We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “which of the following techniques of reasoning is employed in the argument?”
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.
Our speaker lays out a survey and the results surrounding it. We are told a survey asked respondents how old they felt. The respondent almost unanimously said that they felt 75% of their actual age. Our speaker claims that there is a problem with this result because of the undesirable effect of a hypothetical scenario; if we repeatedly asked the respondents this question they might continue to give the exact same answer. Thus, the author concludes, this undesirable outcome means the survey results are problematic.
Our author makes a conclusion about the survey results on the basis of a situation that is unlikely to happen. The survey probably is not going to repeatedly ask the same person the same question. Because even if they did, there is no telling that the respondents would change their askers! If someone asks me how old I feel and the answer is 23, the answer is not going to change just because someone bugs me with the same question repeatedly.
Knowing that this argument uses an unreasonable hypothetical to support their claim, we can jump into the answer choices.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This answer choice correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. By telling us that the argument references “hypothetical earlier responses of a single individual…” we can identify this to be the only answer choice hitting on the repetition assumed by the argument. Additionally, the answer choice echoes how the argument uses a comparison between one individual and a quality we can give to the results of a group of people.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice incorrectly describes the issue our author has with the survey. By telling us that the stimulus questions the results based on what would “have been the most reasonable thing for them to say,” this answer choice goes beyond the scope of the stimulus. In fact, the problem is that our argument does not consider the reasonable interpretations we can actually draw from the survey.
Answer Choice (C) We do not see an “overly sweeping” generalization in our argument as suggested by this answer choice. While the author does conclude something about all the survey results on the basis of one hypothetical, the problem is that the hypothetical chosen is unreasonable. Because of this, our prediction actually contradicts this answer choice. From the beginning, we can identify that the author’s “counterexample” is certainly poorly chosen rather than well chosen.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice does not line up with what we see in the structure of the argument. This answer tells us that a contradiction is used to prove that one of two statements is false. But we do not quite see a contradiction in our argument. Instead, we are told about an end result that would be silly or nonsensical rather than one that is in contradiction with another idea. Additionally, our argument strives to prove there is a problem in understanding the survey results rather than to prove the results are false.
Answer Choice (E) Our argument does not contain “manipulation of the questionnaires,” as suggested by this answer choice. On top of that, the survey results are being used to prove whether the results can be interesting rather than for the purpose of showing what the questionnaires were trying to accomplish. Furthermore, this is descriptively inaccurate based on the second premise which tells us we do not have completely unanimous results when it comes to the survey.
From the question stem, “Which one of the following most accurately states the conclusion of the argument above?” we can tell that we are looking for the main conclusion or main point of the argument.
This argument opens with a question, so first we ask ourselves if it's rhetorical or not. In other words, is it just being used as a language tool to make a point, or will it be explicitly answered? Before breaking down the content and details of the first sentence, I’ll skim forward to see if I can glean a quick answer as to why the author included this question. The first few words of the following sentence tell me the answer is a contingent “no.” Contingent upon what? Well, let’s break down the content of the question first. The author is wondering if it’s cool for journalists to start their stories with this set phrase, “in a surprise development.” Immediately, the answer follows with “not if,” indicating to us that we have at least one situation in which the answer is no (journalists shouldn’t do that). That situation is if the “surprise development” is referring ONLY to the journalist's own surprise. Then, we are given a premise in support of that answer, which just lays out a principle we don’t want to violate in the “world” of this stimulus: that journalists shouldn’t insert themselves in their stories. We then read another “not if” or contingent no, that under the condition that the “surprise development” was some other individual’s than the journalist. Again, this is supported by a quick premise that any person’s surprise that was worth mentioning should have been explicitly attributed to them in the story.
Quick recap: we have a couple scenarios in which the answer to the first sentence is going to be no. I’m wondering if the author is setting this up to point to a final scenario in which the answer would be YES, or if the author will lay out more contingent “no’s” so as to exhaust all the possibilities and point to a final answer of NO. Maybe there is some other point to this as well, but we only have one sentence left to find out. The last sentence opens with “the one possibility remaining,” so we at least know that the author intends to exhaust all the possibilities and point us towards some final answer of yes or no. If many people were surprised by this development, there is no point in pointing out superfluously that the story comes as a surprise! In this scenario, he is also implying that journalists should not use this phrase.
So, the author has laid out three scenarios that are intended to cover the full range of possibilities and point us towards a final answer of no, journalists shouldn’t start stories with “in a surprise development.” Looks like this is a main conclusion question where we can’t point to a single sentence as the conclusion itself, but where each sentence acts as a premise that, altogether, truly couldn’t take the argument in a different direction than the one we are thinking. The author’s conclusion here is supported by each premise: in any scenario, the answer to the first sentence is no. Let’s find this in the ACs:
Answer Choice (A) Bottom line, this doesn’t match our prediction. Our prediction was based on evidence from the text, so we trust it. There is nothing in the text that points to some scenario where journalists should use that phrase, so I don’t even need to read past the comma to eliminate A.
Answer Choice (B) Again, this doesn’t line up with the prediction that the final answer is no. We are sure there are no scenarios in which to use this phrase appropriately, due to the author’s phrasing “the one possibility remaining” before laying out the third contingent no.
Answer Choice (C) Ah. Maybe true, and at first glance does seem to be supported due to that same phrasing we referenced in the line above. But, my first question is if that was the author’s main point in writing this argument?? If it were, why would the author phrase the opening question like they did? This is definitely an argument about whether or not journalists should do something, not an argument about when a certain phrase is used. Also, (C) doesn’t even mention journalists’ use of the phrase. Bye!
Answer Choice (D) As much as I agree with the “when introducing a story” part of this AC, I hate the rest. It goes too far! We don’t know if the author thinks journalists should use that phrase when summing up, just that it’s never appropriate to use when introducing a story.
Correct Answer Choice (E) Easy! Done. This is a rephrase of exactly what we predicted, that the answer to that initial question is an all-applicable no. Introducing stories this way is not good to do as a journalist. Uncomplicated and to the point.
The question stem couldn’t be more straightforward: we are looking for the main conclusion of the argument, as it says, “The main conclusion of the argument is that…”
Looks like this argument opens with a question: should the government stop trying to determine toxic substances in our food? Is it rhetorical or not? In other words, is it just being used as a language tool to make a point, or will it be explicitly answered? Before breaking down the content and details of the first sentence, I’ll skim forward to see if I can glean a quick answer as to why the author included this question. The second sentence opens with “only if,” which indicates that we have some pretty specific requirements for the answer to that first sentence to be yes. Remember, only if indicates a necessary condition, so the author thinks it's absolutely necessary for the conditions that follow to be true if the answer to the question is to be yes. Also, it was a literal question meant to be answered right away. What did that first sentence ask? Well, the author wants to explore some ethical dilemma: whether it would be right for the government to give up trying to figure out what levels of toxicity should be allowed in food. They think the answer is yes only if it’s not too crazy to argue that the only (again, strong and limiting) permissible toxicity level is zero. Not sure what to make of this yet, but these first two sentences combined are fair game to be the conclusion.
“However” leads us into the following sentence, priming me to expect some sort of contrast that could be the conclusion itself or could lead to one. We end up learning new information that seems to contradict what we already posited. “Virtually all” foods apparently have toxic substances, yet cause no harm. Why? These foods do not meet a sufficient concentration of toxicity to cause harm. What do we make of all of this? Well, I’m pretty sure we haven’t gotten to the full conclusion just yet. We are on the way to forming an answer to the first sentence, as we now know that the necessary condition (there is absolutely zero toxicity) is probably denied. Adding this new information makes it much less likely that we can meet our necessary condition laid out in the second sentence. So far, this claim doesn’t have any support itself, but seems to be building on our previous knowledge. So, this is a premise that acts as a stepping stone on the way to the gist of our argument.
The final sentence opens with “furthermore,” which is a cookie cutter premise indicator we have seen to introduce new premises. We learn that we can never have full certainty that the concentration of any substance has been reduced to zero, and instead all we can know is that the concentration is unable to be detected by the methods we use now. Now we are presented with another claim, on top of the previous sentence, that seems to make that necessary condition much less likely to be reachable. That previous sentence led us to believe the necessary condition could be denied, and now we are very sure it just won’t be met. Wait, so, the argument ends here? Where’s the conclusion?
This might be a trickier question but it isn’t a trick: we already know what the author’s conclusion is. Everything presented in the argument points towards the fact that the necessary (absolutely required) condition for the government to be justified in giving up on this research cannot be met. Therefore, we have no reason to believe the government should abandon these efforts. What’s the alternative; what should the government do instead? Well, if it can’t be justified in giving up, it's gotta continue! In other words, the author’s answer to the initial question they posed is a hard NO, and the reasons are enumerated in the rest of the argument.
Let’s search for a rephrase of this in our AC’s:
Correct Answer Choice (A) That was quick! This is essentially rephrasing our prediction, that if the government won’t be justified in abandoning their efforts, they should continue those efforts. Not too crazy of a jump to make and if this is the author’s conclusion, everything they presented in the argument has a place or acts as a stepping stone.
Answer Choice (B) This is a copy-paste of the second half of that necessary condition presented as the answer to the first sentence. After our read of this argument, are we even inclined to think the author agrees with B? Not at all. Let alone could it ever be the main conclusion, as none of the other parts of the argument are offered as evidence for it.
Answer Choice (C) This looks like a rephrase of parts of sentence three, which we know was offered as the first premise leading to our conclusion that this necessary condition cannot be met and therefore governments should keep on keepin’ on. So, not the conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) Okay, could be true, and seems to be supported in the text as the last sentence told us that the collective “we” (or everyone) is unable to be sure a food has zero toxicity, so it’s reasonable to apply that statement to governments. But, it’s not the conclusion, because none of the other sentences support it as evidence, and why else would the author have included the rest of the argument? Plus, it goes too far. We don’t know about the future, we only know about the present in this stimulus.
Answer Choice (E) What?? Totally out of left field. Goes way too far and we have no evidence for this in the stimulus. The author never said it nor implied it, so it can’t be their main conclusion.
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 by telling us the overall opinion - that organic foods should not be the only natural foods. The support for this is that plants will turn non-natural and natural molecules into compounds. The author says that because all compounds are part of nature, they are equally natural.
In connecting evidence about natural molecules to the label of natural foods, our argument is making an assumption. The speaker assumes that because something occurs naturally in nature, it must be able to be defined as a natural food. But we don’t know what the label “natural food” requires. It could require that all inputs into the growing process come naturally from the soil. Knowing that our speaker assumes that something in nature translates to the label of natural food, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for. Our stimulus is changing the use of the term “natural” to fit their opinion. Because this is the only answer choice referencing the changing of terminology, we know this is the correct answer.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice claims the conclusion of the stimulus focuses on what would be beneficial. But we know the conclusion concerns the restriction of the term natural foods to organic products. Because the conclusion of our stimulus doesn’t match the conclusion of this answer choice, we can eliminate it.
Answer Choice (C) If our argument were appealing to some sort of authority, we would expect a reference to some respected professional or publication that relates to the topic of natural foods. Without any of these references in the stimulus, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) Saying that our argument shows a necessary condition is not satisfied indicates the speaker uses conditional reasoning to come to their conclusion. Instead of showing the failure of something to occur our author gives the occurrence of plants in nature to widen the scope of the “natural food” definition. Because of this, we can eliminate the answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) Rather than reject evidence to support the conclusion, our stimulus introduces their own scientific backings to prove the validity of their position. In order for our stimulus to be reinterpreting something, we would have to have an original contrasting interpretation.
The question stem asks, “Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?” So, we know this must be a main conclusion question.
First off, we learn about this report that presents some sort of information. Right away I’m thinking that LR stimuli really are so predictable, as introducing the stimulus with a study or report is something we’ve seen before that can help lay out context or background information. After reading that first sentence, it looks like my prediction was right––the author is giving us the background info we need to understand the argument and its upcoming conclusion.
Pause before we move onto the next sentence, though, and let’s break the content down into its separate parts. The first sentence fragment before the comma tells us the subject matter of the report: someone wanted to explore the “likely effects” that current air pollution levels have on forest growth in North America. What two variables do we care about? just air pollution and forest growth. Where? only in North America, as far as we know now. Do we know anything else? Again, just that the study concluded something.
Now, let’s jump to the sentence fragment after the first comma (still in the first sentence). We have seen the word “since” used to indicate a premise, or a statement that leads us to our conclusion. Because we have already decided this first sentence is likely context, we need to remind ourselves that this might not be a premise leading to the author’s main conclusion, but just a stopping point on the way to getting there. Instead, this looks like its a premise for the study’s conclusion, which is likely to be different from the author’s conclusion as we have seen in other LR arguments. So, the study’s conclusion has this premise, which tells us that one reason to accept the conclusion is that nitrogen is a necessary nutrient for plant growth. Then, the study makes a conclusion about one effect of air pollution: air pollution actually deposits nitrogen on the soil (more context built into the conclusion) which (here’s the actual conclusion of the study) “probably benefits eastern forests.” To recap: All we know so far is contextual information about a study and its conclusion.
We jump right into the next sentence with “however.” That’s a cookie cutter! We’ve seen it elsewhere to indicate a shift or contrast, which can lead us to the argument of the stimulus. We keep reading and find out that another group is being introduced: European soil scientists. Before, we only knew about whoever conducted the initial study, which was on North American air pollution and forest growth. These European soil scientists, on the other hand, have concluded something new. We know now that yet another conclusion from a group distinct from the author is being presented. What we learn from this new group is that, for a specific sub-group of all forests, those saturated in sulfate and nitrate, nitrogen deposits may not be as helpful to trees as the first study led us to believe. This group actually tells us that when the ratio of nitrogen deposited to nitrogen absorbed is too high, trees begin to die. That sounds bad for the trees! Beyond that, though, how do we know if this is a premise or conclusion? Well, let’s see if it is the claim providing support or being supported. I can’t find any support for the claim in the same sentence, just a claim itself. So, it might be a premise, or a claim supporting another claim (the eventual conclusion). After reading this claim, though, I’m left wondering if this only applies to some forests. How do we know these findings apply to forest growth in North America?
The last sentence begins with another “Since!” Let’s see... does this sentence reference another individual or group’s position? As far as we can tell, no. So, it’s safe to assume this is where the author’s real position is going to come in. Plus, we’re running out of sentences. All of those clues prime me to read what follows the “since” as the author’s premise that connects the context to our main conclusion. The premise says that the European soil scientists’ finding is “likely to apply everywhere.” Not sure how or why this is true, but who cares. My end goal is not to attack this argument (although pointing out where it falls short might help us gain insight), but instead to understand its parts. So, what follows the premise is expected to be the author’s main conclusion here: that huge parts of eastern forests in North America have already and undoubtedly been affected negatively.
Let’s double check: does the rest of the stuff in the argument seem to be supporting this statement? Well, if I were to switch it around and try to use the idea that large areas of the eastern parts of North American forests have already and undoubtedly been affected negatively to support the findings of the first study, that wouldn’t make any sense at all. Now, we are certain that the claim from the second group’s findings was a premise that provided support for the main conclusion, because it didn’t have any support itself. And, well, if it were true, combined with the following premise that we can apply these findings to trees everywhere, we are much more likely to accept the conclusion.
The author took us on that journey through those seemingly different arguments to finally end up at their own conclusion, which applies findings from the second group to the geographic location that the first study was interested in. And the conclusion definitely can’t be what follows the “since” before the first comma in the last sentence, as that statement has no premise itself (remember… we didn’t know how or why it was true) and instead is used as support to arrive at the final conclusion.
Now, we know exactly what to look for in the answer choices: something that paraphrases or explicitly states the very last statement in the stimulus, that huge parts of eastern forests in North America have already and undoubtedly been affected negatively by air pollution and its nitrogen deposits.
Answer Choice (A) This is not stated or implied as any part of the argument, let alone the conclusion. First of all, the conclusion isn’t just an implication of the report cited, but instead an application of the findings of group 2 on the area the report cared about. And then beyond that, why would the author have ended their argument with a strong statement that there have already been negative effects on the forests in question if this was the author’s main conclusion? They wouldn’t have. We have no reason to think that eastern North American forests DO have that optimal ratio of nitrogen deposited and absorbed, we only have reason to think otherwise (due to the second group’s findings and the author’s premise).
Answer Choice (B) Same thing here, this isn’t stated as any part of the argument. We don’t know what the author would say about this hypothetical! That’s beyond the scope of the argument. Plus, this isn’t a Most Strongly Supported question. We just want to know what the author actually concluded, not if they might agree with this “would” statement about what things might be like if circumstances were a certain way.
Answer Choice (C) Again, not stated in the argument and seems inaccurate based on what we know. We know nothing at all about the type of analysis used by the European soil scientist group, but the author actually stated as their premise that the findings themselves are LIKELY to apply to all forests, so if anything we might use that evidence to assume the opposite of what this AC states.
Answer Choice (D) ONLY! Since when did we say this conclusion ONLY applied to the eastern forests? I’m always skeptical of strong words like ONLY, as we will need explicit evidence from the text to support anything this strong.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is a perfect rephrase of the author’s main point! The author’s conclusion is in contrast to the findings of the first report, and this AC posits the correct relationship between air pollution and trees in eastern forests: that nitrogen posits from the air pollution are more likely to have a negative effect on forest growth than a positive one!
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The author of the passage criticizes the editorial by…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker.
Our stimulus begins by telling us about the defense of the U.S. government published by an editorial. The editorial defends government restrictions on scientists by saying those receiving government funding cannot rightly detach themselves from the nation’s politics. This instance of the editorial’s publication is quite different from the one that is described next. The speaker tells us the same editorial has also criticized another government for doing the opposite - not allowing their scientists to detach themselves from politics. These contrasting examples lead to the conclusion of the stimulus which asserts the editorial should explain what the difference between these scenarios entails.
Knowing that our correct answer choice will highlight the use of contrasting examples to support a conclusion, we can jump into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) If our stimulus were disputing factual claims as asserted in the first answer choice, we would see some sort of opinion on whether or not the claims of the different editorial publications were correct. But our argument is not concerned with identifying which one is right; it is concerned with an explanation for the different opinions being published.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is the answer choice we are looking for! By pointing out the inconsistency between the publications, this answer choice lines up well with our prediction.
Answer Choice (C) Our stimulus focuses on an apparent inconsistency rather than on an exception. If our stimulus were using some sort of exception we would expect to hear information supporting the idea that this event rarely occurs or happens in contrast to the typical result.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice does not align with our stimulus. Rather than refuting something in the argument, our author points out that two ideas don’t make sense together. For this reason we can eliminate the answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) Similar to the answer choice above, this one suggests our speaker is drawing a conclusion about the factual accuracy of what is published in the editorials. But whether the information is correct, our stimulus ultimately aims to push the editorial for an explanation. Thus, we can get rid of this answer choice.
The question stem says “The main point of the argument is that…” Therefore, we know this must be a main conclusion or main point question, asking us to identify the author’s claim that is supported by other claims.
We begin with a claim about the likelihood or probability of something happening. Although it is not a precise claim, we learn that it is “probably” possible, by using human technology, to create a climate on Mars in which living organisms can survive. Right away, I am wondering if this claim will end up supporting another one (making it a premise) or being supported by another claim (making it a conclusion). We don’t quite have enough information yet, so let’s read on.
It looks like we are now being presented with more details as to how this occurrence might happen––it might be hundreds of years before humans could actually live on Mars, even if they had specific technology that would assist them (breathing apparatuses). The second half of this sentence begins with a “but,” usually indicating some sort of contrast or shift in the author’s point. But… we hear about a comparison, well, more than one of the “great temples and cathedrals” also took hundreds of years to build. Side note… huh? How is transforming a currently uninhabitable planet into a place humans could thrive similar to constructing a cathedral? But I digress. Let’s ignore how good or bad this argument seems, as that is not our job to assess in this case––we just need to decipher which is the author’s main conclusion. What role does this contrast play in the argument? Well, at the base level, the author is trying to set up the argument (remember, just a premise and conclusion) that hey, it might take a while until we can inhabit Mars, but didn’t other great feats in history take a while? This claim also introduces a specific piece of human technology, breathing apparatuses, that are implied to assist human life on Mars. So, we are walking away from this second sentence with hope that human technology could allow for life on Mars one day, by way of a comparison and an example. As of now, this second sentence makes the first more likely to be true: now we know, ever so slightly, how “it is probably within the reach of human technology to make the climate of Mars inhabitable.” So, the second sentence supports the first, and is a premise to the best of our knowledge.
Ooh! Wait! We have a third sentence here that builds on the first two, and might be a strong contender for our main conclusion! The claim states that we can prove that research efforts are reasonable if (indicating a sufficient condition) “there is even a chance” of making life on Mars possible. In other words, proving that there is a slight chance of altering Mars’ climate to be inhabitable is enough for us to justify research efforts. How do the first two sentences connect to this? Well, they each work to set up the fact that we may have met the sufficient condition for research to be justified, that we have this slight chance! The first claim tells us that creating conditions of life on Mars is a possibility, and the second sentence partially tells us how it is a possibility, and partially increases the likelihood of it being a possibility by comparison to history. Therefore, the first two claims support, or make more likely to be true, the fact that the sufficient condition in sentence three is met! Let’s read on.
“Besides,” or in addition, we are presented with one potential benefit of the process of making Mars inhabitable. One part of that process, “the intellectual exercise of understanding how the Martian atmosphere might be changed” can assist in understanding a big problem we have on Earth: atmospheric changes due to human activity. So, we have a reason that research into life on Mars would be beneficial, next to some information that sets up the possibility that this goal could truly be achieved. Which one of the author’s claims is being supported overall? This stimulus is similar to other tough main conclusion questions in the sense that these premises are not quite supporting an explicitly stated sentence, but instead we have to put the puzzle pieces together as readers to determine the direction the author is taking the argument. Why would the author have presented us with reasons to believe life on Mars could be possible and list a benefit of researching life on Mars, if they were not trying to let us know that the sufficient condition for justifying research efforts has been met? Remember, it was a pretty weakly worded sufficient condition; it is adequate or enough to establish that “there is even a chance” of making life on Mars possible in order to justify research efforts. The premises tell us that there is this slight chance, so the author’s conclusion must be that research efforts are now justified. Let’s search for this in our AC’s.
Answer Choice (A) This looks like a spot-on rephrase of the first sentence, that technology allows for the possibility of life on Mars. Remember, we thought this might be a supported claim, or the conclusion, after reading the first two sentences, but did the rest of the sentences make this first claim more likely to be true? No, instead, this claim ends up making a later claim more likely to be accepted, that research efforts are justified.
Answer Choice (B) This is a rephrase of the first half of that second sentence, which we determined to be a premise that limits but still sets up the likelihood of life on Mars.
Answer Choice (C) Definitely not our main conclusion. This was an example of other “similar” feats in history, but we can’t make a case that anything else in the argument makes this statement more likely to be true.
Correct Answer Choice (D) There we go! That’s exactly what we are looking for. And, it required some synthesis, or combining different pieces of evidence to support a conclusion, as we have seen other difficult MC questions require of us. After reading this entire stimulus, we are much more likely to accept that research efforts are justified, as the claims support this in some way.
Answer Choice (E) This is a rephrase of that last sentence, listing a potential benefit of pursuing research, which was a piece of support that research efforts are justified.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “Which one of the following is an error of reasoning committed by 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 stimulus begins with the author’s conclusion; the government has no right to tax earnings from labor. This conclusion follows with the reasoning of the argument. Taxes would require the employee to work for another’s purpose (the government) and it therefore meets one of the qualifications of indentured servitude. This connects back to our overall conclusion because the speaker uses the connection between taxes and indentured servitude to justify a moratorium on taxing labor.
By using indentured servitude as the reasoning for the main point our author is already making an assumption. If this type of work brings us to a conclusion about taxes, our argument assumes that these are two very comparable things. But we don’t know they share every quality – only that both taxing and indentured servitude are both working for another’s purpose. Perhaps taxation includes some sort of greater benefit that would make it ideal despite technically working for “another’s purpose.”
Knowing that our correct answer choice will identify the assumption being made between taxation and servitude, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only descriptively correct answer choice that references the problem of only considering one part of the definition of the terms in the stimulus. This strongly connects to our prediction about the assumed connection between servitude and taxation.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate flaw of our stimulus. The taxation rate is not the problem seen between conclusion and explanation. With this emphasis in the answer choice, we can eliminate B.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. We do not know that all work in this hypothetical would end up being taxed. But beyond it’s descriptive issues, the problem in our stimulus is not the amount of work being taxed - but rather, that it is being taxed at all.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. In addition to that, the taxation of income from investment does not have anything to do with our argument concerning wage taxation.
Answer Choice (E) Subjectivity, or interpretation, is not the issue in this stimulus. Rather, our argument thinks we should use one part rather than focusing on subjectively analyzing them. In addition to not being descriptively accurate, it is not the ultimate issue in our stimulus.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: A flaw in the reasoning of the passage is 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.
Our stimulus begins by laying out factual information about the difficulty of giving birth over 40, and the likelihood of a difficult birth leading the child to be ambidextrous. The author claims the facts above prove there must be more ambidextrous babies born to mothers over 40 than there are born to younger mothers.
In order for a comparison conclusion to hold up we need to be able to assume our groups are, well, comparable. This is where we can identify the assumption being made in the argument. Our stimulus supports its conclusion by comparing two groups (younger and older mothers) that are clearly different in one clear regard. A woman is more likely to give birth below the age of 40 than they are above the age of 40.
Let’s consider this to the extreme to best see the problem in this stimulus. Say that we have 10 mothers who gave birth under 40 and only 1 mother who gave birth after 40. This scenario would not allow us to draw the conclusion we see in the stimulus. Sure, the older mother is more likely to have an ambidextrous baby and that mother is more likely to have a difficult birth, but there is no guarantee there will be more ambidextrous babies born to mothers over 40. For all we know, very few women give birth above the age of 40 based on the strictions of our stimulus.
Knowing our flaw that we can’t definitively prove more babies are born to mothers in this age range, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) We know this answer is not descriptively accurate because it accuses our argument of circular reasoning - when we can conclude A happened because A happened. But we do not see an instance of our conclusion being used as evidence for our main point.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice hits on the problem that the increased likelihood of something occurring does not equal a higher number of that thing will result.
Answer Choice (C) This answer is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate problem in our stimulus. The percentage of people who are ambidextrous in the entire population does ont weigh on our conclusion comparing specifically those born to older or younger mothers.
Answer Choice (D) This answer is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate problem in our stimulus. The age of a child in determining handedness is not an issue - if anything, what matters in our discussion is the age of the mother.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is descriptively accurate but not our overall flaw. We care about the number of children with this trait rather than the means through which they acquire it. For this reason, we can eliminate answer choice E.