We should recognize this as a strengthening question, since it asks us: Which one of the following, if true, would most support the researcher’s hypothesis?
We should know right from the get go that we are dealing with a strengthening question that involves a hypothesis, just based off of the question stem. As a reminder, whenever our conclusion is a hypothesis, an answer choice which eliminates an alternate hypothesis will always strengthen our argument. As we read our stimulus, we should be on the lookout for what it is our hypothesis is trying to explain; what is our phenomenon?
Our stimulus begins with essentially a definition of pit vipers; they are vipers with pits on the sides of their head which give them a thermal (think heat) impression of their environment. Interesting! This is our phenomenon; pit vipers have infrared sensors. We next learn about a prior hypothesis, an explanation for why this is the case. Scientists used to believe that the explanation for why pit vipers have their pits is that it helps them find prey, because all pit vipers are predators. However, the hypothesis we are tasked with supporting is that of a researcher who believes the pits are actually for detecting the pit viper’s predators.
What we have to remember is that predator and prey, similar to premise and conclusion, are relata. Just as the same sentence can be both a premise and a conclusion relative to other parts of the same argument, an animal can both be prey (relative to its predators) and a predator (relative to its prey). So although the scientists were right that all pit vipers are predators, they forgot that they are also all prey! So we now have two explanations for why the pit vipers have pits which have equivalent support. Our job is to tip the scales in favor of the detecting predators hypothesis. Let’s see what we get:
Answer Choice (A) This gives us a comparative of the pit viper genders which tells us none of their differences, but only traits they both share. We already knew they had infrared sensors, so all we learn is that they exhibit both aggressive and defensive behavior. The problem is that this could both support that the pits are for spotting prey (aggressive) or for evading predators (defensive), and in either case the support is incredibly small.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is what we would expect to be true if the pits were for evading predators and not for finding prey! What this answer essential gives us is a correlation; having pits correlates with markedly different defense strategies. It also gives us the absence of a correlation between having pits and different predatory behavior. This tips the scale in favor of our avoiding predators hypothesis!
Answer Choice (C) But why do they have the pits!
Answer Choice (D) Interesting, but this does nothing to explain why they might have the pits, and whether it relates to avoiding predators.
Answer Choice (E) C, D, and E all introduce some new factor (venom, smell, and rattles) without giving us any information that could support that pit vipers have their pits to avoid predators.
Here we have a weakening question, as the stem asks us: The charge made above against alternative medicine is most seriously weakened if it is true that
The question begins with the claim that orthodox medicine is ineffective at both ends of the spectrum of ailments. Orthodox in this context just means ‘standard’. This claim is elaborated with the details that orthodox medicine is bad at dealing with both minor discomfort and serious life-threatening illnesses. So standard medical practice can’t do much for your toothache or your tumor, if your problem is mild they can’t treat symptoms and if it’s severe they can’t cure it. For this reason, people turn to alternative medicine because orthodox medicine fails them or produces unwanted side effects. But alternative medicine has less unwanted side effects partly because it doesn’t have any effects at all. Doesn’t sound like it’s going to do any better of a job! Our task is to weaken this conclusion that alternative medicine doesn’t have any positive or negative effects. Let’s see our answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) This doesn’t have anything to do with effects.
Answer Choice (B) So they have different ideas about medicine, I think we could have gotten that from the ‘alternative’ part.
Answer Choice (C) That’s nice for the patient and could maybe be construed as an effect (though only for the subset whom orthodox medicine couldn’t cure), but this is a much weaker answer than D.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This suggests that alternative medicine can have side effects!
Answer Choice (E) Our job is to weaken the conclusion that alternative medicine has no side effects, we don’t care about orthodox medicine’s effects!
We should recognize this as a strengthening question, since the stem states: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the teacher’s argument?
Our stimulus takes the form of a dialogue between a student and teacher, and we are tasked with strengthening the teacher’s argument.
The teacher argues that journalists who don’t disclose the identity of their source stake their reputation on the ‘logic of anecdotes’. Basically, you judge their reporting, and consequently their reputation, on a similar basis to how you judge an anecdote. He supports this claim with some more specific information comparing anonymously sourced reports and anecdotes. It is necessary for an anonymous report to be published, and an anecdote to be good, that they be highly plausible, original, or interesting. The student responds by saying that if this were true, journalists wouldn’t need actual sources, since it wouldn’t be hard for a resourceful journalist to just invent plausible, original, or interesting stories. We want to support the Teacher’s claim that journalist stake their reputation on the logic of anecdotes when they use anonymous sources. On to the answer choices:
Correct Answer Choice (A) This connects our journalists premise about the requirements to be published with his conclusion about reputation.
Answer Choice (B) Our teacher’s argument is about anonymous sources; this isn’t relevant.
Answer Choice (C) This wouldn’t affect whether they get published, and hence whether the journalist stakes his reputation.
Answer Choice (D) This does nothing for us.
Answer Choice (E) We are interested in their reputation, and whether they stake it, not whether they are valued by their publishers.