Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that something is discouraging people who would be well-liked teachers from becoming teachers at all. This is based on a study where secondary students’ favorite teachers tended to have personality type X. However, only 5 percent of teachers are type X, compared to 20 percent of all people. In other words, teachers are much less likely to have personality type X.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that whatever is causing so few type X people to be teachers is happening before people take on teaching jobs, not afterwards. For example, people’s personality type may change after becoming a teacher, or type X people may quit teaching jobs more frequently.
A
People with the personality type constitute 5 percent of the medical profession.
This does not weaken the argument. The author’s hypothesis is limited to teachers, and there’s no apparent link that would make medicine analogous to teaching. And even if there were, we still don’t know why type-X people are only 5 percent of medical professionals.
B
People with the personality type constitute 5 percent of college students pursuing a degree in education.
This does not weaken the argument. Aside from anything else, we don’t know the relationship between education degrees and teaching jobs. Maybe lots of people without education degrees pursue teaching jobs. So this statistic doesn’t tell us much about teaching applicants.
C
Students of teachers with the personality type are intensely recruited for noneducational professions.
This does not weaken the argument. What happens to students of type X teachers has nothing to do with whether type X people are being discouraged from taking teaching jobs.
D
Students with the personality type are more likely to be liked by teachers than those with other personality types.
This does not weaken the argument. How teachers feel about their students is totally irrelevant to how we can explain the lower proportion of teachers with personality type X.
E
Teachers with the personality type are more likely to quit teaching than those with other personality types.
This weakens the argument. If type X teachers are more likely to quit teaching, that shifts the problem to a later stage than the author identifies. The author assumes that type X people aren’t taking on teaching jobs, but this undermines that assumption.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
Everyone who is levelheaded is neither excessively generous nor bold.
A
Everyone who is excessively generous is not bold.
This could be false. All we know from the stimulus is that everyone who is excessively generous is not levelheaded—the information in the stimulus doesn’t tell us that they are also not bold.
B
Everyone who is not bold is excessively generous.
This could be false. Being not bold is not a sufficient condition for anything, given the information in the stimulus.
C
No one who is not bold lacks excessive generosity.
In clearer terms, (C) says everyone who is not bold is excessively generous. This could be false. Being not bold is not a sufficient condition for anything, given the information in the stimulus.
D
If someone is levelheaded, then that person is neither bold nor excessively generous.
This must be true. As shown below, when we take the contrapositive of the conditional claims in the stimulus, we can see that all levelheaded people are neither bold nor excessively generous.
E
If someone is not levelheaded, then that person is either bold or excessively generous.
This could be false. Being not levelheaded is not a sufficient condition for anything, given the information in the stimulus.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that forensic science in general wasn’t responsible for the miscarriage of justice in the Barker case. This is because the forensic scientists acted with allegiance to the prosecution, rather than impartiality to the prosecution and defence.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that allegiance to the prosecution isn’t an essential aspect of forensic science; if it was, then forensic science in general indeed would be to blame for the miscarriage of justice. The author also assumes that forensic science can be differentiated than forensic scientists themselves.
A
Most forensic scientists acknowledge a professional obligation to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution.
Allegiance to the prosecution isn’t an integral aspect of forensic scientists. Most forensic scientists know this, which means these particular forensic scientists simply made a mistake.
B
The type of injustice that occurred in the Barker case has occurred in other cases as well.
If that injustice has appeared in other cases, perhaps routinely, then this suggests forensic science may actually be flawed. We’re looking to strengthen the opposite claim.
C
Most prosecuting lawyers believe that forensic scientists owe a special allegiance to the prosecution.
We don’t care what forensic scientists believe.
D
Many instances of injustice in court cases are not of the same type as that which occurred in the Barker case.
There’re lots of ways for justice to be miscarried. However, we only care about this specific way.
E
Many forensic scientists do not believe that any miscarriage of justice occurred in the Barker case.
This suggests many forensic scientists consistently believe they have an allegiance to the prosecution, which constitutes a miscarriage of justice. If virtually entire discipline believes this to be true, the forensic science is to blame. This could be a weakener.
Summarize Argument
The representative comes to the implied conclusion that the public need not be concerned about chemicals leaking into the river from the company’s plant. In support, the representative states that every new chemical must legally be tested for safety before being sold, and that this requirement is analogous to the testing required for new pharmaceuticals.
Notable Assumptions
The representative assumes that because pharmaceuticals are tested for their safety when consumed, industrial chemicals are also tested at this standard. But maybe chemical testing uses a different standard of “safety,” for example merely being safe to work with.
The representative also assumes that the chemical company’s dump only contains chemicals that were tested to the current standard. Maybe standards have changed, or maybe not all suppliers respect the law.
The representative also assumes that the chemical company’s dump only contains chemicals that were tested to the current standard. Maybe standards have changed, or maybe not all suppliers respect the law.
A
When pharmaceutical substances are tested for safety pursuant to federal requirements, a delay is imposed on the entry of potentially lifesaving substances onto the market.
This does not weaken the argument, because it doesn’t give us any reason to doubt the representative’s implied conclusion. Whether the testing delays the entry of substances onto the market tells us nothing about chemical safety standards.
B
Leakage from the dump has occurred in noticeable amounts only in the last few months.
This does not weaken the argument. The representative says that the chemicals are safe due to testing requirements, and like (D), how long they’ve been leaking has no relevance to that claim.
C
Before the federal law requiring testing of nonpharmaceutical chemicals went into effect recently, there were 40,000 such chemicals being manufactured, many of them dangerous.
This weakens the argument by casting doubt on whether all the chemicals in the company’s “long-established” dump would actually meet current safety requirements. This claim makes it totally possible that there are many dangerous untested chemicals in the dump.
D
The concentration of the chemicals leaking into the river is diluted, first by rainwater and then by the water in the river.
This does not weaken the argument, because like (B), the amount of likely exposure isn’t really the issue here. The representative’s claim is that the chemicals are safe, not that they’re potentially unsafe but diluted. This doesn’t address the chemicals’ actual safety.
E
The water in the river is murky because of the runoff of silt from a number of nearby construction projects.
This does not weaken the argument. Whether or not the river water is murky, or what other substances are in the river, is totally irrelevant to the issue of chemical safety. This just does not affect the argument at all.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Lopez and Simmons were foolish to reveal their marriage to Evritech. This is because one of them will lose their job offer due to the reveal, and they could’ve simply kept their marriage a secret until after they were hired.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes either that it wouldn’t have been wrong, in a moral or professional sense, for Lopez and Simmons to have hidden their marriage and lied about getting married after being hired, or that the problematic aspects of lying are outweighed by the fact Lopez and Simmons would’ve both been hired. The author also assumes that because Evritech doesn’t have a policy of terminating one of two employees who marry each other, Evritech doesn’t have a policy of terminating both employees.
A
Corporations that have rules against hiring more than one member of the same family should also prohibit their employees from marrying one another.
We have no idea what corporations should do. We care about what Lopez and Simmons should’ve done.
B
Corporations should adopt a policy of refusing to hire more than one member of the same family if that policy promotes overall fairness in its hiring practices.
Like (A), we’re not interested in what corporations should do. We care about what Lopez and Simmons should’ve done.
C
Job applicants are no more entitled to withhold information that is requested on application forms than they are entitled to lie on such application forms.
We have no idea how entitled Lopez and Simmons were to withhold information or lie. We have no idea if such information was ever requested.
D
Job candidates should refuse to accept positions in corporations whose personnel policies they cannot adhere to.
The author says Simmons and Lopez should’ve taken the positions.
E
Job candidates have no obligation to reveal to a prospective employer personal information such as marital status, regardless of the employer’s policies.
Simmons and Lopez weren’t wrong to withhold their marital status. This strengthens the author’s claim that Simmons and Lopez should’ve withheld their marital status by removing one possible problem of doing so.
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!