lend support to our first sentence, or make it more likely to be true. Written constitutions aren’t much but words without interpretation and application, and a constitution is the sum of how these words are applied to expand and limit state power. So, it’s the liberal application and interpretation that makes a constitution liberal, not just the fact that its written rather than unwritten. Knowing all of this makes us much more likely to accept the claim in the first sentence, that written constitutions aren’t any more liberal than unwritten ones, just by merit of being written down. So, that first claim is supported by the rest, making it our conclusion! Let’s look for a rephrase of it in our AC’s.
Correct Answer Choice (A) Awesome. I can’t find anything wrong with this, as it ever so slightly rephrases the conclusion of the stimulus that we identified as the first sentence.
Answer Choice (B) It looks like this AC uses a lot of buzzwords from the stimulus with the aim of throwing us off, but we are two steps ahead of the test writers and we see right through this. Nowhere did the author claim that written constitutions by nature contradict themselves, not even as a premise.
Answer Choice (C) Again, we have no idea if this is even true after reading the stimulus. The author gave us no information that would help evaluate how likely these two types of constitutions are to be misinterpreted.
Answer Choice (D) Preservation of constitutions? Never mentioned, definitely not the conclusion. Next!
Answer Choice (E) None of these ACs, save A, are even close to our prediction nor do they line up with non-conclusion parts of the argument. We have no idea if there are any criteria for evaluating how a constitution is interpreted and applied, just that being written does not necessarily mean a constitution is liberal.