The argument begins with an explanation of the pharmacists' position; doctors should not sell medicine to patients due to the risk of over prescribing them. All seems well until we get to our speaker’s position. Rather than responding to the overprescription issue, the patient attacks the speaker and their motives for having that opinion. On the basis of those motives, our patient concludes that we can’t trust what the pharmacists are saying.
The answer to a method of reasoning question is going to exist in the evidence or explanation of our conclusion. One word we can use to summarize this stimulus would be “interests.” Using this prediction can help us effectively narrow down the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is incorrect because we are not actually refuting any of the pharmacists’ claims - we just cannot trust the opinion of that group entirely.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This answer choice lines up well with our prediction, confirming our speaker is attacking their opponent rather than the basis of their argument. This is our correct answer!
Answer Choice (C) Similar to answer choice A, we can eliminate this one based on the scope. Rather than refuting the argument they are faced with, our patient pursues a personal attack.
Answer Choice (D) We don’t have any information on what the general public thinks about all this. So, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) While our prediction regards a personal attack, this answer choice attacks the qualification of the pharmacist group. This is not what we are looking for.
This is a main conclusion question, which we can tell from the question stem, “The main point in Kim’s argument is that...”
Kim opens their argument with a statement about a claim from other people, stating that electric cars running on batteries might pose a solution to air pollution. Then, Kim adds in their take on that claim: apparently “some people” conveniently forgot about how batteries recharge, via electricity. Most of which comes from burning fossil fuels, which also pollutes the air. Kim says that because the electricity-generating facilities we have right now are at capacity, if we want more electric cars on the road, we would have to build more of those facilities. Alright, now were getting to Kim’s point, led in with “so” (a common conclusion indicator) to the extreme of the electric car proposal: even if we replaced literally all of the gas cars with electric ones, we’d just be trading of one form of air pollution for another. Looks like that’s our conclusion! In other words, Kim is saying battery-powered electric cars won’t actually solve the pollution issue as they’ll just contribute to it by different means.
Answer choice (A) says that Kim’s main conclusion is that to build more electric cars we need to build more electricity generating facilities. That was stated in the argument, but it was just one piece of support that made Kim’s final conclusion more likely to be true. It can’t be our answer, then, because it’s just a premise.
Answer choice (B) comes totally out of left field. Did Kim ever go as far as saying it’s absolutely necessary for people to just drive less to reduce air pollution? Goodness no, they’re just saying electric cars aren’t a great solution.
Answer choice (C) is not stated in the argument either. Can we point to any place in the stimulus where Kim claims that all types of cars are equally bad for air pollution? Nope.
Correct Answer choice (D) looks like a perfect rephrase of our prediction. Although it may not be stated word-for-word in the argument, there’s no way it’s not Kim’s main point. Why would Kim have said everything they did, ending on the note that electric cars are just an exchange of one form of pollution for another, if they didn’t think that battery-powered cars were not a viable solution as (D) states? This is our winner!
Answer choice (E) also goes too far and was never stated or supported in the argument. We don’t know if Kim thinks gas-powered cars are here to stay, we just know they don’t think electric cars are a viable solution.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “Jermone responds to Ingrid’s claim by…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker. Immediately we should note we have two speakers in our stimulus. That means we need to be on the lookout for two conclusions and two sets of explanations. Our first speaker, Ingrid, lays out a claim; rock has not produced compared to those of the 1940s, because the 1940s records are the ones that continue to be recorded by numerous performers today. Here, Ingrid is assuming a requirement of being a durable song is that it is recorded by numerous performers.
Jerome responds by questioning Ingrid’s assumption. Jerome recognizes that rock songs are only recorded once. However, our second speaker explains this actually reflects the durability of the recordings rather than the lack of popularity of these songs. Jerome challenges Ingrid’s definition of durability to further their own point about the durability of rock music.
Knowing our answer choice will mention the debate surrounding the qualifications of a durable song, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) We do not have the evidence to suggest that Jermone is intentionally misinterpreting Ingrid’s claim. An answer choice commenting on the intentions of one of the speakers has to follow up with strong confirmatory evidence.
Answer Choice (B) Rather than showing that the claim necessarily leads to a contradiction, Jerome is challenging Ingrid to change the way in which we define durable to begin with.
Answer Choice (C) If our speaker were undermining the truth of Ingrid’s position we would expect Jermone to be challenging the factual content regarding performers in the 1940s. Without questioning the validity of this information we can eliminate answer choice C.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for. This is the only answer choice that points out how Jermone adjusts the standards for determining what a durable song is.
Answer Choice (E) In order for this answer choice to be correct, we would need to see some indication that Jerome’s argument is based on some sort of character attack. We can eliminate the answer choice Eqwithout this information.
The question stem says “The main point of the argument is that…” so we know it must be a main conclusion question. We are looking for the claim that is most supported, or made more likely to be true, by the other claims in the argument.
First, we hear about a claim that is a “scientifically well-established fact.” Smells like context or background information to me, serving to make sure we are all on the same page going into the argument. The fact that smoking cigarettes over a long period of time can lead to intense health complications is accepted and rooted in empirical evidence. Okay, cool. How does the argument build off of this?
We leap into the next sentence guided by the phrase “contrary to what many people seem to believe.” This wording sets up a structural shift or contrast, further cemented with the “however.” At this point I’m really wondering if our conclusion is going to follow, as I have seen a shift like this act as an introduction to our main point before. The claim follows, wrapped up in a convoluted sentence ridden with double––no, triple––negatives. Let’s digest it bite by bite. The first sentence fragment states, “It is not necessary to deny this fact.” Vague referential language again. Which fact? A quick scan leaves us with no other option than the “well-established” fact above, so that fragment can be rephrased as “one doesn’t have to claim that cigarettes do not lead to these health problems,” or even more bluntly, “you don’t have to think cigarettes aren’t bad for you...” The second half of the sentence, beginning with “in order to reject the view that,” can be rephrased as “in order to claim tobacco companies should not be responsible for poor smoker health.” Let’s combine and rephrase again: you don’t have to think cigarettes are fine for your health to agree that tobacco companies shouldn’t be blamed when smokers fall ill. Ah, now I see where this argument is going. This claim is a strong contender for our main conclusion due to the indicator words (and that we have no reason thus far to believe otherwise), but we need support. If the next sentence makes it more likely that this one is true, we’ve got our winner.
Ooh! An analogy! I was kind of bored before, but now I’m paying more attention. The author is setting up a similar situation in which a substance (candy) that is detrimental to one’s health in the long run, but the big difference between candy and cigarettes here is apparently that “no one” really thinks candy addicts should have the right to sue candy companies for tooth decay. Eh, I can come up with a few holes to poke in this argument right away, but that’s not my job for this question. I’m only concerned with the role played by each claim here, and it would not follow that this last sentence is the main conclusion. We already determined that it’s an analogy meant to set up a comparison, and it demonstrates a supposed inconsistency in the logic of the argument this author sets out to disprove. In other words, the argument follows as such: the fact that smoking is bad for you isn’t enough on its own to say that tobacco companies should be morally or legally responsible for smoking-related health issues, in the same sense that candy being bad for you isn’t enough to claim that candy companies should have similar responsibilities for their over-consumers’ health complications.
Recap: where was the main conclusion? Well, if we don’t have to go as far as to say cigarettes are good for you to believe that tobacco companies aren’t at fault when smokers get sick, and if we would never make the same claim about candy manufacturers even though candy is proven to be unhealthy in excess, then accepting the proven fact that cigarettes are bad isn’t sufficient on its own to be able to say tobacco companies should be liable for Grandma’s 3-pack-a-day cough. All I did was rephrase the argument––each of those “ifs” in my rephrase are more clearly premises that made the conclusion more likely to be true: that we can’t sue tobacco companies just because smoking kills. I’m looking for a rephrase of this in my correct AC, and I’m going to identify if each AC is stated in the argument and if it’s the main conclusion––check both boxes and, bingo, we’ve got our pick!
Answer Choice (A) Eh, no, I don’t even think this was stated or implied by the argument. I see what they did here by throwing in a lot of buzzwords we recognize from the argument, but I’m not so easily tricked. Never was it stated that “no one should feel it necessary” to claim smoking isn’t bad for health. Instead, we just know that it isn’t necessary to claim smoking isn’t bad for health in order to agree that tobacco companies aren’t at fault. Nuanced difference, but completely changes the implied meaning.
Answer Choice (B) This was kind of stated in our argument, but isn’t the main conclusion. It references the final line of the stimulus, where the author posits that “no one seriously believes” that candy eaters should get to sue candy manufacturers. So, it was a piece of the analogy that serves as support for the main conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (C) Wait, yes. This matches our paraphrase, which was difficult to get to, but must be the main conclusion! In other words, the fact that smoking is bad for you isn’t enough on its own to say smokers can sue tobacco companies. No qualms here, it's both stated (although not word-for-word) in the argument, and it expresses the author’s main idea. We know exactly why the author wants us to believe this (because who would hold candy companies legally responsible in that way?), so it’s supported.
Answer Choice (D) Was this stated? Nope. This AC goes way too far and there isn’t anywhere in the argument I can point to that communicates this idea. The only comparison we make between candy and cigarettes is that they are both bad for your health, but we don’t know how likely each is to lead to health problems.
Answer Choice (E) Tempting, but absolutely not. Test takers may gravitate towards this AC because it mentions buzzwords from the argument and talks about the comparison between candy and cigarettes and holding the respective corporations accountable. However, is this actually stated in the argument? No. Maybe the author would agree with this, but that’s not even what our job is to figure out. We want to find what was both stated in the argument and is the author’s main point.
This is a flaw/descriptive weakening question, and we know this because of the question stem: “…reasoning is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?”
Let’s take a look at the first sentence. Despite his usually poor appetite, Monroe enjoys three meals at Tip-Top but becomes sick after each meal. Immediately, this sounds like a correlation: the phenomenon of becoming sick occurring with the phenomenon of eating a Tip-Top.
The second sentence is pretty straightforward: it’s a list of each meal he ate at the restaurant. Interestingly, they’re all very large meals, especially for someone who generally has a “poor appetite,” and they all have a side of hot peppers. Both of these look like premises. They’re both statements of facts.
What does our conclusion say? Since all three meals had peppers (premise), Monroe concludes that he became ill solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers. Solely? Not only is he assuming causation, but it’s very restrictive. Sure, hot peppers may have contributed to feeling ill, but what about eating this kind of unhealthy food? What about eating this amount of food? What if he’s lactose and fried-food intolerant? The causal relationship he establishes is shaky because “solely” is an unwarranted restriction in the implied causation.
Answer Choice (A) It’s hard to establish whether or not it’s descriptively accurate because “too few” is pretty subjective. We sometimes know after one meal why we got sick. Additionally, he still got sick after each of these three meals, so there must be some reason he’s getting sick. But let’s just say it is accurate. Is this the flaw? No! This isn’t a sample size issue; it’s the restriction in the causal relationships that’s an issue. It could be that hot peppers partially contributed to him feeling ill, in which case 3 meals isn’t “too few.”
Answer Choice (B) This is not correct because it’s descriptively inaccurate. We know explicitly from the stimulus that he became ill after consuming each the meal (read first sentence).
Answer Choice (C) This is not descriptively accurate because, although he may want to continue dining at Tip-Top, there is no evidence of this biasing his conclusion. Also, if he wanted to continue eating at Tip-Top, it would make more sense for him to blame his illness on something outside Tip-Top’s control/menu.
Answer Choice (D) This is descriptively accurate, but it’s not the flaw. Just because hot peppers didn’t make everyone else sick, that doesn’t mean it cannot make Monroe sick. Other people’s reaction to the hot peppers is not relevant to the conclusion Monroe draws, and even if this was established, it would not strengthen Monroe’s position.
Correct Answer Choice (E) It demonstrates that his causal relationship is unwarranted by introducing an alternative cause, which we know is one of three ways to disprove a causal relationship.
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question and we know this because of the question stem: “The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that…”
With a flaw question, we’re trying to identify reason(s) the conclusion wouldn’t follow the premises. In other words, we’re trying to extrapolate and explain why the stimulus is flawed, and why the premises don’t support the conclusion. Remember, there could be multiple flaws.
The first sentence goes into percentages. Whenever this happens, it’s always a good idea to pay close attention to what subset or group of individuals/items is being discussed. Here, we know the group is voice recording taken from small planes involved in relatively minor accidents. Great! What about this group? Over 75% of the recordings showed that the pilot whistled 15 minutes right before the accident. The rest of this percentage pie? Under 25% of the recordings when planes were involved in accidents did not record pilots whistling 15 minutes before the accident.
Two things should be going through our minds here: first, this sounds like a statement of facts, and is probably going to be a premise; second, this sounds like correlative language. If that’s the case, what can we draw from this statement? Only that these two instances are correlative! Remember that correlation does not imply causation.
The second sentence is very straightforward, probably a premise or context. At this point, it’s okay not to really understand what function it has in the argument; let’s put it aside and return to it.
Now we’re coming to our last sentence, and it starts with “therefore.” If I haven’t seen my conclusion and this starts with a conclusion indicator, I’m praying this is it. And it is! It’s a conditional conclusion, which means that we’re only concerned with instances where the pilot starts to whistle because that is when our sufficient condition is triggered. Okay, now on to the substance of the conclusion. Why should passengers take safety precautions when the pilot starts to whistle? Presumably, there would be a risk. What’s the risk here? According to this argument, and specifically the second sentence, the risks are the minor accidents that small airplanes are involved in.
The argument is making a jump from whistling to the accident but doesn’t explicitly relay what that relationship is. The part where I say “presumably, there would be a risk” is what the argument is assuming as causation. The argument is assuming that since accidents occur in over 75% of the voice-recorder tapes taken from small airplanes involved in relatively minor accidents where the pilot was recorded whistling 15 minutes prior, then it must be that whistling causes those accidents*.*
We know from the core curriculum that this line of reasoning is ridiculous. You cannot imply causation from correlation! There are a thousand different things that could have caused the accident independent of the pilot whistling. And there are many things we can point to that the argument overlooks. For example, what if most pilots whistle during flying—regardless of the size of the plane and the majority of them—and never get into accidents? What if pilots whistle all the time, but different things caused those accidents? The questions are endless. Now that we’ve identified a flaw, let’s get into the answer choices with our two steps: is this answer choice descriptively accurate? Is this the flaw?
Answer Choice (A) Accepting the reliability of the statistics given by the official is descriptively accurate, but this isn’t a flaw. Firstly, we have to accept the premises of this argument, which would mean that we have to accept the statistics. Second, the reliability of the statistic isn’t what makes our conclusion unsupported. This is out.
Answer Choice (B) Descriptively accurate, but not the flaw. This is trying to confuse you by bringing up statistics. This says in 25% of these accidents (where passengers did not hear the pilot whistle), the recommendation (take precautions once they hear whistling) wouldn’t help because they heard no whistling before the accident. So, what? The argument isn’t concerned about the safety of all passengers; it’s specifically talking about passengers who hear the pilot whistle.
Answer Choice (C) This is descriptively accurate, but again, it is not a flaw. Defining what small accidents are is not pertinent to the inadequacy of the support the premise gives the conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is saying that the argument is ignoring the percentage of all small airplanes, including the planes that do not get involved in accidents, in which the pilots whistle. What this answer is trying to say is that the argument is only looking at planes that do get involved in small accidents. What about planes that don’t get involved in those accidents – it could be that the argument is overlooking the much more likely scenario that whistling is something pilots do very often during flights, and the correlation between accidents and whistling is a total coincidence.
Answer Choice (E) This is descriptively accurate, but it’s not the flaw. This answer choice forces the argument to consider the proportion of planes that get into accidents; for example, out of 100 small planes, 25 will get into accidents. So, what? This isn’t relevant to the conclusion, nor is it what makes the conclusion unsupported.
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question and we know this because of the question stem: “A flaw in the…reasoning…”
With a flaw question, we’re trying to identify reason(s) the conclusion wouldn’t follow the premises. In other words, we’re trying to extrapolate and explain why the stimulus is flawed, and why the premises don’t support the conclusion. Remember, there could be multiple flaws.
The magazine article talks about a new proposal by The Environmental Commissioner and that there is going to be a nationwide debate on them. These new proposals are called “Fresh Thinking on the Environment.” The tone in the next sentence is important: clearly, the article doesn’t think “fresh thinking” can come from the commissioner and therefore the proposal deserves a closer inspection. So far, both of these sound like premises.
The next sentence gives credence to the second sentence we just read: these proposals by the Commissioner are almost identical to Tsarque Inc’s proposals which were issued three months ago.
Before we read the next sentence, what can we conclude from just this information? Well, even though the Commissioner may have believed that his proposals were “fresh thinking,” we can conclude that the title is misleading. We could also say that conversations arising from the debate on the Commissioner’s proposals could be applied to the Tsarque Inc’s proposals.
What does our conclusion say? Since Tsarque Inc’s pollution is an environmental nightmare (premise), the magazine thinks the debate on the Commissioner’s proposals can end here. Note that the argument is jumping from Trasque’s actions to the Commissioner’s proposal. It’s fair to draw similarities between the two proposals since we know they’re identical – remember, we have to accept the premises. The problem is jumping from Tsarque Inc’s actions to Tsarque Inc’s/the Commissioner’s the proposal.
This is the problematic assumption: Trasque’s polluting tendencies are reflected in their proposals (and therefore the Commissioner’s proposal). The magazine article is using the actions of the company against the proposals, even though the content of the proposals could have nothing to do with those actions. In other words, this argument has an “Ad Hominem” fallacy, meaning that an attack directed at the person/organization rather than the position they take in their proposal. The magazine article tried to dismiss the proposal in a roundabout way rather than addressing the content directly. Now that we’ve identified a flaw, let’s get into the answer choices with our two steps: is this answer choice descriptively accurate? Is this the flaw?
Answer Choice (A) This is not descriptively accurate. Two things can be similar without one influencing the other. But for argument’s sake, let’s say this is descriptively accurate – after all, the two people involved in the proposals are close friends. Is this the flaw? Is the reason the argument is flawed because it assumes these influenced one another? No! The argument wants to dismiss the commissioner’s proposals by attacking Trasque’s actions, whose proposals (which are the same as the Commissioner’s) may not have any similarities to their actions.
Answer Choice (B) This is not descriptively accurate - nowhere in the premises do we see distortion.
Correct Answer Choice (C) YES! This is perfectly describing what ad hominem fallacies are.
Answer Choice (D) Emotive? There is no controversial language here. The tone suggest the magazine does not like what is said in the proposals, but it’s not using controversial language. This fails the first step - it’s not descriptively accurate.
Answer Choice (E) This is not descriptively accurate. The argument appeals to Tsarque’s actions; the reference to the chief could have been put there to throw us off, but the argument simply does not appeal to the chief’s authority.
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question, more specifically, we need to figure out why the therapist’s response to the interviewer is flawed.
Let’s look at what the Interviewer is saying. In his first sentence, he is talking about the therapist’s claims, saying that biofeedback, diet changes, and better sleep habits succeed in curing insomnia. This is a causal claim. In the next sentence, he elaborates on another claim: with rigorous adherence to the proper treatment, any case of insomnia will be cured. Another causal claim. There is a tone clue here: “You go so far as to claim that…” That makes me think this author doesn’t buy the therapist’s claims. I’m thinking these are both premises, since they represent other people’s ideas.
In the next sentence, we see a “yet;” there is a shift. We were talking about the therapist’s claims, now we’re going to be talking about something that’s probably at odds with the earlier claims. Reading on, that’s exactly the case: our author says that some insomniac patients do not respond to treatment.
So far, all of these sentences look like premises. No sentence is providing support to another sentence. The interviewer is outlining the therapist’s claims and then stating a fact. Well, how can we figure out what the argument is saying without the conclusion??
The conclusion here is implicit. We have enough tonal clues and claims to assume what the author probably thinks. His implicit conclusion is: the therapist’s claim (with rigorous adherence to the proper treatment, any case of insomnia is curable) isn’t realistic. Why? Take a look at that last sentence: “…some patients suffering from insomnia do not respond to treatment.”
The therapist’s counter to this is a single, conditional line: when patient don’t respond to treatment, this just means that they are not rigorous in adhering to their treatment. There is no conclusion here; however, we can assume the implicit conclusion is denying the interviewer’s conclusion. Basically, the therapist’s conclusion would be “my claim still holds."
Why is this argument flawed? It’s circular reasoning: he’s repeating a claim the interviewer attributed to him: with rigorous adherence to proper treatment, insomnia is curable. He’s ignoring the evidence that the interviewer puts forth to discredit him and sneakily assuming a causal relationship that isn’t valid.
Two things:
First: when the interviewer says: “Patients suffering from insomnia do not respond to treatment,” he could have been talking about patients who did adhere to the proper treatment rigorously.
Knowing this allows us to understand the possibility of the next point:
Second: the therapist says that if the patients do not respond, it must be because they didn’t adhere rigorously to the treatment. He’s assuming causation when, as we mentioned above, it could be that patients did adhere to the treatment rigorously and there is another reason the treatment was not effective.
There are a couple of flaws here: first, the illicit causal relationship, and second, the circular reasoning. Let’s go into the answer choices, making sure we hit our two-step test: is this answer choice descriptively accurate? Is this the flaw?
Correct Answer Choice (A) Not only is this descriptively accurate, but it represents the issue of assuming causation and circular reasoning. The argument is ignoring evidence that could show that patients were following the treatment rigorously, and asserts his claims as if the disconfirming evidence would not affect the validity of his claims.
Answer Choice (B) This is not descriptively accurate – treatment is used with consistent meaning throughout the stimulus.
Answer Choice (C) This is descriptively accurate, but it is not a flaw. While there could be different causes for different cases of insomnia, this does not mean that the treatment for each needs to be different. This answer choice does not address the issue of why the argument is flawed.
Answer Choice (D) This is descriptively accurate. But it’s not a flaw. The issue at hand has to do with a repetition of beliefs that ignores evidence and implies causation illicitly. Statistical evidence is not a flaw because statistics are not relevant to the kind of flawed support the therapist’s argument contains.
Answer Choice (E) This is descriptively accurate, but it’s not the flaw. Remember, the therapist is only talking about patients who receive and don’t respond to treatment. Everything else is irrelevant to the argument.