We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Which one of the following most accurately characterizes Dr. Santos’ response to the hypothesis advanced by Dr. Libokov?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Our first speaker, Dr. Libokov, tells us about the “S” reptile (whose technical name is far too long to recall). The speaker explains that the S reptile has disappeared throughout the rest of the world with the exception of a few islands around New Zealand. Dr. L concludes the explanation for this is simple, on account of the development of mammal species on larger islands that feed on the S reptile’s eggs, leading to extinction.
This first argument doesn’t have any glaring issues. While Dr. L certainly assumes that mammals became enough of a threat to the S reptile that it considerably reduced their numbers, the reasoning behind the speaker’s conclusion lines up. This very well may be why our second speaker, Dr. Santos, provides support to affirm Dr. L’s position. Dr. Santos explains that in addition to what we heard from the first speaker, any islands where mammals have been introduced ultimately see an extinction of the S reptile.
In this way Dr. Santos does fill in the itty bitty gap in Dr. L’s argument. While we can conclude a major predator would have an impact, we don’t quite have the information to assume the mammals would lead to inevitable extinction. But Dr. Santos confirms that actually we can say there is a guarantee if we introduce mammals the S reptile will decline in population. Knowing our correct answer choice will highlight how our second speaker adds to the first, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) Identifying a flaw means Dr. Santos would be weakening the argument. Knowing our second speaker supports (perhaps more importantly, does not discredit) we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (B) If our second speaker were adding nothing to the discussion as claimed by this answer choice, we would expect to see an exact repetition of Dr. L’s argument. We can eliminate this answer choice because there is new information presented by Dr. Santos.
Answer Choice (C) Similarly to answer choice A, this answer accuses Dr. Santos of weakening rather than strengthening our first speaker’s argument. And if we did not like this in A, we should eliminate answer choice C as well.
Answer Choice (D) It almost feels like these wrong answers say the exact same thing in different ways. Again, this answer choice accuses our second speaker of weakening or taking away from the first speaker’s argument. Like A and C, we can eliminate D for this reason.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly highlights the additional positive information Dr. Santos contributes to the first speaker’s position.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “T responds to S by showing that…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Our first speaker, S, begins with their conclusion; S’s nation is becoming too averse for risk. We know this is the conclusion because our “why” follows - why is the nation too risk averse? Well, S tells us, that is because modern society will boycott foods despite the minimal risk of toxic chemical exposure. S assets that Columbus never would have sailed west with this attitude, circling back to our mail point - the nation is too risk averse.
In making this argument S is making an assumption about what it means to embrace risk. According to our first speaker, if you boycott these toxic foods you won’t think like Columbus and as a result become too risk averse. But simply because the public is not adventurous like Columbus (his questionable ethics aside) S cannot say the public is overall too averse to risk. Perhaps the risk taken by Columbus only his crew and the native people compared to contaminated foods which may be sold throughout the whole globe. But let us see what our second speaker has to say about this.
In response, T points out the assumption of our first speaker’s argument. It is not the case that being risk averse in one single way translates to being risk averse in all ways. As T points out, it could be that Columbus did sail the ocean blue in 1492 and also would have been on the boycott bandwagon of toxic foods.
Knowing we are looking for the answer choice that identifies the strict definition S is applying to risk averse we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer sounds good at first by telling us that a distinction about risk should be made. But, not the distinction we want. We don’t care whether the risks are avoidable or not - but whether people are just going to embrace them generally.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for. This is the only answer choice that identifies that what is defined as “risk” depends on the context of the situation.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice accuses our second speaker of making a conclusion about something confusing the minds of the public. Without referring to the confusion on the people specifically (rather than simply in the disagreement between our speakers) we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) The topic of math does arise in S’s argument, but it is not a concern in speaker T’s discussion. So, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) almost seems to be a contender with the mention of a definition. We know the definition of risk averse is at odds between the speakers. However, our speakers are not concerned in establishing the perceived probable “benefit” of taking risks.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “The method of the argument is to…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
The speaker begins by telling us Juanita has two options to get to the zoo; taking the number 12 bus or the subway. This indicates we’re using an exclusive “or.” We know Juanita cannot physically take the bus and the subway at the same time. Next we learn that Juanita does in fact end up at the zoo by the end of the day, but the number 12 bus is not in operation. Thus, the argument concludes that Juanita must have used the other available option – using the subway.
Thinking in terms of conditional reasoning, we could sketch the relationships by identifying:
Getting to the zoo → riding the bus or the subway
From here we can use the contrapositive to confirm the validity of our argument. When we use the contrapositive of an “or” statement, it turns into and.
If we don’t ride the bus and we don’t ride the subway → Juanita isn’t getting to the zoo.
Determining an argument to be valid means we can prove the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. That’s the reason we know we are dealing with a valid argument here. The conclusion affirms one option must have happened for Juanita to get to the zoo. So if one of the two options are closed, the conclusion does follow that Juanita must have used the alternative form of transportation.
Knowing the breakdown of our stimulus, we can jump into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. If our argument concerned a group having knowledge of some concept, the discussion would go beyond Juanita’s use of transportation.
Answer Choice (B) If the argument were proving that something is not exclusive, we would expect our conclusion to assert that “these two things can happen at the same time.” But this does not align with the content of our conclusion, meaning we can eliminate this answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that highlights how our argument comes to its conclusion by outlining the alternative given an impossible option.
Answer Choice (D) There is no reference in the text to say there is some sort of exception in the case of Juanita making their way to the zoo. We can eliminate this answer choice for that reason.
Answer Choice (E) To say that the argument discusses what “typically occurs” indicates our stimulus would discuss the frequency at which Juanita takes transportation or goes to the zoo. Without this information in our stimulus we can eliminate this answer choice.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “The argument uses which one of the following argumentative techniques?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
The philosopher begins their argument by explaining a belief of the thesis absolute motion; the change in an object’s position over time does not need a reference item for measurement. We are told a well-respected physicist claims the thesis to be incoherent. The philosopher concludes that because an incoherent thesis cannot be a description of reality, the thesis is incorrect (motion cannot be absolute.) Knowing that our stimulus uses the belief of the physicist to support their argument, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Without the use of “technological terminology” in the stimulus, we can eliminate answer choice A.
Answer Choice (B) Our stimulus is not suggesting a change in definition as suggested by this answer choice. Instead the argument tells us that a particular thesis is not correct.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly describes the author’s use of an authority (the physicist) to support the main conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) If this answer choice were correct, we would need to see the use of some sort of observational evidence in the stimulus. Without this information, we can eliminate answer choice D from contention.
Answer Choice (E) This is not descriptively accurate. This answer choice accuses the stimulus of referring to different regions and comparing those to the entire region. Without any sort of “region” distinction we will have to eliminate answer choice E.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “The argument employs which one of the following reasoning techniques?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
We first learn of a fire that destroyed the city Municipal Building, occupying the fire fighters until the late afternoon. Because anyone within the vicinity would have seen the fire, and Thomas’s walk home had to go through that area, the speaker concludes Thomas must have seen the fire. This seems to be a fairly reasonable conclusion. Knowing that our stimulus uses a series of must-be-true information to affirm the conclusion we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) If our evidence would individually “allow the conclusion to be properly drawn,” we would not need to link the steps together in our stimulus. We can eliminate this answer choice because we know our premises link together to support the conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly describes the linked series of events that lead us to the main point.
Answer Choice (C) This is not descriptively accurate due to the emphasis on temptation. Without any reference to why it is tempting to believe Thomas did not see the fire we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) In order for this to be our correct answer, the stimulus would need to include evidence of something that “regularly occurred” in the past. Without this evidence we can eliminate this answer choice from contention.
Answer Choice (E) Saying our conclusion asserts what is “possible” does not quite line up with our stimulus. The speaker concludes that Thomas must have seen the fire - not that it was simply a possibility.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “In the conversation, Yolanda does which one of the following?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Our first speaker, Sally, introduces some conditional reasoning. Sally tells us: S (if they study at a university) → /A (there is no alcohol problem). We are told on the basis of this relationship that unless something is done about the alcohol problem at this university, Sally will have to transfer somewhere with no fraternities.
Woah, where did that come from? Sally goes from talking about an alcohol problem to accusing the fraternities of causing these issues. By telling us Sally may end up transferring to a university without fraternities Sally assumes that: /F (no fraternities) → /A (no alcohol problem). Our second speaker points out this assumption exactly. Yolanda points out that fraternities are not a necessary condition for universities having alcohol problems. Our second speaker concludes alcohol is a culture rather than a fraternity problem because of the universities with alcohol problems that do not have fraternities.
Knowing that Yolanda points out the existence of these issues in the absence of fraternities, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer suggests Yolanda introduces a hypothetical about the number of people who will abuse alcohol. Rather than discuss what would happen in a certain case Yolanda discusses specific instances of alcohol problems in the absence of fraternities.
Answer Choice (B) This answer accuses Yolanda of saying “because one university has this issue, all universities must have this issue.” Instead the stimulus presents us with the opposite. Because alcohol problems exist at all universities Yolanda concludes fraternities are not an issue at this particular university.
Answer Choice (C) This answer is not descriptively accurate. In their argument Yolanda tells us that fraternities are not a required condition for alcohol problems. Yolanda does not establish that it’s impossible for fraternities to ever cause alcohol problems.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that points out Yolanda’s evidence; alcohol problems at other universities that do not have fraternities.
Answer Choice (E) Similar to answer choice A, we have here a hypothetical scenario not present in Yolanda’s reply. We do not see Yolanda conclude they would maintain their conclusion even if their evidence was not accurate.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Myrna responds to Roland by…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Our first speaker, Myrna, begins the discussion by introducing a claim; people’s calorie breakdown should consist of 30% or less of fat compared to the 37% that makes up a person’s diet in this country on average.
Roland responds to this claim with a hypothetical. The second speaker explains if everyone were to follow this recommendation, a very small percent of people would live a tiny bit longer than they would otherwise. Ronald concludes that such a sacrifice is not worthwhile as a result. Here, Ronald makes an assumption. By telling us that a possible 3 month extension is not worthwhile, Roland has assumed there are no possible worthwhile benefits aside from living for another 3 months.
Myrna points out this assumption in their reply. The speaker tells us a low-fat diet not only has the potential to extend life expectancy, but also it has the ability to reduce the recurrence of diseases that are impacting people on a daily basis. Myrna weakens Roland’s position by pointing out there are other benefits that may not be directly related to life expectancy. Having broken down the arguments of our speakers, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) If Mryna were disputing the correctness of the facts we would expect them to introduce some information that misaligned with Roland’s argument. Because of this we can eliminate answer choice A.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that highlights Myrna’s method to have Roland consider benefits outside of life expectancy.
Answer Choice (C) Similar to answer choice A, this answer accuses Myrna of disputing the factual correctness of Roland’s statistics. Because Myrna introduces a completely new topic of consideration we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) We do not see Mryna refer to the sources used to create Roland’s argument. We can eliminate answer choice D because of this.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice accuses Myrna of engaging in circular reasoning - where we use the conclusion as the evidence for our conclusion. Without some sort of circular train of thought (we should follow the diet because we should follow the diet) we can eliminate this answer choice from contention.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Maria responds to Lucien’s argument by…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Lucien begins the discussion by summarizing the position of the public housing advocates; more low-income housing apartments are needed due to the large number of unhoused people in the city. Lucien concludes this argument is absurd. The first speaker tells us plenty of apartments are vacant in their apartment building, so homelessness must be the result of a lack of desire to work instead of a lack of housing.
Lucien is presenting quite a silly argument. Clearly, the number of vacancies in their and their college's apartments has no indication on the direness of homelessness across the entire city. It could be the case that there are thousands of unoccupied luxury apartment buildings that are unattainable for the unhoused even if they are employed.
Our second speaker points this out exactly. Maria explains that many homeless people actively hold regular jobs. In doing so, Maria undermines the evidence Lucien is using to prop up their argument. Once we have a prediction we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This is not descriptively accurate. Maria is not questioning Lucien’s personal experiences or suggesting there are not vacancies at Lucien’s apartment building. Because of this we can eliminate answer choice A.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for. An easy answer to accidentally eliminate, this is the only option that points out how Maria attacks a specific piece of evidence provided for Lucien’s position. Whether or not there is a more specific way we could describe the stimulus, that does not change the stimulus factually aligns with answer choice B.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice suggests Maria attacks the motives of the first speaker. We can eliminate this answer choice since Maria’s explanation rests on the number of homeless people maintaining jobs rather than the qualities of the first speaker.
Answer Choice (D) For this answer choice to be correct, Maria would need to present a conclusion different from Lucien’s. But all Maria presents us is evidence that weakens Lucien’s evidence. For this reason we can eliminate answer choice D.
Answer Choice (E) Rather than providing a different explanation for a set of facts, Maria provides new information to weaken Lucien’s argument. The introduction of new information is why we can eliminate this answer choice.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “The argument in the passage proceeds by…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
The speaker begins by telling us about a fossil discovery. We learn these fossils cast doubt on the theory that dinosaurs are more closely related to reptiles than non-reptile animals. We can identify our first sentence as the conclusion because of the support that follows. After making this claim about the doubt created, the author follows with a series of examples describing how dinosaurs are different from present day reptiles and similar to present day non-reptiles.
Knowing our stimulus lists off the reasons for the author’s main conclusion, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) We can eliminate this answer choice due to the language “erroneous information.” Our speaker bases their conclusion on reasons for their position rather than accusing the opposition of having bad information.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is incorrect due to the suggested ordering of events in our stimulus. This answer accuses the argument of establishing a general principle followed by a conclusion. Knowing our stimulus begins with a conclusion and follows with explanation, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) For this answer to be correct, our argument needs to make a conclusion about the premises. We can eliminate this option because our conclusion surrounds the relationships of dinosaurs (definitely not a modern-day subject) to other animals.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice goes beyond what our argument concludes. While this answer choice asserts the speaker draws a conclusion about all things with some quality belonging in a category. But our conclusion is specific to what we know about dinosaurs. We can eliminate this answer because it goes far beyond the content we can confirm from the stimulus.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for. This is the only answer choice that accurately describes how the author concludes how a past phenomena (dinosaurs) is related to one one rather than the other possible group.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Smith responds to Jones by…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Jones begins by telling us about a discovery of prehistoric tools dated to 13,000 years ago. Jones concludes scientists are wrong in their assertion the tools came from people migrating from Siberia.
The reasoning given is that the site of the tools is located far south. Meaning if a group of people migrated from Siberia and took the long trip south there would be evidence of tools along that path. Jones concludes the position of the scientists is wrong because there have been no discoveries of such tools.
Here, Jones makes an assumption. We cannot draw a reasonable conclusion on the basis that no evidence has yet been found. Just because scientists do not currently have evidence for their claim does that mean it is objectively false. The claim could be true depending on what evidence is yet undiscovered.
Smith’s reply hits on this assumption exactly. Our second speaker concludes that because the tools discovered came from peat bogs, the tools were unusually preserved in comparison to tools that would have been dropped along the route from Siberia to the location of the tools.
Knowing that our correct answer will highlight how Smith points out the first speaker’s assumption about the lack of currently existing answers, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer is not descriptively accurate. If our stimulus were citing “several sources” we would be able to identify exactly where some part of Jones’s information is coming from.
Answer Choice (B) This is not a descriptively correct answer choice. Accusing Jones of “distorting” the scientists’ position insinuates that Jones was incorrectly interpreting the position of that group. But rather than accuse Jones of a misinterpretation, Smith identifies how a lack of evidence can be explained by the rate of decomposition for these prehistoric tools.
Answer Choice (C) Smith is not arguing that evidence has been found suggesting the use of tools along this Siberian route. Because of this, answer choice C is not descriptively accurate.
Answer Choice (D) If Smith’s discussion led to the denial of Jones’s conclusion, we could anticipate Smith would argue the discovered tools did in fact come from that group of Siberian ancestors. Because of this lack of dental we can eliminate answer choice D.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies how Smith attacks an assumption Jones makes about the existence of evidence. Jones assumes that an absence of evidence means evidence of absence. However, Smith responds by pointing out the absence of that evidence can be readily explained.