From the question stem, we can tell that our only job here is to find the main point of the argument of the first speaker, Maria. It asks, “Which one of the following most accurately expresses Maria’s main conclusion?” Therefore, let’s read Maria’s argument first and put her conclusion into our own words. If we’re really lost, we can read James’ argument to see how it is different from or echoes Maria’s, but it won’t be absolutely necessary.
Maria begins with a claim that doing something is misleading for a specific reason. Doing what? Well, calling any state totalitarian. And why can’t we say that a state is totalitarian without being deceptive? We learn that doing so assumes that the government has total control over all aspects of life. Not quite sure yet why that’s misleading, but I can make a few guesses… maybe that’s unrealistic in practice. The rest of the argument might make this connection more clear. As of now, though, the second claim (what happens if one calls a state totalitarian) increases the likelihood of truth of the first (that this action is actually deceiving). So, we’re guessing the first part of the sentence before the colon is the conclusion. Let’s read on to confirm.
Here we go! This claim adds information about something true in the “real world,” that a political entity with “literally total control” over any given piece of life simply does not exist. There’s the practical application falling short that we were expecting. We then gather some sort of support for this claim: it’s true because systems of control are always inefficient, which means their degrees of control are incomplete. Now, our only job is to decipher whether the claim about the real world, or the claim about calling any state totalitarian, is the author’s ultimate conclusion. Both have supporting claims, or premises. Does the fact that totalitarian states don’t exist in the real world make us more likely to believe that calling any state totalitarian is misleading? Well, yes, because if totalitarian states don’t actually exist, it would be incorrect to call a state totalitarian. I’m searching my AC’s for a rephrase of the claim that one can’t call a state totalitarian without being misleading.
Correct Answer Choice (A) Right on the money. This is a perfect rephrase, just like we wanted. Let’s make sure none of the other AC’s are contenders, but it looks like we don’t even have to read James’ argument after all!
Answer Choice (B) A couple things are wrong here. On one hand, did Maria write this argument to set up some conditional statement about the requirements for being a totalitarian state? No, she wrote it to claim that you can’t correctly call any state totalitarian. It might describe a premise, but not her conclusion. Furthermore, Maria never specifically said that it was necessary for a state to totally control society in order to be totalitarian, just that total state control was implied by calling a state totalitarian.
Answer Choice (C) This looks like a rephrase of a fragment of that final premise that also involves some inferences. Any system of control (a state’s power over society, I suppose) is inefficient, and is therefore necessarily partial. However, this ended up supporting that first sentence, making it a premise instead of the main conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) This is a rephrase of that first premise, telling us, hey! In the real world, total state control over even one aspect of life doesn’t exist! We know this is a premise because it makes the conclusion––that calling a state totalitarian is misleading––more likely to be true. See how predictable these wrong AC’s get?
Answer Choice (E) Again, another rephrase of a claim that isn’t the conclusion! This matches what was stated in the first part of the final sentence, which we have already deemed a premise supporting our conclusion.
This is a Necessary Assumption question which we know because the question stem is indicating the correct answer is required. If Bart’s argument is going to work, then the correct answer must be true. Or said another way, if the correct answer is not true, then Bart’s argument will fail completely.
So, our argument starts with what seems like context. A supercomputer solved a math problem that had gone unsolved for centuries. Okay, that’s really cool, but what about it? Well, the supercomputing process to solve the problem is so mind-bendingly complicated that it’s beyond the comprehension of literally everyone. No one actually fully understands the computer’s process. Ok, sure, but why is the result necessarily unacceptable just because of that? This feels like the conclusion because it has given us a reason for why we should accept this claim as true. It’s not a very well developed argument. We’re drawing our conclusion from just a single premise: “No one understands the computer’s process. Therefore, the result is unacceptable.”
There’s a huge gaping hole in this argument. Structurally, this argument is just:
Because A,
therefore B.
Well, you can’t just say “A therefore B.” However intuitively related our terms may seem, this argument is structurally terrible. We haven’t established any logical connection between our premise and conclusion. It may be a bad argument, but it makes our job easy. We’re almost certainly going to be seeing an answer that ties A and B together. Specifically, an “if A then B” answer would always be a winner here. This is a bit tricky, though, because “if A then B” would not just be necessary but also sufficient. Sometimes, you can get an answer that is both, though, and this specific argument structure is one where we see this a lot. Remember that the question is asking about what’s necessary for the argument as a whole, not just for what’s necessary for the conclusion. So while the conclusion by itself does not require an “if A then B” premise, the argument does because “the argument” refers to both the premises and conclusion. That is why this sufficient assumption will also be absolutely necessary here.
So, we’re expecting an “if A then B” sort of answer that should say something to the effect of “if no one can wrap their head around the computer’s process, then the result is unacceptable.”
Answer Choice (A) No, this doesn’t have to be true. It’s unacceptable because we don’t understand what the super computer did, not because it was the computer that solved it. If we could understand how the computer solved it, I don’t see any reason why Bart would have a problem with this.
Correct Answer Choice (B) Correct. This is exactly what we should have been expecting. Someone has to understand what happened for the result to be acceptable. If no one understands it, the result is unacceptable. That’s our “if A, then B.”
Answer Choice (C) Just like with answer choice A, this really just doesn’t matter. Our only premise is that no human understands what the computer did to solve it. That reason alone is why the result is unacceptable. So all the supercomputers in the world can solve this thing if they want, the result would still be unacceptable (according to Bart) if no human could figure out what they’re doing and how they’re deriving the solution.
Answer Choice (D) Maybe a less complex result would be insufficient to solve it. Or maybe a less complex solution is still too complex for humans to understand. Who knows. Whatever the case, this just doesn’t have to be the case.
Answer Choice (E) Well this one is interesting. According to Bart, it certainly hasn’t. But that is not to say it can’t. Maybe there is another way the computer could process the problem that would be possible for someone to figure out. This possibility is certainly not precluded because Bart’s conclusion is only addressing this one, specific result. That allows for different conclusions concerning different results.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “the conclusion that the first sentence in the passage is flawed because…” 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.
This flaw question requires us to have a strong understanding of the argument’s structure. The stimulus begins by telling us the role of the supreme court in this particular country is to protect human rights. Makes sense enough. Things get complicated when our author tells us that the court sometimes needs to go outside of the country’s constitution to figure out how to make decisions on rulings. This is a problem because, as the speaker explains, needing to go outside the constitution inherently makes the court likely not to uphold human rights (by putting themselves at the whim of whoever holds power.) We see the conclusion arise within a linking clause at the end of the text where we are told “it cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.”
So, according to our first sentence the court’s role is to protect against human rights abuses. But our author is concluding that contrary to the premise (hey, aren’t we supposed to accept those?) the role of the supreme court is not to protect human rights. Our speaker is telling us the first premise is wrong because premise #3 (needing to adhere to one specific source) exists. Remember the role of our conclusion here. The conclusion is a statement that absolutely must follow based on the truth of the premises. But the truth of premise #1 directly contradicts with our conclusion!
Knowing that our speaker makes a conclusion by rejecting the truth of one of the premises, we can get into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. The argument is accused of ignoring data, but we do not see information aside from overall general trends and requirements here. On top of that this answer choice states that the argument uses a “single example” which we can reject for the same reason. Our stimulus focuses on the requirements of a goal rather than a specific instance of that thing happening.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. When it says “seeks to defend a view on the grounds…” The answer choice is assuming the stimulus of using the following information directly in the argument. But nowhere in the stimulus do we see a reference to a view being “widely held” in order for the conclusion to be accepted.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. When saying the argument “rejects a claim as false on the grounds…” the “grounds” have to line up with the evidence we saw in the stimulus. But the topic of profit appeared nowhere in the discussion of the role of the court.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. But we can categorize this common logical flaw by its name; part-to-whole. For this answer choice to be correct, we would need to see a reference to some individual trait of each member of the court and connection to the traits of the whole. This definitely does not line up with our stimulus.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively accurate flaw answer choice is difficult to unwind. By suggesting it is “equally possible for that premise to be true and some other premise false,” we see the alternative hypothesis. Just as we can conclude premise #3 right and premise #1 wrong, we can reverse our reasoning the same way. This is the only answer choice that points out that our argument ignores the fact that premises are accepted as equally true statements in the absence of any conclusion indicating language.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “T responds to S’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.
This question presents us with two speakers. Right away, we should recognize that there are two conclusions and two reasons behind them. In this question we are presented with two speakers who take varying positions on the use of voting as a comparison to enlisting in the military. First, speaker S presents a belief that people who are old enough to fight in wars are old enough to vote. On the basis that their government enlists 17 year olds to fight, speaker S ultimately concludes the group should be allowed to vote. This argument is immediately questionable. What does knowing how to fight in a war have to do with having the skills to vote? Speaker S assumes that the skills applicable to war transfer to the skills necessary to vote.
Our second speaker begins by pointing out the assumption in speaker S’s argument. Speaker T tells us that so long as we go along with the assumption - voting and war require the same skills - the first speaker would make complete sense. But T points out that assumption is not reality presenting the different skills required between the two activities - physical strength for combat, and reasoning power required to vote.
Knowing we are looking for the answer choice pointing out the assumption T exemplifies, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice does not line up with what we see in the stimulus. To start off, this answer says T points out evidence that is good for S’s conclusion. But we know that T is actually pointing out something bad by explaining how S’s assumption about the transfer of skills from war to voting does not make sense.
Answer Choice (B) We can get rid of this answer choice based on understanding of rights. T is not questioning the opponent’s competence. For this answer choice to be correct, we would need to see some sort of direct reference to S’s knowledge rather than information that questions the validity of the overall assumption.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice do4es not line up with what we predicted from the stimulus. Aside from the fact that the issue of obligation does not appear in our original stimulus, speaker T does not base their argument on something that S has ignored.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for! This answer choice correctly summarizes the structure of our entire argument by explaining how the second speaker calls into question the assumptions of speaker S.
Answer Choice (E) We can eliminate this answer choice once we get to the word opposite. In saying our argument argues for a conclusion opposite to the one drawn, we would need to see speaker T conclude that 17 year olds should not have the right to vote. Speaker T does not go quite that far. Instead of saying a 17 year old should not have the right to vote, our second speaker merely states that speaker S’s reasoning does not make sense.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The personnel director’s reasoning is most 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 question's objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The argument begins by presenting us with Ms. Tours’s predicament. We are told she requested a salary increase and that her grounds for that increase appear justified given her excellent job performance over others in the office who did receive raises. We finally get to what looks like our conclusion that nevertheless, her request should be denied on the basis of something completely outside the topic of work performance - but instead because giving in to a complaint would threaten the integrity of the merit-based reward system.
That seems quite silly, doesn’t it? The stimulus begins by saying all these things that lead us to the conclusion that Ms. Tours should get the raise. I mean, everyone in her corner of the office received a raise and we’re told Ms. Tours does a way better job than those guys. The truth of our premises are supposed to guarantee the truth of our conclusion. But we cannot guarantee a claim’s denial on the basis of integrity. And why not? Well, because then we would be denying Ms. Tours a raise she is entitled to - an act that would certainly weaken the integrity of the reward system.
Answer Choice (A) This is descriptively accurate, but it does not describe the flaw of our stimulus. Whether a complaint is handled officially or unofficially has no connection to the integrity issue in this question. Plus, this answer choice does not even say it would be considered unofficially - only that the possibility exists. That does not tell us anything!
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is descriptively accurate in that we do see the director of personnel taking a shot at Ms. Tours’s complain at the end of the stimulus. But the characterization of “mere complaining” does not attack the reasoning of our argument. Someone thinking Ms. Tours’s is a big complainer and does not change whether the decision in response to her complaint was justified.
Answer Choice (C) While this answer choice is descriptively accurate, it is not the flaw of our stimulus. Whether or not superior job performance is a good measurement of giving out an award does not weaken the truth of the conclusion we see in the stimulus. Our correct answer is going to use the rationale of our speaker, and the quality of the award requirements does not hit on the integrity issue.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is descriptively accurate. However, this connects back to the reasoning we do not like answer choice B. Whether or not the awards were justly selected or well vetted makes no difference to our speaker. Because our stimulus relies on the amount of integrity that results from an action, our correct answer choice will point out how denying Ms. Tours' claim will actually undermine that goal.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is both descriptively accurate and hitting the flaw of our conclusion. Notice this is the only answer choice that connects in any way to the ramifications of integrity. If denying Ms. Tours’s request hurts the integrity of the system, we cannot justify a denial on the basis it would hurt that same system.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: The reasoning in the argument is most valid to the criticism 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 question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The argument begins by telling us about an illusion. Already, our author doesn’t like the sound of something! The speaker states it is incorrect robot inventions will liberate humans from hazardous and demeaning work. We should remind ourselves how these modifiers limit the subset of “work” we are dealing with. The author follows by telling us the reasoning behind this claim is that engineers would be using cheap labor, thus (and here is where we get to our conclusion!) that robots will be a substitute rather than a solution to the problem of working these meaningful positions. In short, our author points out the supposed solution to having these undesirable jobs will just put people into a different job that is also undesirable.
For an argument to be valid, the truth of the premises must guarantee the truth of the conclusion. The speaker takes a very specific position by telling us that we are substituting one thing for another. If our conclusion says these things are a direct swap – makes literally no difference – that pursuing the two types of work will still produce the same amount of demeaning labor tasks.
Answer Choice (A) This is descriptively accurate, but not the problem with the reasoning in our stimulus. Answer choice (A) points out a specific field of jobs that would be affected by robot technology. While our argument fails to address this consideration, it is still not the overall problem with the argument’s structure. The trend of jobs being eliminated with or without robots does not point to the terminology assumptions being made in our stimulus.
Answer Choice (B) This is a Circular Reasoning answer choice. By saying our argument “assumes what it sets out to prove,” the answer choice is suggesting the argument confirms the conclusion because the conclusion exists. In the context of our argument the author would have to say “this work substitutes a new demeaning type of work because it substitutes a new demeaning type of work.” This is a common answer choice in flaw questions that we can quickly identify.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not the problem with the reasoning in our stimulus. It is true that our speaker does not explain if the engineers consider their own work to be demeaning – but who cares? What the engineers of this project think does not point out the definition problem we see in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (D) This is not descriptively accurate. We definitely do not see an appeal to fear in the argument. Maybe if the speaker told us humans are afraid to perform demeaning work, but we don’t see any clear connection to our stimulus in this answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively accurate answer choice correctly points out what our argument fails to consider; that jobs before and after robot technology do not see the same levels of hazardous positions being worked. If our robot technology jobs are a tad bit on the hazardous and demeaning side, that does not change the fact they could still be way better than the jobs humans were dealing with before.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Dr. Nash responds to Dr. Godfrey’s argument by doing which 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.
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, Dr. Godfrey, points out a correlation. We learn that high school students who are now working over 15 hours per week receive lower grades than their peers. Dr. Godfrey concludes that because these overlap that the first (working) must be causing the second (lower grades). While that is one possible interpretation of a correlation, we know that just because two things happen at the same time does not mean they happen because of each other.
Dr. Nash points out the interpretation Dr. Godfrey has forgotten is just as likely. It does not have to be the case that having a job causes low grades. It could just as easily be the case that students receiving low grades turn to after school jobs to begin building careers or their self esteem. Using structural analysis we can identify the first speaker incorrectly concludes A because B. Meanwhile, Dr. Nash points out it is just as likely we have B because A.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice does not match the structure of our argument. By telling us that the argument attempts to “downplay the seriousness of the problems,” the answer ascribes a position to Dr. Nash that cannot be supported. Dr. Nash makes no comment on how serious these problems are. They could be big, they could be small. The only information Dr. Nash responds with is the direction of causation the arrow could be pointing toward.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for. This answer choice correctly summarizes the structure of our entire argument by affirming that Dr. Nash points out a possible alternative outcome. This is the only answer choice that points out how Dr. Nash corrects Dr. Godfrey’s causation mistake.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice does not line up with the structure of the stimulus. This answer choice claims Dr. Nash has a problem with the accuracy of Dr. Godfrey’s evidence. But a conclusion built on this argument would reference the validity of the numbers in some way shape or form. We know that accuracy of the evidence isn’t the problem in our argument - it’s the interpretation of that evidence. Dr. Godfrey forgets about one way we could interpret the facts rather than questioning whether the facts were good to begin with.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice does not accurately summarize what is going on in our stimulus. This answer claims that the fault of the academic problems is what Dr. Nash is concerned about. But Dr. Nash does not come to the defense of the schools as this answer choice claims.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not what we are looking for. Our second speaker simply suggests the causal relationship simply in the opposite direction. This does not align with what answer choice (E) suggests, which is that there is no relationship between these variables at all.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?” 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 by telling us about the existence of correlation between chronic fatigue syndrome and low magnesium levels. We also learn that malabsorption of magnesium is associated with some types of fatigue. The author concludes on the basis of this information that raising the level of magnesium in the blood would serve as an effective cure for chronic fatigue syndrome sufferers.
The stimulus concludes a casual relationship on the basis of a subset of a correlation. Our argument lays out low magnesium levels in tandem with fatigue, but we do not know that magnesium will change anything for fatigue. It could be the case that there is a third underlying factor causing both fatigue and low magnesium levels in these sufferers. Or, potentially, that the relationship works in exactly the opposite direction - maybe fatigue causes low magnesium levels. In that case, increasing magnesium levels would do nothing to help our fatigue.
Knowing our conclusion assumes a causal relationship from a correlative one, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not our ultimate flaw. The stimulus does bring up the correlation between magnesium malabsorption and some types of fatigue. But our argument does not need to establish that all low magnesium levels are the result of malabsorption.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice points out a completely different but valid way to interpret the relationship between these variables. It could be that rather than magnesium levels causing fatigue, it very well could be the other way around.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the ultimate flaw with our stimulus. The fact that levels can fluctuate does not tell us they even fluctuate to a degree that would be significant.
Answer Choice (D) This answer is descriptively accurate but not the true issue in our argument. What the exact measurement for a normal level of magnesium is does not identify the misinterpretation of our correlation.
Answer Choice (E) While this answer choice is technically accurate, it is not the ultimate problem with our stimulus. Whether or not the author tells us the most effective way of raising magnesium levels does point out the incorrect interpretation of our correlation.
We know this is a main conclusion question due to the question stem, “The main point of the argument above is that…”
The stimulus opens by introducing a commonly held view, and then making a claim about it. We learn that it is often expressed that written constitutions (ones that exist on paper) are intrinsically “more liberal” than unwritten ones. Furthermore, the author is claiming this belief is false. Now it’s our job to figure out if this claim ends up supporting or being supported by any other claims in this argument. If it’s supported by the other claim or claims, then we’ve got our conclusion!
We learn some new information in the second sentence––a definition of written constitutions that tells us these are simply pieces of paper bearing words until the interpretation and application of those words actually happens. What is the relationship between this sentence and the previous one? Well, it wouldn’t make sense if the claim that written constitutions are no more liberal than unwritten ones was supposed to support the claim that written constitutions are effectively meaningless until applied. Instead, the second claim might support the first by explaining the lack of inherent difference between written and unwritten constitutions. Therefore, I’m going to go ahead say that the first claim could be our conclusion, and the second is a premise. Let’s keep reading to confirm this prediction.
The word “then” helps us understand that the claim in this third sentences builds off of the previous claim. Apparently, when one has the correct understanding of constitutions, one knows that they are effectively the combination of the actual procedures that exercise, and limit, the government’s power. Okay, so if this is our working definition of all constitutions within this stimulus, and we just learned that written constitutions are nothing more than words on a paper if they lack interpretation and application, it looks like those procedures are what actually adds meaning and value to a constitution. If I were to predict how the author might connect all of these sentences together, I might be thinking that these procedures, the ways the state truly exercises their power, are what gives constitutions liberal (or nonliberal) qualities. Let’s see!
Our prediction is confirmed! “Therefore” tells us that, based on the previous claims, we can understand that a liberal-mannered interpretation and application is absolutely necessary in order for even written constitutions to be deemed liberal ones. Now I can see how the author took us from point A to B to C here, which all lend support to our first sentence, or make it more likely to be true. Written constitutions aren’t much but words without interpretation and application, and a constitution is the sum of how these words are applied to expand and limit state power. So, it’s the liberal application and interpretation that makes a constitution liberal, not just the fact that its written rather than unwritten. Knowing all of this makes us much more likely to accept the claim in the first sentence, that written constitutions aren’t any more liberal than unwritten ones, just by merit of being written down. So, that first claim is supported by the rest, making it our conclusion! Let’s look for a rephrase of it in our AC’s.
Correct Answer Choice (A) Awesome. I can’t find anything wrong with this, as it ever so slightly rephrases the conclusion of the stimulus that we identified as the first sentence.
Answer Choice (B) It looks like this AC uses a lot of buzzwords from the stimulus with the aim of throwing us off, but we are two steps ahead of the test writers and we see right through this. Nowhere did the author claim that written constitutions by nature contradict themselves, not even as a premise.
Answer Choice (C) Again, we have no idea if this is even true after reading the stimulus. The author gave us no information that would help evaluate how likely these two types of constitutions are to be misinterpreted.
Answer Choice (D) Preservation of constitutions? Never mentioned, definitely not the conclusion. Next!
Answer Choice (E) None of these ACs, save A, are even close to our prediction nor do they line up with non-conclusion parts of the argument. We have no idea if there are any criteria for evaluating how a constitution is interpreted and applied, just that being written does not necessarily mean a constitution is liberal.
This question asks us to find the main conclusion or main point of the argument, which we know from the question stem, “The main point of the argument is to…”
We first learn about a claim from a group of people: those in favor of Shakespeare’s plays being read and performed today. All that we know about this group is that they are united by that common belief or goal, which is a claim in and of itself–that this should happen, Shakespeare should continue to be read and performed. So, let’s see if this ends up being a conclusion itself (a claim that is supported) or a premise (a claim that supports another claim). Well, we read on to find out that this group “maintains” some other claim, that appreciation for Shakespeare has always been found in circles beyond just the learned upper class in England. “And” tells us that a second claim is coming, which gives (slightly) new information that it is common knowledge that “comparatively uneducated people” have been familiar with and fond of Shakespeare’s work.
It looks like these claims together really drive home the point that fans of Shakespeare have never been confined to a certain group. And what claim are we connecting this back to, in order to decipher which claims are premises and which are conclusions? The one advanced by the pro-continued-reading-of-Shakespeare group, that, well, we should continue to have uninhibited access to Shakespeare’s works. In order to identify premises and conclusion, we must ask, which of these claims lends support to the other, or increases the likelihood of the other’s truth? It seems more likely for us to accept that Shakespeare should still be read and performed once we learn that support for Shakespeare’s works have always extended beyond a small circle. So, it looks like we have been presented with two premises, or claims that support another, and one conclusion (of the group, not necessarily the author) that is supported by those premises.
However, is that conclusion advanced by the group our main conclusion? We’ll have to gather more information to see if the author of this argument agrees or disagrees with that claim. The next two sentences point out a reason we might be less likely to accept the pro-Shakespeare group’s claim: when we look closely at versions of these plays from the 1700s, we see that the physical copies have “fine paper and good bindings,” which the author then goes as far as to assert that the only way these books could be in such good condition is that they were not anywhere close to “people of ordinary means.” In other words, if these books are in such pristine condition, then they must have been enjoyed by only the elite. Whoa. So many things I hate about this argument, but that’s not our job here! All that we need to do is identify the author’s conclusion. We already know that the author set up a sufficient-necessary relationship in that last sentence: the fact that the books look great is enough for us to determine that they couldn’t have fallen into the hands of peasants, so we’ve identified support right there! Following this author’s line of reasoning, the condition of the books advances the truth of the following claim, that the books, and therefore appreciation of Shakespeare’s plays, belonged only to the elite, at least in the early 1700s. I have no reason to believe this is not the author’s main conclusion, as it’s the note they ended on and directly contravenes the other group’s conclusion. Pretty standard for an LR question to open with an opposing point of view, present evidence against it, and come to a different conclusion! Let’s look for something like this in our AC’s…
Answer Choice (A) Was this the reason the author wrote that argument? Well, for one, we would be able to find a rephrase of it somewhere in the stimulus, which we can’t. The author never claimed that it was enough for someone to know Shakespeare’s plays in order to determine they were part of the educated elite.
Correct Answer Choice (B) Okay, now this sounds pretty familiar. Remember, our prediction was that the author presents an opposing argument and then a premise to show that appreciation of Shakespeare’s plays was a unique characteristic of non-ordinary (elite) people in the 1700s, which is a great rephrase of this AC!
Answer Choice (C) We never discussed a contrast between aspects of Shakespeare’s work that were appreciated in the past vs. today.
Answer Choice (D) Ah, this goes too far. Although this AC uses wording directly from the premise to the pro-Shakespeare group’s argument, the author never says that all of the people who have appreciated Shakespeare have been elites, instead, just that early 18th century readers could not have been of ordinary means.
Answer Choice (E) What? We have no reason to believe the educated elite are skeptical of the worth of Shakespeare’s plays; in fact, we think the opposite. This AC consists of buzzwords from the stimulus, but it jumbles them up in all the wrong ways.