Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?” 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 speaker begins with a good contender for the conclusion - that weapons production plans are equally wasteful as inflated government spending. We know this is our conclusion because the speaker follows with the support behind it. The government is building a weapons plant that violates 69 laws when it could build a safer one. Huh? What does the passing or not passing of laws have to do with taxpayer dollars? This is where we can spot the assumption being made by the speaker. A comparative conclusion about wasteful spending needs some sort of support that confirms a comparative about wasteful spensing. This argument is flawed because the evidence they give for the conclusion does not actually respond to the issues being presented in this debate.
Knowing our correct answer choice will point out the irrelevant evidence introduced by our speaker, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in our stimulus. The argument is flawed because the evidence is irrelevant. Not because the author fails to provide us with some sort of evidence. Whether or not the alternative production site is actually safer does not impact our argument - it adds detail to evidence we already know is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. In order for our argument to be conceding something we need to see our author agree with a point that does not appear to be completely consistent with their position. Additionally, we do not see evidence that serves to undermine the conclusion in the stimulus. Instead of seeing harmful evidence, we see evidence that really does nothing at all.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice is the only one that points out the irrelevance of the evidence used in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Suggesting the argument confuses a necessary condition for wasteful research spending means our stimulus presents some sort of requirement for this research. Without any sort of reference to a requirement we cannot call this a conditional reasoning flaw as is suggested by answer choice D.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is factually correct, but not the ultimate issue in our stimulus. Our issue is not really that they haven’t explained the comparison between these two institutions. Our problem is that they are supporting the comparison using information completely unrelated to the topic that they are trying to use to compare these groups.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “Which one of the following describes a reasoning error in the argument?” 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 telling us about a belief held by people who support the continued reading of Shakespeare. This group argues that appreciation for Shakespeare has always extended beyond the wealthy elites because the words were loved by uneducated people. This seems to be a fine argument, but our speaker disagrees. We are told the idea that uneducated people liked the works of Shakespeare is questionable because the books they were printed on were beyond the reach of people of ordinary means.
This is where we can see the assumption being made by the speaker. Our argument concludes that uneducated people are unlikely to appreciate Shakespeare because the print versions themselves are expensive. But a print copy is not the only way people may become familiar with Shakespeare’s plays. Maybe they were able to attend a show themselves. Knowing our speaker incorrectly concludes that obtaining a print version is the only way to become familiar with and appreciate the plays, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. This answer choice connects the popularity of the plays to the quality of the plays themselves. But our argument does not actually concern how good the plays are - instead, we are debating the groups that were able to access and appreciate them.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Although the basis of the conclusion does rest in evidence we could argue is economical, our stimulus does not come to an aesthetic conclusion about Shakespeare's works. This type of conclusion implies a discussion about the quality of the works as good or bad, which was the reason we could not select answer choice A.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Answer choice C accuses our stimulus of applying the standards of the 18th century in an anachronistically - or out of order way. Our stimulus focuses on the factual events known at one time rather than applying standards in an out of order fashion. For this reason, we can eliminate answer choice C.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice commits a similar error to the first two. This answer is not descriptively accurate because of its discussion of literary quality on the basis of print quality. Again, the stimulus does not actually tell us whether they think Shakespeare’s works were good or bad. Instead, we are entirely concerned with how individuals of uneducated classes obtained access to them.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice is the only option that points out the assumption made by our stimulus. If the author concludes a lack of access because of the expense of print books, they are assuming the people of these uneducated classes had no other means to access the content.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument above 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 stimulus begins by telling us about a debated poet. S. R. Evans explains a principle of poetic criticism; only a true poet can recognize poetry creatively. Thinking in terms of our sufficient and necessary terms we can translate this relationship: true poet (TP) → recognize creatively (RC). The next line of our stimulus adds another piece to our chain. By stating that only true poets convey poetry creatively (PC), we can link these three variables together to form: PC → TP → RC. If you possess poetic creativity, you are a true poet who can also recognize the presence of poetic creativity.
After laying out these relationships the author presents us with their conclusion. On the basis of this logical chain S. R. Evans tells us that because none of those criticizing their work express poetic creativity (~PC) we can conclude that the critics are not true poets (~TP).
Identifying the sufficient and necessary relationships in this stimulus can help us identify what is wrong with the argument. When we have a chain of three variables the only valid form we can conclude is the contrapositive: ~RC → ~TP → ~PC. The fact that our author tells us we can confirm the critics meet the necessary condition at the end of that chain (~PC) does not mean we can draw any conclusions that lead us to the term earlier in the contrapositive (~TP). Knowing our correct answer will point out the conditional reasoning issue presented in the stimulus, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This correct answer choice is a tricky one. At first glance it does not seem to be accusing the stimulus of the conditional reasoning flaw we have identified. Saying presupposes what it sets out to conclude would lead many to immediately assume we have a traditional circular reasoning answer choice here. But that is not quite the case. This answer choice tells us the argument is circular on the basis of a conditional reasoning mistake. This answer choice is the only descriptively correct one that points out the author is using a necessary assumption to conclude the existence of a sufficient condition earlier in the logical chain.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in our stimulus. It is true that our stimulus assumes everyone falls neatly onto one side of these black-and-white issues. But whether or not the author considers the existence of someone who is kinda a true poet or can sorta identify poetic creativity is not the issue; without a reference to the necessary/sufficient mix-up, this cannot be our correct answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Whether or not we see an implicit claim about independence, this answer chooses to accuse the author of having no justification for such an implication. First of all - don’t we need support to be able to spot an implicit claim? This debate aside, it is not factually accurate to say we see a lack of justification for the author’s claims. The problem is that our author’s claims do not follow from the evidence presented.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is correct in telling us our stimulus makes an unjustified claim. But the issue is not forgetting about potential overlaps of two groups as is suggested by answer choice B. We know our correct answer is going to concern issues with conditional relationships rather than the need to recognize overlap between the groups.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. By saying our stimulus “inevitably leads to the conclusion that poets can never learn to improve…” This answer choice is suggesting the existence of an argument we do not see. The problem of inevitability or something being guaranteed to happen is not the issue we have. Instead, our author concludes on the basis of not having a necessary condition we can conclude we also do not have a sufficient condition.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument commits which one of the following errors of reasoning?” 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 question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
We are first told about information being shared at a secret meeting. The speaker informs us that the article that forced the minister’s resignation must have come from someone present at this secret meeting between the minister, the minister’s aid, and the leader of the opposition party. Thus far the stimulus makes sense. If the article must have gotten information from the secret meeting, it must have been someone from the secret meeting who leaked the information. But that reasonable conclusion is not what our argument comes to. Rather than concluding that it must have been some participant of the secret meeting, our stimulus accuses the minister's aide of leaking the information.
This would make complete sense if it were not for the presence of the opposition leader at this secret meeting. Both the leader of the opposing party and the minister’s aid were at the meeting. The aide sure seems a lot less likely than the leader of the opposing party to leak information that would hurt the minister.
This is where we can identify the assumption being made by the argument. While our stimulus could reasonably conclude that there were two potential suspects for the leak to the newspaper, the stimulus goes one step too far and concludes it must have been one of those people in particular. Knowing our correct answer choice will in some way point out the existence of another reasonable conclusion, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice is the only option that references the existence of an interpretation of the stimulus’s evidence that is just as reasonable as the one our stimulus comes to. It is not a guarantee that the minister’s aid leaked the information. It is just as (if not more) likely the opposing party member is the source of the leak.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. This answer defines the conclusion of our stimulus to center on proving that “the earlier thing cannot occur” without the later idea. Nowhere does our argument tell us someone is impossible or bound to not happen like this answer choice suggests. For that reason, we can eliminate answer choice B. Every part of our answer choice – including a description of the argument’s conclusion - must line up with the content we see in stimulus.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. While this answer choice discusses “the same outcome on a different occasion” we do not see any reference to these ideas in our stimulus. The existence of a different occasion would require our stimulus to point out some other instance in which a newspaper leak led to someone’s downfall as the result of a secret informant.
Answer Choice (D) In order for evidence to be irrelevant, the evidence has to be completely unrelated to the discussion presented. Our evidence is not irrelevant because it does respond to the argument. By highlighting the only possible sources for the newspaper leak that led to the minister’s downfall, our stimulus uses good evidence to come to an incorrect conclusion.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice incorrectly describes the content of our stimulus by stating our speaker argues the evidence was sufficient to bring about the result. Let’s remind ourselves of what sufficient means - that we have an event that guarantees the occurrence of some sort of necessary condition. Our argument is not saying that something is sufficient for the result. Instead of saying some factor is enough for a result, our argument has come to an incorrect assumption of what has to be the case.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the chemist’s response to the physicist’s challenge?” 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.
Immediately we should note we have two speakers in our stimulus. That means we need to be on the lookout for two potential conclusions and sets of explanations. Our first speaker, the physicist, tells us a claim about nuclear fusion is based on inaccurate calculations. While our speaker does not directly tell us the experiment is faulty as a result, the implication of the speaker’s challenge tells us they do not agree with the nuclear fusion claim on the basis of the evidence we have.
The chemist responds with the claim that the physicist’s argument is faulty. That’s not an unreasonable conclusion. If the chemist were to explain the reason why the numbers still lead to the claim we can see how the chemist can overcome the gap pointed out by our first speaker. But the chemist’s reasoning for their conclusion is not reasonable. Instead of responding to the physicist’s claim about the methods through which the claim received its evidence, the chemist accuses our first speaker of being jealous that the claim about nuclear fusion came from someone outside the field of physics.
While the chemist’s conclusion could be valid, the reasoning provided makes the chemist’s argument invalid. Knowing we are looking to identify an answer choice that emphasizes the motivations of the speaker rather than the evidence at hand, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Instead of restating a claim in synonymous terms, our second speaker ignores the explanation of our physicist and instead attacks their personal motivations.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in our stimulus. Whether or not we can establish that perfect accuracy is possible does not weigh on our discussion. Even if it were possible to have perfect measurements, who is to say we need perfect measurements to ensure accuracy? Whether or not this information occurs doesn’t overcome that it is not the issue we can predict in the evidence for our second speaker’s conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. In order for our argument to be confusing two different uses of one word we would have to see two instances of that word. Our chemist only references the word “solve” in one form. Thus, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for. This descriptively accurate answer choice is the only option that points out the chemist’s use of a personal attack rather than a response to the reasoning for the opinion being discussed.
Answer Choice (E) In order for this answer choice to be correct we need to be able to spot a contradiction - or two pieces of directly contrary information in the stimuli. Instead of a contradiction we see the chemist almost avoiding the rationale presented by the physicist.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The argumentative strategy of the investigator quoted is to…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker.
The stimulus begins by providing us with a phenomenon. Disturbances in the desert are found that appear on footpaths that expand for long distances. The question requires us to describe the reasoning used by the quoted investigator. The investigator concludes the discovered paths could not have been incan roads because the roads would be of little use to the incas due to their adjacent placement and abrupt ending point.
Knowing that our correct answer will highlight how the investigator questions the value the roads would have served the Incas, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate because it brings up the idea of counterevidence. Our investigator does not depend on additional evidence to make their claim. Instead the investigator reinterprets the evidence we already have. For this reason we can eliminate answer choice A.
Answer Choice (B) Similarly to answer choice A, this is not descriptively accurate based on the answer choice’s summary of evidence. This answer choice suggests that the investigator provides new information to support their conclusion. Knowing our investigator questions the evidence we already have, 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 points out the investigator’s questioning of current evidence. This answer choice correctly highlights how the investigator’s conclusion only goes so far as to say what the function of the pathways likely did not serve.
Answer Choice (D) In order for this answer choice to be correct our stimulus would have to refer to the methods used by various investigators to determine their conclusions. Without any reference to the methods used to compile this information we can eliminate answer choice D.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not correct because it claims that our stimulus reconciles two different perspectives. If this were correct we would expect our stimulus to discuss the joining or explanation of a conflict between two different theories. Without this information we can eliminate answer choice E.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The basic step in Eileen’s method of attacking James’ argument is to…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker, Eileen.
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. James begins the conversation by telling us that at their house they have complete personal freedom. On the basis of that freedom, James concludes the government is ignoring the right of individuals to set smoking policies on their own property. This argument is not a good one. Sure, James can do whatever they want in their own home. But boarding a domestic flight does not mean one should receive the same rights as if they were in the privacy of their own home. James has improperly assumed there is no difference between the rights someone has at home versus the rights someone has on an airplane around the general public.
Eileen points out this consideration exactly. In their response, our second speaker highlights what James has assumed. While James has assumed the government has violated a right by not allowing people to do as they please, Eileen points out the difference between actions at home versus on a domestic flight. Smoking on a domestic flight impacts others far more than it would if James were to smoke in his own home.
Knowing that Eileen exactly hits on the assumption of James’ argument, 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 how Eileen highlights the apparent differences between an individual at home versus an individual on an airplane. By drawing a distinction between these two locations, Eileen effectively points out the weakness of James’s argument.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not correct. Without the existence of a term being explained in the stimulus we cannot select an answer that suggests Eileen is providing some sort of definition.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not correct. If our correct answer were going to include an analogy, we would be able to identify two items being compared through analogy in Eileen’s part of the discussion.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not correct because of the term contradiction. Contradicting something means our argument provides directly contrary pieces of information. But Eileen does not contradict or say James is wrong – instead, Eileen explains how the base assumption James needs in the first place does not exist.
Answer Choice (E) If this were our correct answer choice, we would see some sort of reference to the motivation of James or others in smoking on airplanes versus in their own homes. Without this information we cannot select answer choice E.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The sales manager counters the production manager’s argument 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. The production manager begins by explaining there are safety risks associated with the business’s current products. Thus, the production manager concludes, the company should instead produce only the new safe version of their product.
The sales manager disagrees with this position. Using a hypothetical the second speaker explains that without money, they cannot produce a safer product. This leads to the sales manager’s ultimate conclusion that the safer product cannot be a market success without continuing production of the less safe product.
Our second speaker furthers their point by laying out a hypothetical with a negative outcome - a world where we follow the production manager’s recommendations but ultimately end up without being able to produce the safer product everyone desires.
Knowing our correct answer choice will discuss the sales manager’s use of a hypothetical and the potential negative consequences of the alternative, 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 points out what the sales manager knows is an issue – the existence of the safer product depends on the success in the market of the less safe product.
Answer Choice (B) If our speaker were challenging the authority of someone, we would anticipate language questioning someone’s qualifications or experience. Without this information we can eliminate answer choice B from consideration.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice accuses our speaker of a conclusion far beyond what we can find in the sales manager’s argument. Instead of assuming that a product is safe because it is comparatively safer than another product, our speakers are concerned with the ability to produce the products at all.
Answer Choice (D) We do not see any sort of suggested change in standards by which the safety of these products is judged.
Answer Choice (E) There is nowhere in the discussion where we see the potential impact of technology arise as some sort of reasoning for the conclusion. Without this information, we can eliminate answer choice E.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument proceeds by…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker. The stimulus begins with a conclusion; garbage in the neighborhood will probably not be collected until Thursday. This conclusion is followed by the author’s explanation. Monday was a public holiday, which will delay the trash collection to Thursday.
By stating the requirements of the collection system, this stimulus brings up and then applies a series of standards to determine what day trash collection will likely occur on. Knowing our answer choice will discuss the rules of the collection system we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This is not what we are looking for. In order for our argument to be relying on “irrelevant evidence” we would need to see that information clearly in the stimulus. There is nothing directly irrelevant or unrelated to the discussion at hand in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (B) Rather than rule out all of the alternative possibilities, our stimulus has identified the one probable solution on the basis of the rules of the trash collection service. For this reason we can eliminate answer choice B.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly describes the speaker’s use of rules to a specific case.
Answer Choice (D) This is not descriptively accurate. This answer choice accuses the argument of generalizing on the basis of one such action. However, there is no particular instance used in the stimulus to draw another conclusion.
Answer Choice (E) Treating something as if it were “inevitable” means treating something as if it is without a doubt going to occur. Without this type of language in the stimulus, we can eliminate answer choice E.