A
is designed to discredit entirely
B
is designed to establish as true
C
is designed to establish as well intentioned
D
claims has a serious flaw though is not without value
E
claims is less reasonable than any other view mentioned
A
It expresses a view that the argument as a whole is designed to discredit.
B
It is the argument’s main conclusion.
C
It is a premise of the argument.
D
It presents evidence that the argument attempts to undermine.
E
It is an intermediate conclusion of the argument.
A
Baumgartner makes a deceptive comparison between the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered and electric cars.
B
The use of a typical gasoline-powered car results in much greater resource depletion than does the use of a typical electric car.
C
Baumgartner uses inaccurate data in his comparison of the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered and electric cars.
D
The total life cycle of a product is what matters in assessing its environmental impact.
E
The production of gasoline-powered cars creates more environmental hazards than does that of electric cars.
The question stem reads: Which one of the following, if true, best resolves the discrepancy above? This is a Resolve Reconcile Explain question.
In the Core Curriculum, we discussed how our job is to develop a hypothesis or explanation for the seemingly contradictory phenomena the stimulus provides. The stimulus tells us that "Sambar deer are physically incapable of digesting meat." Ok, the deer cannot consume and process meat for energy. But the stimulus also tells us that Sambar deer have been observed killing and feeding on box turtles. That’s puzzling. If the deer can’t eat meat, why are they killing and eating the box turtles? Our job is to explain that exact question.
Before we move into the answer choices, let's do some prephasing. We know that Sambar deer are incapable of digesting meat, so it would be bizarre if we noticed the deer consuming turtle meat. However, the stimulus says that the deer have been observed eating turtles. Is there more to a turtle than its meat? Of course there is! Perhaps the deer are eating the turtles' bones, skin, or eyes (are eyes meat? I digress). That would help explain the phenomena. The deer can’t digest meat, but they are not hunting and eating the turtles' meat; they are eating something else. Now that we have a solid prephase, we can join the Sambar deer and go hunting.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is exactly what we prephrased. (A) explains that the deer eat only the bony shell of the turtles. The deer are not killing and eating the turtles for meat (which the deer cannot digest); they are killing and eating the turtles for their shells.
Answer Choice (B) almost looks good but only provides a partial explanation. If you picked (B), you likely realized that (B) would explain why the deer kill the turtles when they cannot eat them. The deer aren't hunting the turtles. The deer are killing turtles by accident (turtle-slaughter?) However, (B) fails to explain why the deer go on to eat their unfortunate victims. Imagine your friend found you feeding on the carcass of a squirrel you had recently driven over and asked, "why are you doing that?" Responding through your blood-soaked teeth with, "I did it by accident," would leave your friend mildly horrified and still confused. For that reason, (B) is out.
Answer Choice (C) fails to explain both the eating and the killing. The fact that the deer kill and eat the turtles only on occasion does nothing to explain why they kill and eat the turtles when they cannot digest meat.
Answer Choice (D) is similar to (B) in providing only a partial explanation. (D) says that the turtles compete with the deer for food. That might explain why the deer have the incentive to kill the turtles. If they kill the turtles, the deer won't have to compete with them for food. However, that does not explain why they go on to eat the turtles. You could argue that the eating of the turtles is to strike fear into the other turtle's hearts and warn them away from the deer's territory. But at that point, though, we are making too many assumptions to make (D) work. So (D) is out.
Answer Choice (E) would explain how the deer are able to kill the turtles by saying that the deer are faster and more agile. However, our job isn’t to explain how the deer are killing the turtles, but why the deer are killing the turtles. For that reason, (E) is out.
The question stem reads: which of the following most accurately describes a way in which Willet's reasoning is questionable? This is a Flaw question.
The stimulus begins with Benson's argument. Because we are interested in Willet's argument, we do not need to evaluate Benson's argument. However, it is still important to read Benson's argument to understand the context in which Willet's reply is made. Benson believes that maintaining the quality of life in his city requires that the city restrict growth. That is why he supports the new zoning regulations.
Willet replies that he heard the same argument (that protecting the quality of life requires restricting growth) ten years ago and five years ago. He then says both times; the city council was justified in not restricting growth. So he agrees with the city council's decision not to restrict growth. Willet claims that since there is nothing new in this idea of restricting growth, he opposes the new zoning regulations that restrict growth.
Right here, we have the fallacious reasoning that what is true of the past must be true of the future, which is an example of the Problem of Induction. The classic example is concluding that all swans must be white because you have only seen white swans. The conclusion is proven false once you eventually encounter a black swan. Similarly, Willet is assuming that because the city council was justified in not restricting growth in the past, it must be the case that there is no reason to restrict growth now. However, there may be new reasons the city should restrict growth that didn't exist five and ten years ago.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect because Willet does not presume growth is necessarily good. We do not know his opinion on growth at all, only that the city council justified not restricting growth five and 10 years ago.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect because there is no attack on Benson's personality.
Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we discussed. Benson assumed that what was true in the past must be true in the present/future. However, there might be new reasons to restrict growth now that did not exist five and ten years ago.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because other factors contributing to quality of life are irrelevant not only to Willet's argument but Benson's also to Benson's argument. Benso claims that restricting growth is necessary for maintaining the quality of life (maintain quality of life -> restrict growth). So it would not matter how many other factors contribute to maintaining quality of life; failing to restrict growth would result in an inability to maintain quality of life ( the contrapositive: /restrict growth -> /maintain quality of life).
Answer Choice (E) is arbitrary. If you picked this, you likely missed that Willet claimed: "The city council was justified in deciding not to restrict growth." It does not matter how qualified or poorly qualified they were; their decisions were justified. One can both be poorly qualified to make a decision and end up making a justified decision. One can also be both highly qualified to make a decision and also make an unjustified decision (looking at you, American politics).
A
Sambar deer eat only the bony shells of box turtles.
B
Sambar deer often kill box turtles by accident.
C
Sambar deer kill box turtles only occasionally.
D
Box turtles sometimes compete with sambar deer for food.
E
Box turtles are much slower and clumsier than are sambar deer.
The question stem reads: Which one of the following, if true, best resolves the discrepancy above? This is a Resolve Reconcile Explain question.
In the Core Curriculum, we discussed how our job is to develop a hypothesis or explanation for the seemingly contradictory phenomena the stimulus provides. The stimulus tells us that "Sambar deer are physically incapable of digesting meat." Ok, the deer cannot consume and process meat for energy. But the stimulus also tells us that Sambar deer have been observed killing and feeding on box turtles. That’s puzzling. If the deer can’t eat meat, why are they killing and eating the box turtles? Our job is to explain that exact question.
Before we move into the answer choices, let's do some prephasing. We know that Sambar deer are incapable of digesting meat, so it would be bizarre if we noticed the deer consuming turtle meat. However, the stimulus says that the deer have been observed eating turtles. Is there more to a turtle than its meat? Of course there is! Perhaps the deer are eating the turtles' bones, skin, or eyes (are eyes meat? I digress). That would help explain the phenomena. The deer can’t digest meat, but they are not hunting and eating the turtles' meat; they are eating something else. Now that we have a solid prephase, we can join the Sambar deer and go hunting.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is exactly what we prephrased. (A) explains that the deer eat only the bony shell of the turtles. The deer are not killing and eating the turtles for meat (which the deer cannot digest); they are killing and eating the turtles for their shells.
Answer Choice (B) almost looks good but only provides a partial explanation. If you picked (B), you likely realized that (B) would explain why the deer kill the turtles when they cannot eat them. The deer aren't hunting the turtles. The deer are killing turtles by accident (turtle-slaughter?) However, (B) fails to explain why the deer go on to eat their unfortunate victims. Imagine your friend found you feeding on the carcass of a squirrel you had recently driven over and asked, "why are you doing that?" Responding through your blood-soaked teeth with, "I did it by accident," would leave your friend mildly horrified and still confused. For that reason, (B) is out.
Answer Choice (C) fails to explain both the eating and the killing. The fact that the deer kill and eat the turtles only on occasion does nothing to explain why they kill and eat the turtles when they cannot digest meat.
Answer Choice (D) is similar to (B) in providing only a partial explanation. (D) says that the turtles compete with the deer for food. That might explain why the deer have the incentive to kill the turtles. If they kill the turtles, the deer won't have to compete with them for food. However, that does not explain why they go on to eat the turtles. You could argue that the eating of the turtles is to strike fear into the other turtle's hearts and warn them away from the deer's territory. But at that point, though, we are making too many assumptions to make (D) work. So (D) is out.
Answer Choice (E) would explain how the deer are able to kill the turtles by saying that the deer are faster and more agile. However, our job isn’t to explain how the deer are killing the turtles, but why the deer are killing the turtles. For that reason, (E) is out.