The Question stem reads: The reasoning in the argument is the most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The stimulus begins by describing how many books describe the rules of etiquette. Usually, etiquette book authors classify behavior standards as polite or rude. We turn to the argument with the context indicator, however. The argument claims that the classifying behavior (as polite or rude) suggests there is a universal, objective standard of politeness. The argument subsequently claims that there are standards of politeness that vary from culture. The argument concludes that it is absurd to label a set of behaviors as correct and another set of behaviors as incorrect.
That is one of those rare Flaw questions that are hard to prephase. On the surface, it doesn't seem completely awful. At the very least, picking out a specifically egregious problem is difficult. Let's turn to the answer choices and see what we find.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. We can eliminate (A) because the argument does not make a conclusion on how people actually behave. Additionally, there are no premises that make a claim on how people ought to behave.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect because the argument does not make a generalization about all books. The stimulus says that authors of etiquette books usually classify behavior as polite or impolite. Additionally, the argument does not conclude that all etiquette books are absurd, merely the ones that label one set of behaviors as correct and another as incorrect. (B) would look better if the argument said something to the effect of: etiquette books are absurd; therefore, all etiquette books are absurd.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect because the argument does not rely on nor conclude anything about how these etiquette books actually influence behavior.
Correct Answer Choice (D) looks good. If it is true that etiquette books attempt to show what is polite or impolite in their specific cultures, there would be no suggestion of a universal standard of politeness. The fact that other cultures have different standards of politeness wouldn't be a problem for a book on British politeness because the author only suggests that these etiquette guidelines are British.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect because the argument is not attempting to strengthen itself by labeling the author's position as absurd; the argument is trying to prove that the author's position is absurd.
We know this is a most strongly supported question because of the question stem: The statements in the editorial, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
Our stimulus starts by explaining that when folks in government find out that a public service isn’t being provided adequately, the most common response is to increase funding for that service. Makes sense! If the trash isn’t getting hauled away fast enough–buy more trash trucks!
We are then told that the least efficiently run bureaucracies most commonly receive an increase in funds. So there’s a leap that’s being made to connect these two statements. We know that when services are poor, funding for services increases. The editorial states that “because of this” (referential for the increase in funding for inadequate services) the least efficient bureaucracies most commonly receive boosts in funding. If we trace the logic here, we can see that the implication is that these poorly run bureaucracies are most likely responsible for inadequately provided services. This is the only conceivable way that the editorial could say that funding for these bureaucracies commonly increases and give the first sentence as a reason why this funding commonly increases (as indicated by the phrase “because of this”).
That’s our synthesis right there. When we look at these two sentences together, the clear implication is that inefficient bureaucracies are responsible for inadequate services.
Now let’s look at the answer choices:
Correct Answer Choice (A) What do you know! First answer choice out the gates matches up with our synthesis. This comprehensively lays out the implication of these two sentences when taken together.
Answer Choice (B) We don’t have any information about when or why legislators might reduce funding–so we have no information to support this answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) This is introducing the idea that legislators “repeatedly” boost funding during periods of inefficiency. We don’t have any information to support this. We just know that inefficient bureaucracies are the bureaucracies that most commonly receive boosts in funding, but we have no idea how these boosts occur (i.e. repeatedly or in lump sums).
Answer Choice (D) We have no information that indicates how services or bureaucracies fare as a result of funding boosts–so we have no information that supports this answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) We know nothing about the amount of money included in any of these funding boosts. We know there’s a correlation between being inefficient and receiving money, but we don’t know if there’s a correlation between the magnitude of inefficiency and the amount of money.
We have an MBT question which we can glean from the question stem which reads: If the statements above are true, then on the basis of them which one of the following must also be true?
Our stimulus tells us that in the year 1990, the municipality of Queesnton raised taxes that increased the budget of its school system. The schools in turn used the increase in budget to increase the number of teachers they employed by 30%. However, the average number of students per teacher remained constant between 1990 and 1993.
This is almost phrased like an RRE question, right? It’s constructed as if there’s a paradox here. But let’s think about this: is it hard to reconcile the fact that the number of teachers went up while the average number of students to teachers stayed the same? No! Think about it: if the total number of dogs went up in NYC but the number of dogs per household stayed the same, would that make sense? Yes! It just means there are more households that own dogs. If we think about this as a fraction, both the numerator and denominator (top and bottom) of the fraction went up at the same rate. The same thing could be true for our students per teacher average, right? If the number of teachers went up and the number of students rose at the same rate (in this case 30%), then the average number of students per teacher would remain the same.
Ok now that we’ve synthesized the information here, let’s look at the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) We need the classes to increase in enrollment because otherwise the number of students would remain constant while the number of teachers would increase. This would throw off our proportion so the average number of students per teacher would not remain the same.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we need. If the number of teachers goes up, we need the number of students to increase as well in order for the average number of students per teacher to remain the same.
Answer Choice (C) This is unsupported. We know that the increase in budget allowed the school district to hire more teachers, but it’s really immaterial how much the budget increased by. We already know the number of teachers increased, how the budget corresponds to that is not necessary for us to understand.
Answer Choice (D) There’s nothing to suggest that the district either retained old teachers or hired new teachers–the bottom line is that the number of teachers increased.
Answer Choice (E) This is completely unrelated to the ratio of students to teachers and is wholly unsupported by our passage.
The question stem reads: Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above? This is a Flaw question.
The stimulus begins by claiming that "it is a characteristic of great artists generally, and of great writers in particular, to have a discerning view of the basic social and political arrangements of the society in which they live." That was a mouthful. "It" refers to the ability to discern the social and political arrangements of society. Let's reorganize this sentence to read:"Having a discerning view of the basic social and political arrangments of society is a characteristic of great artists generally and great writers in particular.
I have italicized the "and" to highlight the sentence structure of one subject and two predicates. The subject is the ability to discern social and political arrangements in society. The predicates can be broken down to 1.) is a characteristic of great artists generally and 2.) is a characteristic of great writers in particular. Let us do away with predicate 1 and only focus on predicate 2. Now we get:
"The ability to discern society's social and political arrangements is a characteristic of great writers."
The argument then concludes that the greater the writer you are, the greater your ability to perceive your society's social and political arrangements.
The stimulus has claimed that being a great writer is sufficient to perceive society. The argument concluded that as you increase the sufficient condition (greatness in writing), you will see an increase in the necessary condition (ability to perceive society). This is flawed reasoning. Do you know what else being a great writer is sufficient for? Having two eyeballs. Using the stimulus' reasoning, the greater the writer you are, the more eyeballs you will have. You see where I am going here? That is our flaw. The stimulus assumes that more of a sufficient condition means more of a necessary condition. Let's go to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is not what we are looking for. (A) is the fallacy of division: assuming what is true of the whole must be true for some or all of its parts. (A) would look better if the argument said: "Great artists generally have the ability to discern society; therefore, great writers have the ability to discern society.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. (B) would look better if the argument went: great writers sometimes have the ability to discern society. Therefore all great writers have the ability to discern society.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. The argument makes no mention of what writers or artists do not have the ability to discern.
Answer Choice (D) is not what the argument does. First, the argument is not concerned with great individuals, only great writers. Second, the argument does not make a sufficient vs. necessary error. (D) would look better if the argument went: "Great writers have the ability to discern society. Therefore only great writers have the ability to discern society.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is what we discussed.