If a student is guaranteed a dorm room, they are a fourth year student. (”the only” introduces the sufficient condition.)
If a fourth year student is on the dean’s list, he or she can choose a dorm room before anyone who is not a fourth year student.
A
Benizer is a fourth-year student who is not on the dean’s list, so she is not guaranteed a dormitory room.
B
Ivan and Naomi are both fourth-year students but only Naomi is on the dean’s list. Therefore, Ivan can choose a dormitory room before Naomi.
C
Halle, a third-year student, is on the dean’s list. Thus, she is guaranteed a dormitory room.
D
Gerald and Katrina are both on the dean’s list but only Gerald is a fourth-year student. Thus, Gerald can choose a dormitory room before Katrina.
E
Anissa is a fourth-year student who is on the dean’s list. Thus, since Jehan is a second-year student who is also on the dean’s list, he can choose a dormitory room before Anissa.
Ben: No, Azadeh, if you interviewed people who buy organic produce, you’d see that they’re actually as selfish as everyone else, since they’re motivated only by worries about their own health.
A
it is likely that a healthy planet can be maintained if most people continue in their present eating habits
B
people can become healthier by increasing their consumption of organic foods
C
people ought to be more concerned about the environment than they currently are
D
the rise in organic food production shows people to have a greater concern for the environment than they had before
E
people can be persuaded to have a greater concern for the environment than they now have
A
The public would not be effectively protected from violent dogs by breed-specific legislation.
B
A good home environment is more important than breeding to a dog’s disposition.
C
The home environment of dogs would not be regulated by breed-specific legislation.
D
Irresponsible dog owners are capable of producing dogs with bad dispositions regardless of generations of careful breeding.
E
The vicious-dog laws that are currently in effect do not address the effects of human behavior in raising and training dogs.
Laird: Pure research provides us with new technologies that contribute to saving lives. Even more worthwhile than this, however, is its role in expanding our knowledge and providing new, unexplored ideas.
Kim: Your priorities are mistaken. Saving lives is what counts most of all. Without pure research, medicine would not be as advanced as it is.
Speaker 1 Summary
Laird doesn’t make an argument, instead just stating the claim that pure research provides more value through expanding our knowledge than it does by helping to save lives.
Speaker 2 Summary
Kim’s argument supports the unstated conclusion that the most important contribution of pure research is in fact its medical applications. This is supported by the principle that saving lives is the most important goal, and the statement that pure research has helped to improve medicine (thereby presumably saving lives).
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Laird and Kim disagree about whether medical advancements are the most valuable result of pure research.
A
derives its significance in part from its providing new technologies
Both speakers agree with this. Laird acknowledges that new technologies are an important result of pure research, just not the most important result. Kim places even more importance on the development of medical technology.
B
expands the boundaries of our knowledge of medicine
Both speakers almost certainly agree with this. Both Laird and Kim discuss the role of pure research in advancing medicine, which strongly implies that pure research has improved our knowledge of medicine.
C
should have the saving of human lives as an important goal
Kim agrees with this, but Laird never disagrees. Laird explicitly acknowledges the importance of pure research helping to save lives—the issue is just whether that’s the most important goal.
D
has its most valuable achievements in medical applications
Laird disagrees with this but Kim agrees, so this is the point at issue. Laird thinks that the most valuable achievements of pure research are in expanding our knowledge and providing new ideas, whereas Kim states that saving lives through medical advancement is more important.
E
has any value apart from its role in providing new technologies to save lives
Laird agrees with this, but Kim never disagrees. Kim’s argument is just that saving lives is the most important result of pure research, not that pure research has no other value.
Naturalist: To be dependable, the accounting framework used by national economists to advise the government must take into account all of our nation’s assets; but the current accounting framework used by our national economists assigns no value to government-owned natural resources, which are clearly assets.
Summary
If the accounting framework used by national economists is dependable, then the framework must account for all of our nation’s assets. However, the current accounting framework used by national economists assigns no value to government-owned natural resources, which are assets.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The accounting framework used by national economists is not dependable.
A
Economists’ indifference toward the destruction of natural resources will lead policymakers to make poor decisions.
We don’t know whether national economists are indifferent towards the destruction of natural resources.
B
Naturalists and economists disagree about whether natural resources have value.
We don’t know whether national economists believe natural resources have value or not.
C
The accounting framework used by national economists is not reliable.
The accounting framework must be unreliable since it fails the requirement of accounting for all of the nation’s assets.
D
Natural resources are a vital economic asset for every nation.
We don’t know whether natural resources are an asset for every nation. The stimulus is limited to the Naturalist’s nation.
E
Changes in the environment have a value that is not represented in any accounting framework.
We don’t know if changes in the environment are not accounted for in any accounting framework.
The question stem reads: The editorialist's reasoning is flawed in that it fails to take into account that… This is a Flaw question.
The editorialist states that a recently passed law limits freedom of speech to silence dissenters. He then describes the claim that those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. In this claim, "doomed" is a necessary condition indicator. So we can rewrite the claim into lawgic: ignorant of history -> repeat history. The editorialist concludes that "If this (ignorant of history -> repeat history) is true, then those responsible for passing the laws must be ignorant of a great deal of history." In lawgic, the conclusion reads:
(ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
The editorialists note that in the past, silencing dissenters have tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes. Let's outline the argument::
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
______________________________________________
C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
Looking at the premises, we can infer that history has been repeated. Dissenters have been silenced in the past, and lawmakers today are trying to silence dissenters now.
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
P3: history has been repeated
______________________________________________
C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
Finally, we can kick up the sufficient condition of the conclusion:
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
P3: history has been repeated
P4: ignorant of history -> repeat history
______________________________________________
C: law passers are ignorant of history
Remember, satisfying the necessary condition yields no information about the sufficient condition. The editorialist has used the fact that history has been repeated (P4's necessary condition) to conclude that the lawmakers are ignorant of history (P4's sufficient condition). The editorialist is affirming the consequent, a classic logical fallacy. Now that we see the error in the editorialist's reasoning let's move the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is irrelevant to the argument. The purpose of the law does not matter. What matters to the argument is that history is repeating itself.
Answer Choice (B) is irrelevant. If you picked (B), you likely got caught up in irrelevant parts of the stimulus, i.e., "limits freedom of speech" and "tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes." But the editorialist's argument is not about what freedoms need or need not be protected.
Answer Choice (C) is actually taken into account by the argument. The stimulus says, "silencing dissenters has tended to promote… the establishment of authoritarian regimes." The fact that you can find some instances of undermining regimes is compatible with the editorialist's claim. Furthermore, what matters is that a law "silencing dissenters" is a repeat of history. Whether or not the law ends up establishing or undermining an authoritarian regime is arbitrary.
Answer Choice (D) is also irrelevant. Whether the law is good or bad has no effect on the argument.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is an illustration of our prephase. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, but it is entirely possible to be aware of history and still repeat it. Maybe these lawmakers intend to establish an authoritarian regime. Maybe not. In either case, (E) is good to go.