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.
Here we have a main conclusion question, which we know from the question stem “The main point of the argument is that...”
The argument opens with a common premise indicator, “since,” so I’m expecting that we’ll first be presented with a reason for the conclusion to be true, and then the conclusion will follow. The premise is that grain companies operating internationally are run with the goal of maximizing profits. Knowing this is supposed to make the following claim more likely to be true: that we can’t rely on these companies to make choices with their money that would reform food distribution worldwide. So, Big Grain can’t reliably solve world hunger because they care too much about making money. The first part of that sentence smells like conclusion to me, as we have a reason to believe it. Let’s see if the rest of the argument supports that, or if this claim ends up supporting a more overarching conclusion. The next sentence includes a concession: sure, sometimes big corporations do things that bring about similar economic change. But hey, it’s just a coincidence that this happens because the right motives weren’t there; these companies that did do economic good didn’t actually care about the world, just about making money. And then we’re given a final reason to agree with the initial claim: maximizing profits usually needs a stable, unchanging economic environment. As terrible as this argument is, there’s no doubt that the conclusion was the second part of the first sentence: we just can’t count on Big Grain to save the world from hunger.
Answer Choice (A) repeats the final sentence of the stimulus almost word-for-word, which we already know isn’t the conclusion because we aren’t presented any reason that this must be true; instead it’s given as support for the actual conclusion. Next!
Answer Choice (B) rephrases the second part of the second sentence, which was also just a premise. The author did say that economic change via big business is motivated by profit, but we’re given no reason to believe this and it serves to support the main conclusion. Still searching...
Answer Choice (C) rephrases the first part of the first sentence, which we immediately deemed a premise due to the “since” and its role in supporting the following half of the sentence (the actual main conclusion). Yes, Big Grain cares about making money, but that’s not our conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) was never stated in the argument. We have reason to think the author here actually would say the opposite, that the world’s current food distribution system does need reform. Why would they even bother writing this argument otherwise? Anyways, it’s definitely not the main conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is right on the money. Like Big Grain, haha. LSAC made this one pretty easy for us by not even bothering to rephrase the second part of the first sentence of the stimulus for AC (E) beyond removing that step about economic changes, so we are that much more confident that this is our answer!
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “Millie uses which one of the following argumentative strategies in contesting Oscar’s position?”
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. Oscar begins by telling us they have been recently accused of plagiarism. Oscar concludes this accusation is unwarranted on the grounds that Myers gave Oscar private permission to use the passages Oscar is accused of plagiarizing.
That makes sense depending on your definition of plagiarism. Our second speaker, Millie, points out the assumption in Oscar’s argument about what it means to plagiarize a piece of writing. Millie concludes that Myers is unable to bestow permission for Oscar to plagiarize because plagiarism itself is a type of lie, and permission to lie does not change the fact that Oscar committed plagiarism.
Millie has undermined Oscar’s position in their response by pointing out Oscar’s conclusion only follows if one changes the meaning of plagiarism. If plagiarism simply means to use another’s writing without permission, then Oscar has not committed plagiarism. As pointed out by Millie, having permission from the author does not change the fact Oscar is using another person’s work for the purpose of misleading the audience.
Knowing our correct answer choice will point out Millie’s debate surrounding this definition, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly points out the reinterpretation of plagiarism created by the second speaker.
Answer Choice (B) This is not descriptively accurate. In order to invoke evidence to show that Oscar did quote this author we would need to be able to point to an exact line in Millie’s argument referring to the text itself.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice implies the disagreement between Oscar and Millie concerns if Oscar had permission to use the author’s writing. But our stimuli aren’t concerned with whether the author tried to give Oscar permission. Instead, our speakers are concerned with whether or not the author’s permission qualifies Oscar’s work as falling under the umbrella of plagiarism.
Answer Choice (D) In order for this answer choice to be correct, we would need to be able to identify some sort of “theory of rights” introduced in the stimulus. Without a description of that theory or an explanation as to how we know Oscar aligns with it, we can eliminate this answer choice from consideration.
Answer Choice (E) We are not debating the credibility of either speaker. Instead, we are debating the validity of whether an author can rightfully give another permission to use their work without it qualifying as plagiarism.
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 Method of Reasoning question, and we know this because of the question stem: “Judith’s reply to Anthony’s argument relies on which one of the following argumentative strategies?”
Anthony claims that using marijuana “definitely leads,” or causes, people to use heroin. His evidence is that the two tend to happen together, meaning they are correlated. He is jumping from correlation in his premise to causation in his conclusion. Our girl, Judith totally picks up on this. She’s saying this could be true, the statistics, which is his premise/evidence, does not support the causal conclusion. She then cites another correlation between water consumption and heroin use, which would lead to a berserk argument: based on Anthony’s argument for things being correlated with heroin use causes heroin use, water consumption causes heroin use. Here, she’s employing an analogy to reveal how the argument is flawed. She concludes that Anthony’s conclusion isn’t necessarily supported by his evidence/premise. Her evidence/premise is an analogy she puts forward to point out the issue in his reasoning.
Answer Choice (A) Judith never contests the factual accuracy of the statistics that Anthony offers. They could be completely accurate, but they do not support his causal conclusion.
Answer Choice (B) Judith is not undermining the credibility of his conclusion - if her first sentence, she even concedes that Anthony’s conclusion could be true. She specifically takes issue with the way he supports his conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) The example Judith cites is not promoting heroin usage; she is saying that drawing a correlation between X thing and heroin and then saying thing X causes or promotes heroin use is not true.
Correct Answer Choice (D) Judith is not questioning the premise or the conclusion, she’s simply questioning the support, or rather, the line of reasoning, between the two. By putting forward that analogy, she is showing how his line of reasoning is flawed.
Answer Choice (E) This is not good - the possibility of ever establishing a causal connection? That’s too extreme.