Flaw/Descriptive Weakening
Let's say that someone's very obese. That's bad for their overall health. There are now a number of proposals on the table to help them lose weight. Consider proposal 1 which I won't reveal yet but trust me, it definitely helps them lose weight. Are you willing to accept that therefore it'll be good for their overall health?
Well you shouldn't. Because you know what proposal 1 is? Crystal meth. It'll help with the obesity by suppressing appetite and speeding up metabolism. But it'll also increase chances of you dead. So no. It's not gonna be good for overall health.
There's the analogy for the politician's argument. The proposal 1 is the regulation proposals. The obesity is the large trade deficit. The overall health is the overall economy.
Just because the proposed regulations would cut down the trade deficit doesn't mean that it would be good for the overall economy. The regulations could have other effects that would be bad for the overall economy. That's what (D) says.
(E) is saying that this argument commits a whole to part flaw. The conclusion descriptor is true enough. It does conclude that "every/each regulation will help the economy" but no where did it say that the entire set of regulations as a whole would help the economy. Who's even thinking about enacting the entire set of regulations? I don't know.
(B) is just descriptively inaccurate. The politician does not assume (take for granted) that reducing the trade deficit is the only way of improving the economy, just that it's one way. If you said "excuse me, but here's some Martian technology from 100 years in the future, that'll help boost your economy" the politician will just be like "cool, thanks buddy!"
In addition to the explanation given in the video for (E), here's another way to think about why (E) is the right answer. The Commentator relied on an appeal to the principle that one shall not impugn one's adversary's motives to establish his charge against Roehmer. But in his very argument, he violates that principle. So he's vulnerable to the very same criticism that he's charging Roehmer with. So, you or I could come along and say to him, which is it Commentator? Impugn okay or impugn not okay? If impugn not okay, then your argument fails because it impugns. If impugn okay, then your main argument against Roehmer fails. You lose either way. That's what (E) calls out, the inconsistency in the reasoning.
In addition to the explanation given in the video for (E), here's another way to think about why (E) is the right answer. The Commentator relied on an appeal to the principle that one shall not impugn one's adversary's motives to establish his charge against Roehmer. But in his very argument, he violates that principle. So he's vulnerable to the very same criticism that he's charging Roehmer with. So, you or I could come along and say to him, which is it Commentator? Impugn okay or impugn not okay? If impugn not okay, then your argument fails because it impugns. If impugn okay, then your main argument against Roehmer fails. You lose either way. That's what (E) calls out, the inconsistency in the reasoning.
Evaluate
Finance minister tells us that The World Bank runs a list for the Top Countries to Do Business in the World. They look at two things to determine your rankings. LSAT score no just kidding. They look at how easy it is for a hypothetical business to (1) file taxes and (2) comply with regulations. Ease of (1) plus ease of (2) gives you a good rating. If either or both are difficult, then that hurts your rating. The finance minister then tells us that they just made it a lot easier for small-medium sized businesses in their country to file taxes, i.e., to do (1). Okay, so next year their rankings will improve, right? Well maybe.
Here, probably many of you saw the issue with the rankings having two components. The arguments assumes that (2) didn't get any harder. So if we can show that (2) (complying with regulations) either got easier or stayed the same, then that's good for the minister's argument. But if (2) got harder, then it might have offset the gains made in (1) and that would be bad for the argument. So if that's what you had in mind, and you went down into the answer, you should have come up empty handed. No answers said that. (C) doesn't say that. (C) asks if (1) is more difficult than (2). What? We don't care about that! Answer that question either way and it doesn't matter. What we actually care about is if (2)-last-year was more difficult than (2)-this-year. It's the across-time-comparison of (2) to itself that we care about. Not the snapshot-in-time-comparison of (2) to (1).
Anyway, all of that is to hide another gaping hole in the argument. We kind of just assumed that because this person is the finance minister, they'd be talking only about relevant businesses, so we probably didn't even pay attention to when they said (1) was easier for small-medium sized businesses. We probably just assumed that those are the kinds of businesses that the World Bank would take as their hypothetical businesses. But we don't actually know that. What kinds of businesses will the World Bank actually look at when they're assessing the ease of (1) and (2)? We better hope for the Finance Minister's sake that they'll be looking at small-medium sized businesses! That's what (D) gives us.
Evaluate
Finance minister tells us that The World Bank runs a list for the Top Countries to Do Business in the World. They look at two things to determine your rankings. LSAT score no just kidding. They look at how easy it is for a hypothetical business to (1) file taxes and (2) comply with regulations. Ease of (1) plus ease of (2) gives you a good rating. If either or both are difficult, then that hurts your rating. The finance minister then tells us that they just made it a lot easier for small-medium sized businesses in their country to file taxes, i.e., to do (1). Okay, so next year their rankings will improve, right? Well maybe.
Here, probably many of you saw the issue with the rankings having two components. The arguments assumes that (2) didn't get any harder. So if we can show that (2) (complying with regulations) either got easier or stayed the same, then that's good for the minister's argument. But if (2) got harder, then it might have offset the gains made in (1) and that would be bad for the argument. So if that's what you had in mind, and you went down into the answer, you should have come up empty handed. No answers said that. (C) doesn't say that. (C) asks if (1) is more difficult than (2). What? We don't care about that! Answer that question either way and it doesn't matter. What we actually care about is if (2)-last-year was more difficult than (2)-this-year. It's the across-time-comparison of (2) to itself that we care about. Not the snapshot-in-time-comparison of (2) to (1).
Anyway, all of that is to hide another gaping hole in the argument. We kind of just assumed that because this person is the finance minister, they'd be talking only about relevant businesses, so we probably didn't even pay attention to when they said (1) was easier for small-medium sized businesses. We probably just assumed that those are the kinds of businesses that the World Bank would take as their hypothetical businesses. But we don't actually know that. What kinds of businesses will the World Bank actually look at when they're assessing the ease of (1) and (2)? We better hope for the Finance Minister's sake that they'll be looking at small-medium sized businesses! That's what (D) gives us.
History professor: Students are allowed to read whatever they like. The rule stipulates only that certain online encyclopedias are not to be cited as references since, given that they are not peer reviewed, they cannot reasonably be treated as reliable support for any claim.
A
research papers written for a history class require some citations to be from sources that have been peer reviewed
B
prohibiting a certain sort of online source material from being cited as a research reference amounts to prohibiting students from reading that source material
C
censorship of the reading of research publications that are peer reviewed can ever be justified
D
sources that are not peer reviewed often have solid support for the claims that they make
E
students should be allowed to read whatever they wish to in preparing to write a research paper for a history class
Weaken
Henry says that electric engines (cars) pollute less than combustion engines. Therefore, switching from regular cars to electric cars would reduce urban pollution.
This isn't a terrible argument. Car engines are a major contribution to pollution. But, Henry hasn't given an exhaustive (hehe) account of the situation. What if the production of electric engines is way more polluting than the production combustion engines? Sure using electric engines is less pollution but you gotta make them in the first place and that could tip the scales.
Umit doesn't go there, though he could have. He brings up another consideration that Henry overlooked. He reminds us that electric engines run on batteries that need charging. Charging all those batteries places greater demand on power plants which then will generate more pollution as a result.
Okay, yeah, that's a good point Umit! You did a good weakening on Henry's argument by pointing out something Henry overlooked (i.e. assumed wasn't an issue). Henry, batteries don't power themselves okay? You gotta charge them you dodo!
Alright, so now we have to do another 180 and weaken Umit's argument. We have to see that Umit assumed that the extra pollution generated by the power plants is relevant. (A) gives us a reason to think that it's not relevant. If it's true that power plants are not near major cities, then does their pollution even matter? Henry was only concerned about urban pollution after all, not pollution in the entire country or on the whole planet. (A) may as well have told us that these power plants are on Mars.
(B) is an attractive trap. It says that the additional units of pollution from the power plants would be "offset" by the decreased units of pollution from the electric engine cars. Okay, "offset" by how much? Entirely offset? Or just somewhat offset? We're not sure. So it could be on a range anywhere from entirely offset to just somewhat offset. But anywhere on that range is bad for Henry. Even if it's entirely offset, then that just means switching to electric cars is no better than not switching in the first place. Henry actually needs switching to electric cars to be better for urban pollution. Not just neutral.
What (B) needed to say is that the additional additional units of pollution from the power plants is only a tiny fraction of the total decreased units of pollution from the electric engine cars. In other words, power plants are generating +1 unit of pollution but electric cars are saving -10 units of pollution. That would help Henry and hurt Umit.