This question asks us to find the main conclusion or main point of the argument, which we know from the question stem, “The main point of the argument is to…”
We first learn about a claim from a group of people: those in favor of Shakespeare’s plays being read and performed today. All that we know about this group is that they are united by that common belief or goal, which is a claim in and of itself–that this should happen, Shakespeare should continue to be read and performed. So, let’s see if this ends up being a conclusion itself (a claim that is supported) or a premise (a claim that supports another claim). Well, we read on to find out that this group “maintains” some other claim, that appreciation for Shakespeare has always been found in circles beyond just the learned upper class in England. “And” tells us that a second claim is coming, which gives (slightly) new information that it is common knowledge that “comparatively uneducated people” have been familiar with and fond of Shakespeare’s work.
It looks like these claims together really drive home the point that fans of Shakespeare have never been confined to a certain group. And what claim are we connecting this back to, in order to decipher which claims are premises and which are conclusions? The one advanced by the pro-continued-reading-of-Shakespeare group, that, well, we should continue to have uninhibited access to Shakespeare’s works. In order to identify premises and conclusion, we must ask, which of these claims lends support to the other, or increases the likelihood of the other’s truth? It seems more likely for us to accept that Shakespeare should still be read and performed once we learn that support for Shakespeare’s works have always extended beyond a small circle. So, it looks like we have been presented with two premises, or claims that support another, and one conclusion (of the group, not necessarily the author) that is supported by those premises.
However, is that conclusion advanced by the group our main conclusion? We’ll have to gather more information to see if the author of this argument agrees or disagrees with that claim. The next two sentences point out a reason we might be less likely to accept the pro-Shakespeare group’s claim: when we look closely at versions of these plays from the 1700s, we see that the physical copies have “fine paper and good bindings,” which the author then goes as far as to assert that the only way these books could be in such good condition is that they were not anywhere close to “people of ordinary means.” In other words, if these books are in such pristine condition, then they must have been enjoyed by only the elite. Whoa. So many things I hate about this argument, but that’s not our job here! All that we need to do is identify the author’s conclusion. We already know that the author set up a sufficient-necessary relationship in that last sentence: the fact that the books look great is enough for us to determine that they couldn’t have fallen into the hands of peasants, so we’ve identified support right there! Following this author’s line of reasoning, the condition of the books advances the truth of the following claim, that the books, and therefore appreciation of Shakespeare’s plays, belonged only to the elite, at least in the early 1700s. I have no reason to believe this is not the author’s main conclusion, as it’s the note they ended on and directly contravenes the other group’s conclusion. Pretty standard for an LR question to open with an opposing point of view, present evidence against it, and come to a different conclusion! Let’s look for something like this in our AC’s…
Answer Choice (A) Was this the reason the author wrote that argument? Well, for one, we would be able to find a rephrase of it somewhere in the stimulus, which we can’t. The author never claimed that it was enough for someone to know Shakespeare’s plays in order to determine they were part of the educated elite.
Correct Answer Choice (B) Okay, now this sounds pretty familiar. Remember, our prediction was that the author presents an opposing argument and then a premise to show that appreciation of Shakespeare’s plays was a unique characteristic of non-ordinary (elite) people in the 1700s, which is a great rephrase of this AC!
Answer Choice (C) We never discussed a contrast between aspects of Shakespeare’s work that were appreciated in the past vs. today.
Answer Choice (D) Ah, this goes too far. Although this AC uses wording directly from the premise to the pro-Shakespeare group’s argument, the author never says that all of the people who have appreciated Shakespeare have been elites, instead, just that early 18th century readers could not have been of ordinary means.
Answer Choice (E) What? We have no reason to believe the educated elite are skeptical of the worth of Shakespeare’s plays; in fact, we think the opposite. This AC consists of buzzwords from the stimulus, but it jumbles them up in all the wrong ways.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “Which one of the following is an error of reasoning committed by 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 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 that our correct answer choice will identify the assumption being made between taxation and servitude, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only descriptively correct answer choice that references the problem of only considering one part of the definition of the terms in the stimulus. This strongly connects to our prediction about the assumed connection between servitude and taxation.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate flaw of our stimulus. The taxation rate is not the problem seen between conclusion and explanation. With this emphasis in the answer choice, we can eliminate B.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. We do not know that all work in this hypothetical would end up being taxed. But beyond it’s descriptive issues, the problem in our stimulus is not the amount of work being taxed - but rather, that it is being taxed at all.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. In addition to that, the taxation of income from investment does not have anything to do with our argument concerning wage taxation.
Answer Choice (E) Subjectivity, or interpretation, is not the issue in this stimulus. Rather, our argument thinks we should use one part rather than focusing on subjectively analyzing them. In addition to not being descriptively accurate, it is not the ultimate issue in our stimulus.
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.
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 question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The stimulus begins by telling us about a prison surgery program; people who behave well can receive free cosmetic surgery. Following this description, the speaker concludes that surgery has a powerful rehabilitative effect on the basis that the re-offender rate is lower for this group of inmates than the remainder in the prison population.
To conclude that something is powerful in causing an effect means that, in our case, inmates who receive cosmetic surgery through this program are more likely than before to avoid committing further crimes. This is where our author makes an assumption about the inmates involved in the study. Surely this group of inmates will already reoffend at a lower rate than the remainder of the population – these inmates were the most well behaved to begin with. Our argument is drawing a conclusion about the value of surgery on the basis of a group that was already going to have lower crime rates following release.
Knowing that our stimulus unjustly comes to its conclusion using a specific subset of the prison population, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Morality is briefly mentioned in our stimulus but it is not used to come to any conclusions about matters of fact.
Answer Choice (B) This is not what we are looking for. While the stimulus could be interpreted as casting moral issues aside, that is not the ultimate flaw. We know the correct answer choice will include the rate of re-offense in our group of inmates in some way.
Answer Choice (C) This is a factually correct answer, but this is ultimately not the flaw in our stimulus. Our problem with the argument relies on a comparison of two different groups rather than the use of the term controversial as claimed by this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) This is not descriptively accurate. We are not told this isn’t a moral issue - just that casting those issues aside, the rehabilitative effects are evident. Once again the answer choice presents a topic from our stimulus, but the issue of morality was a nod rather than the basis of our conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correctly answer choice is the only one that brings up the difference between the regular prison population and the inmates involved in this program.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument’s reasoning is flawed because 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 question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
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 theater critic kicks off the discussion by explaining how dwindling audience and talent pools lead to the conclusion that theater is in a dismal state. Not a terrible conclusion to draw from those sets of premises. Let’s see what our second speaker has to say about this.
The producer immediately makes the point of disagreement clear. The producer rejects the theater crtic’s argument that theater is in decline. But the producer’s reasoning does not respond to the explanation presented by our theater critic. Instead, the critic explains how having the opinion discourages the pool of audience and talent from joining the theater world. If we’re ranking arguments the producer’s definitely comes dead last. Rather than addressing whether the conclusion was correct, the producer focuses on the consequence of the conclusion that would follow if people held it.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for. Instead of responding to the argument, the producer presents new information that focuses on the effect of having the opinion to begin with. This is the only answer choice that describes the exact flaw of the stimulus in a way that is descriptively correct.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. The producer does not refute the theater critic’s evidence as claimed by this answer choice. Rather than assuming the critic of relying on “unsupported” evidence, the producer ignores the evidence altogether.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively correct. The producer presents an appeal to a potential consequence of the producer’s opinion instead of some personal characteristic the critic has. We would need a reference to the critic’s character in order to make this the right answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is descriptively accurate and honestly confusing. It’s not clear what “emphasis” this answer choice would even be referring to. Our producer certainly focuses on argument, but their argument just does not respond to our first speaker.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not descriptively correct. By claiming that the producer invokes “authority in order to intimidate the critic” our argument would need to have some sort of reference to an authoritative figure relevant to the topic of theater.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument’s reasoning is flawed because 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.
We can uncover the classic reasoning flaw in this question by using structural analysis. The argument begins by telling us that to date, no one has successfully communicated with intelligent life outside of planet Earth. The author introduces their main point in the final sentence, saying that because no one has identified evidence of intelligent life outside of planet Earth, it must not exist. We know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Meaning that just because we do not find evidence something exists that thing itself does not exist. Maybe we have poor equipment or lack the skills necessary to find the dozens of alien species that exist on other planets.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not the issue of our stimulus. Whether or not intelligent non-living things exist does not impact our discussion on the existence of intelligent living things.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively accurate telling of the flaw is the only answer choice that points out the lack of evidence used as the basis for our speaker’s overall conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. The argument does not say “because they disagree, they are wrong!” as would have to be the case for this answer choice to be correct. But we do not see any sort of disagreement being referenced as the support of the ultimate conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. If our argument were relying “on the vagueness of the term ‘life’” we would see the underlying meaning or definition arise as an issue in the discussion in some way.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. By saying that our argument relies on a weak analogy, this answer choice claims a comparison between two things that cannot be seen here. Additionally, our answer choice certainly does have some evidence it relies on in contrast with what this answer choice states. Just because the evidence or rationale is bad does not mean that they do not have it.