We’ve got a strengthening question which we can tell from the question stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
We start out with a bit of context that introduces us to two types of warranties: standard manufacturer’s warranties and extended warranties (those warranties that extend coverage past the end of a manufacturer’s warranty). We then get a shift word (“however”) that moves us from context into our argument. The argument begins with its conclusion: consumers are better off not buying the extended warranties. That’s followed by our one and only premise: most problems with the covered items occur within the time period covered by the standard manufacturer’s warranty. The implication here is that consumers are less likely to run into issues with their devices after the period that is covered by the standard warranty. Therefore, they should forego the additional expense of an extended warranty. This stimulus is a cost-benefit analysis. We are comparing two options (the warranties) and deciding between them based on the pros (benefits) and cons (costs) associated with each one.
The argument is premised upon a quantitative comparison; that is, our premise is comparing the number of problems that occur during the standard warranty with the number of problems that might occur during the extended warranty. Oftentimes an argument premised upon a quantitative comparison will omit a qualitative comparison thus leaving a fairly large gap in the argument. This is particularly true in questions that involve a cost-benefit analysis like we have here. In cases like these, ask yourself how would a qualitative comparison (in this case something based on the quality of the problems instead of the number of problems) potentially impact the argument. For instance, if you were choosing between two airlines and both tickets cost the same, but Airline A had more delays than Airline B, it probably seems like a no-brainer to choose Airline B. But what if Airline A’s delays lasted 5-10 minutes on average whereas Airline B’s delays clocked it in at around 5 hours. Might this shift your thinking? It would shift mine! This is an example of relevant information that a qualitative comparison can bring to a cost benefit analysis.
In this case, we know that there are more issues during the standard warranty period, but what types of issues are they? What if most issues that occur during the standard warranty period are relatively minor and inconsequential–things that you might not even consider getting repaired if your electronic device wasn’t under warranty. Whereas, issues that arise during the extended period are often major issues that prevent you from using your device and would cost you enormous amounts of money if the device were not under warranty. Now we have a reason why that quantitative comparison might not be the only thing you want to consider. Because this is a strengthening question, we should be on the lookout for an answer choice that might tell us something about the quality of the incidents that occur during the two warranty periods. With this all in mind, let’s move to the answer choices:
Correct Answer Choice (A) Perfect! This answer fills in a potential weakness that we identified in our analysis of the stimulus. It tells us that the problems that occur during extended warranties are on par with those that occur during the extended warranty period. This strengthens the conclusion that consumers ought to forego the extended warranty.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice does nothing to strengthen our argument. If anything it weakens our argument by giving us a reason why we might want to purchase an extended warranty: they aren’t that expensive.
Answer Choice (C) This AC is consistent with our argument. Our conclusion is that consumers would be generally better off without an extended warranty. This gives us a reason why a segment of the population does buy extended warranties—they have extenuating circumstances that increase the likelihood that their devices will break. This neither strengthens or weakens our argument which is directed towards the average consumer.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is playing on the assumption that an extended warranty would be an unnecessary expense because some extended warranties include some time that would already be covered by standard warranties. This doesn’t really do anything to our argument and is ultimately irrelevant.
Answer Choice (E) This is telling us why stores sell extended warranties but we are only concerned with whether or not consumers should buy them. Just because they may be a lucrative service for stores to offer doesn’t make them more or less useful to consumers.
The question stem reads: The argument's reasoning is flawed because of the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The author describes how since the 1970s, environmentalists have successfully gotten lawmakers to enact extensive environmental regulations. However, the author also notes that the environment has not improved; it has gotten worse. The author concludes that more environmental regulations are not the solution to the problem. The author believes that because the environment is worsening, the regulations must not positively affect the environment. In other words, the regulations are not causing the environment to get better.
However, we do not know all of the problems affecting the environment. It is possible that the regulations positively impact the environment, but the positive impacts are overshadowed by the other events harming the environment. Imagine we enacted environmental regulations to ban disposable straws. At the same time, we doubled the amount of coal-fired electricity plants. The straw regulations have a positive effect, saving many tortoises, but the harm caused by the coal outpaces the positive effects of the straw regulation. The author would argue that more regulations are not the solution, but we could easily say that we need to regulate the coal-fire-powered plants. So the author has failed to consider that there might be other events causing harm to the environment.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect because it is not our identified causation flaw. There is no attack on the environmentalists. In fact, he uses their own words to lend credibility to his argument.
Answer Choice (B) is not presumed the by the author. At no point does the author's argument presume zero regulations are required to prevent environmental degradation can be prevented. The author could say that the regulations are simply ineffective and that whether we have them makes no difference to the environment.
Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we paraphrased. The author does fail to consider the possibility that the regulations are having a positive effect. Without the positive effects of the regulations, the environment could have gotten worse.
Answer Choice (D) is not presumed by the argument. The author does not claim reducing regulation is more important than protecting the environment.
Answer Choice (E) is wrong. While the author does not consider the view of the environmentalist's opponents, that is not the argument's flaw.
Here we have a Main Conclusion question, which we know from the question stem: Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument? Let’s turn to our stimulus:
First, we’re told that it’s not advisable to take a “developmental” view of music. Interesting. I’m not quite sure what that means. Are you also wondering what it means? Well you’re in luck! We get an example of a developmental view of music in the embedded phrase that follows: seeing one composer as a clear, linear “advancement” over an earlier composer (i.e. Beethoven is an advance over the earlier composer Josquin). Side note: Although we might not know the chronology of these composers offhand, we can reasonably infer that Josquin comes before Beethoven because this is the only conceivable way in which Beethoven could represent an advancement over Josquin.
Ok back to the embedded phrase: this embedded phrase is an illustrative example of what it means to take a “developmental” view of music, but it also makes this sentence incredibly cluttered and unwieldy. I don’t know about you but I don’t like things that are cluttered and unwieldy so I’m tempted to tidy this up. The good news is, we don’t actually need this embedded phrase to understand the basic thrust of this sentence–so what if we just…set it aside? When you get an embedded phrase like this (often offset by hyphens or commas), first give the sentence an initial read all the way through and then reread the sentence this time skipping over the embedded phrase. These embedded phrases are subordinate clauses (incomplete ideas that cannot stand on their own) used to elaborate upon or modify a part of the main sentence. Reading through a sentence without the embedded phrase can help you better understand the main thrust and core ideas of the sentence.
Without the embedded phrase we can see that the first sentence basically boils down to: we shouldn’t view music itself as developing in a linear way, but it does sometimes make sense to discuss how our knowledge of music has, in fact, grown over time.
Then we move on to our second sentence and get an example of our musical knowledge growing over time: we know more about sounds than we used to. This idea is supporting the notion that our knowledge of music has grown by giving a concrete example of a verifiable growth in knowledge. Because it lends support, we know that this is a premise supporting the conclusion that our knowledge of music has grown over time. Is this the main conclusion though? Only time will tell…
Moving on to the third sentence, we get a sentence that now actually supports the second sentence (which we previously identified as a premise). The second sentence tells us that we know more about certain sounds than we used to; the third sentence gives us an example of how we know more about certain sounds by highlighting our evolved understanding of the musical third. So we have ANOTHER support relationship with the third sentence providing an example that supports the second sentence. This makes the third sentence a minor premise that supports our second sentence which is now a major premise/sub-conclusion, receiving support from the third sentence and lending support to what is now, clearly our main conclusion: there are ways in which it makes sense to talk about musical knowledge growing over time.
Now let’s move on to looking for a description of this major conclusion in the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) This is referencing our sub-conclusion in sentence two–so we know right away that it’s wrong. It’s also imprecise: it states that certain sounds “are used today” whereas our stimulus merely suggests that these sounds “can be used.”
Answer Choice (B) This is a description of our minor premise in the third sentence and is therefore incorrect.
It also talks about the effect of sounds on modern listeners, whereas our stimulus approaches all of this without considering the perspective of listeners.
Answer Choice (C) This is a paraphrase of the context we get in the first sentence and is therefore incorrect.
Answer Choice (D) This is not at all supported. It is a misreading of our context which tells us that we shouldn’t view composers as advancements over earlier composers. This answer choice refers to composers being “better” than other composers which is not the same thing as representing an “advancement” over another composer.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This matches with our conclusion: there are many ways in which it makes sense to talk about musical knowledge growing over time.
We’ve got a strengthening question which we can tell from the question stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
We start out with a bit of context that introduces us to two types of warranties: standard manufacturer’s warranties and extended warranties (those warranties that extend coverage past the end of a manufacturer’s warranty). We then get a shift word (“however”) that moves us from context into our argument. The argument begins with its conclusion: consumers are better off not buying the extended warranties. That’s followed by our one and only premise: most problems with the covered items occur within the time period covered by the standard manufacturer’s warranty. The implication here is that consumers are less likely to run into issues with their devices after the period that is covered by the standard warranty. Therefore, they should forego the additional expense of an extended warranty. This stimulus is a cost-benefit analysis. We are comparing two options (the warranties) and deciding between them based on the pros (benefits) and cons (costs) associated with each one.
The argument is premised upon a quantitative comparison; that is, our premise is comparing the number of problems that occur during the standard warranty with the number of problems that might occur during the extended warranty. Oftentimes an argument premised upon a quantitative comparison will omit a qualitative comparison thus leaving a fairly large gap in the argument. This is particularly true in questions that involve a cost-benefit analysis like we have here. In cases like these, ask yourself how would a qualitative comparison (in this case something based on the quality of the problems instead of the number of problems) potentially impact the argument. For instance, if you were choosing between two airlines and both tickets cost the same, but Airline A had more delays than Airline B, it probably seems like a no-brainer to choose Airline B. But what if Airline A’s delays lasted 5-10 minutes on average whereas Airline B’s delays clocked it in at around 5 hours. Might this shift your thinking? It would shift mine! This is an example of relevant information that a qualitative comparison can bring to a cost benefit analysis.
In this case, we know that there are more issues during the standard warranty period, but what types of issues are they? What if most issues that occur during the standard warranty period are relatively minor and inconsequential–things that you might not even consider getting repaired if your electronic device wasn’t under warranty. Whereas, issues that arise during the extended period are often major issues that prevent you from using your device and would cost you enormous amounts of money if the device were not under warranty. Now we have a reason why that quantitative comparison might not be the only thing you want to consider. Because this is a strengthening question, we should be on the lookout for an answer choice that might tell us something about the quality of the incidents that occur during the two warranty periods. With this all in mind, let’s move to the answer choices:
Correct Answer Choice (A) Perfect! This answer fills in a potential weakness that we identified in our analysis of the stimulus. It tells us that the problems that occur during extended warranties are on par with those that occur during the extended warranty period. This strengthens the conclusion that consumers ought to forego the extended warranty.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice does nothing to strengthen our argument. If anything it weakens our argument by giving us a reason why we might want to purchase an extended warranty: they aren’t that expensive.
Answer Choice (C) This AC is consistent with our argument. Our conclusion is that consumers would be generally better off without an extended warranty. This gives us a reason why a segment of the population does buy extended warranties—they have extenuating circumstances that increase the likelihood that their devices will break. This neither strengthens or weakens our argument which is directed towards the average consumer.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is playing on the assumption that an extended warranty would be an unnecessary expense because some extended warranties include some time that would already be covered by standard warranties. This doesn’t really do anything to our argument and is ultimately irrelevant.
Answer Choice (E) This is telling us why stores sell extended warranties but we are only concerned with whether or not consumers should buy them. Just because they may be a lucrative service for stores to offer doesn’t make them more or less useful to consumers.
The question stem reads: The argument's reasoning is flawed because of the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The author describes how since the 1970s, environmentalists have successfully gotten lawmakers to enact extensive environmental regulations. However, the author also notes that the environment has not improved; it has gotten worse. The author concludes that more environmental regulations are not the solution to the problem. The author believes that because the environment is worsening, the regulations must not positively affect the environment. In other words, the regulations are not causing the environment to get better.
However, we do not know all of the problems affecting the environment. It is possible that the regulations positively impact the environment, but the positive impacts are overshadowed by the other events harming the environment. Imagine we enacted environmental regulations to ban disposable straws. At the same time, we doubled the amount of coal-fired electricity plants. The straw regulations have a positive effect, saving many tortoises, but the harm caused by the coal outpaces the positive effects of the straw regulation. The author would argue that more regulations are not the solution, but we could easily say that we need to regulate the coal-fire-powered plants. So the author has failed to consider that there might be other events causing harm to the environment.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect because it is not our identified causation flaw. There is no attack on the environmentalists. In fact, he uses their own words to lend credibility to his argument.
Answer Choice (B) is not presumed the by the author. At no point does the author's argument presume zero regulations are required to prevent environmental degradation can be prevented. The author could say that the regulations are simply ineffective and that whether we have them makes no difference to the environment.
Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we paraphrased. The author does fail to consider the possibility that the regulations are having a positive effect. Without the positive effects of the regulations, the environment could have gotten worse.
Answer Choice (D) is not presumed by the argument. The author does not claim reducing regulation is more important than protecting the environment.
Answer Choice (E) is wrong. While the author does not consider the view of the environmentalist's opponents, that is not the argument's flaw.