This is a necessary assumption question because the stem tells us that the argument is “depends” of the which of the offered “assumption.”
Necessary assumption questions fall under the subset of strengthen questions. All of the things we learned for strengthen, SA, and PSA question are still very important here! We’re going to be analyzing the stimulus the same way: identify the premise and conclusion, evaluate the argument, determine what, if anything, is missing. Our approach to the questions is very different. For NA question, in order for our conclusion to be true, our correct answer must be true. Without the correct answer, our argument will fall apart. This is what we’re looking for in our answer choice. Remember, we can always test our answer choices by using the negation test: if we negate the answer choice and it destroys our argument, its the correct answer!
This first sentence gives us the definition for addiction and, interestingly, the author uses “has been defined as” which kind of gives us the sense that this may be other people’s definition. This definition is that addiction means the dependence on and abuse of a certain substance. If we read onto the next sentence, even if the “however” is at the end, we can infer that the author does not agree with the running definition of addiction; he says that abuse and dependence do occur together.
The next two sentences are examples of this. He says cancer patients are dependent on morphine, but do not abuse it because they use it for their pain. And then he gives a general example of the reverse: a person can abuse morphine but does not need to dependent on it for anything.
Then we see our conclusion, which we predicted above: this definition of addiction is not correct.
This argument is fine. The salient feature of difficult NA question is that the correct answer choice can be VERY subtle. The negation test will be helpful for these answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This is not necessary to our argument. Cancer patients could have abused morphine is the past; the argument allows for this! The example in the argument is a hypothetical that can occur. And if we negate the answer choice (cancer patients sometimes abuse morphine), this is completely compatible with the argument because the example with the cancer patient is a hypothetical.
Answer Choice (B) This is not necessary for the argument. This answer choice is trying to draw a distinction between the hypothetical language of the argument and what will happen. However, it is not necessary for all cancer patients to often become dependent on morphine. Similar to what we said in AC (A), cancer patients rarely (instead of often) becoming dependent to morphine and the rest never becoming dependent is compatible with the argument.
Correct Answer Choice (C) When we read the argument, we just assumed that we were obviously talking about cancer patients who were addicted to morphine. But, we did not explicitly say that. If we negate this answer choice, it destroys our argument because the example we give to lend support to our argument becomes useless if the cancer patients are not addicted. In other words, if the individuals discussed in our examples are just dependent on or abusing a substance and not addicted, our argument falls apart. Very subtle!
Answer Choice (D) Similar to (A) and (B), this is not necessary for the argument. It could be the case that some cancer patients are just abusing the drug without being dependent on it. The negation of this doesn’t destroy our argument.
Answer Choice (E) This would weaken our argument; we’re trying to prove that abuse and dependence can happen separately while being addicted.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism at that…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The argument begins by paying out two factual events; at the same time humans spread to America, several species went extinct. The stimulus goes on to conclude from this information we know that hunting on the part of the humans is what ultimately caused the extinction of these different species.
The word “cause” points out exactly what type of flaw we are dealing with. Our author assumes a causal relationship from a correlation between two variables. Remember that our conclusion, if valid, would be something that must be true on the basis of the premises. But it does not make sense to conclude one thing caused another if all we know is that those two events happened at the same time. Just because they occur at the same time does not preclude the possibility of a 3rd outside factor causing both human migration and the extinctions.
Knowing this stimulus incorrectly assumes causation from correlation, we can jump into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. We are not introduced to a viewpoint where humans are seen as “not included in nature”. Rather, we are told that humans are so involved in nature there is an impact on the animals inhabiting this area.
Answer Choice (B) There are a few things that are not descriptively accurate about this answer choice. First, the answer accuses our argument of identifying a “myth” – a belief not based in objective fact and reason. But our issue with the argument is not the lack of reasoning. Our issue is that the reasoning provided does not lead us to our conclusion. Additionally, by telling us that the stimulus “presupposes what it attempts to prove,” answer choice B claims the existence of circular reasoning in our argument. When reasoning is circular, the conclusion is used as the evidence for the conclusion. We do not see an argument in the form of “B is true because B is true.” Knowing this, we can eliminate the answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice does not contradict the content of our stimulus, but it is not the flaw of our overall stimulus. It is true that there may have been a different level of significance of the extinctions of animals in modern times versus prehistoric times, our stimulus is not concerned with the past versus the future. Instead, our answer choice has to describe something affecting something else simply because they exist at the same time.
Answer Choice (D) We can’t eliminate this answer choice based on its descriptive accuracy. There very well could have been many other species that went extinct after humans inhabited North America. But whether or not other animals happened to go extinct during this time period does not point out the problem with our stimulus. Our argument takes a specific position on what the extinction of some animals means. Whether or not there were additional extinctions does not point out the causal issue at play in this argument.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively accurate answer choice points out the issue in our author’s interpretation of the evidence. This is the only answer choice that attacks that interpretation while pointing out the far too strong causal relationship the author concludes.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning that Oscar uses in supporting his prediction is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
This question presents us with two speakers. Right away, we should recognize that there are two conclusions and two reasons behind them. Our first speaker begins by telling us that due to emerging technology, speed of information processing will become the single most important factor in determining wealth. By this, Oscar means that countries will no longer be generally rich in the northern hemisphere and generally poor in the southern hemisphere. The first speaker uses this evidence to assert their overall conclusion that a country’s economic state will soon reflect the speed at which they process information.
The assumption in Oscar’s argument is tricky to find. At first glance, the argument does not seem terribly egregious. It makes sense that if tech speed = wealth, then the fastest countries would be the wealthiest and the slowest countries would be the least wealthy. But remember when looking at a flaw question that our conclusion must be forced to occur on the basis of our premises. Oscar is drawing a pretty strong conclusion here. By saying that a country’s wealth will be determined by speed of information processing, the speaker is also assuming that there is not some other factor that is going to be more important in the future. That feels almost like an obvious piece of information. Clearly, if Oscar thinks information processing speed is #1, he does not think some other factor is #1. But this is exactly how the assumption plays out into our correct flaw answer choice.
You may have noticed our question stem does not actually require us to analyze Sylvia’s argument. But, Sylvia does provide good insight into at least one way to describe what is wrong with Oscar’s position. Sylvia tells us that poor countries lack the means to acquire this technology to begin with. As a result, the technology will only worsen the existing wealth disparity between north and south. This is where we can see some disagreement between Oscar and Sylvia. While Oscar believes speed of information processing is going to be the ultimate determining factor, Sylvia identifies the beginning wealth of the country to begin with will actually impact eventual economic performance. The second speaker’s argument can help us confirm what we suspect to be the problem with the argument. Oscar concludes one factor will reign supreme. Sylvia confirms the assumption of our first speaker by saying there is a possibility some other factor will actually play the most important role.
Knowing our correct answer will point out Oscar’s assumption of wealth distribution through the globe, we can proceed into answer elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in Oscar’s argument. The first speaker tells us because speed is the most important factor, the conclusion follows. Whether or not there is another teeny tiny nearly insignificant factor that weighs .05% on wealth generation in a country is not the issue asserted by Oscar’s reasoning.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is again descriptively accurate but not what we are looking for as the flaw of Oscar’s position. The failure to establish this wealth division as the most important problem does not address Oscar’s assumption about the dissolution of that northern and southern hemisphere divide.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is exactly what we are looking for. This descriptively correct answer choice is the only one that points out the same possibility as Sylvia; maybe processing speed is not the guaranteed determinant of wealth. Instead, other factors such as beginning economic performance would change predicted wealth levels. This is the only answer choice that hits on the reasoning of Oscar’s argument. Although Sylvia isn’t the one telling us about a “combination” of other factors, this answer choice does point out the importance of some other considerations.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate issue of our argument. While it is true that Oscar does not provide us with an exact reason as to why technology will provide only beneficial effects, that is not the concern of our discussion. Rather than debating whether this technology will be purely beneficial, Oscar explores the consequences of one aspect.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is again descriptively accurate but not the ultimate issue in our discussion. Whether or not there is a distinction between the rich people in wealthy countries versus slightly less rich people in wealthy countries does not hone in on Oscar’s assumption about the factors impacting wealth and the adaptation of technology.
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.