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 question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The stimulus begins by telling us about a prison surgery program; people who behave well can receive free cosmetic surgery. Following this description, the speaker concludes that surgery has a powerful rehabilitative effect on the basis that the re-offender rate is lower for this group of inmates than the remainder in the prison population.
To conclude that something is powerful in causing an effect means that, in our case, inmates who receive cosmetic surgery through this program are more likely than before to avoid committing further crimes. This is where our author makes an assumption about the inmates involved in the study. Surely this group of inmates will already reoffend at a lower rate than the remainder of the population – these inmates were the most well behaved to begin with. Our argument is drawing a conclusion about the value of surgery on the basis of a group that was already going to have lower crime rates following release.
Knowing that our stimulus unjustly comes to its conclusion using a specific subset of the prison population, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Morality is briefly mentioned in our stimulus but it is not used to come to any conclusions about matters of fact.
Answer Choice (B) This is not what we are looking for. While the stimulus could be interpreted as casting moral issues aside, that is not the ultimate flaw. We know the correct answer choice will include the rate of re-offense in our group of inmates in some way.
Answer Choice (C) This is a factually correct answer, but this is ultimately not the flaw in our stimulus. Our problem with the argument relies on a comparison of two different groups rather than the use of the term controversial as claimed by this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) This is not descriptively accurate. We are not told this isn’t a moral issue - just that casting those issues aside, the rehabilitative effects are evident. Once again the answer choice presents a topic from our stimulus, but the issue of morality was a nod rather than the basis of our conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correctly answer choice is the only one that brings up the difference between the regular prison population and the inmates involved in this program.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument’s reasoning is flawed because 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 question’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 conclusions and two sets of explanations. Our theater critic kicks off the discussion by explaining how dwindling audience and talent pools lead to the conclusion that theater is in a dismal state. Not a terrible conclusion to draw from those sets of premises. Let’s see what our second speaker has to say about this.
The producer immediately makes the point of disagreement clear. The producer rejects the theater crtic’s argument that theater is in decline. But the producer’s reasoning does not respond to the explanation presented by our theater critic. Instead, the critic explains how having the opinion discourages the pool of audience and talent from joining the theater world. If we’re ranking arguments the producer’s definitely comes dead last. Rather than addressing whether the conclusion was correct, the producer focuses on the consequence of the conclusion that would follow if people held it.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for. Instead of responding to the argument, the producer presents new information that focuses on the effect of having the opinion to begin with. This is the only answer choice that describes the exact flaw of the stimulus in a way that is descriptively correct.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. The producer does not refute the theater critic’s evidence as claimed by this answer choice. Rather than assuming the critic of relying on “unsupported” evidence, the producer ignores the evidence altogether.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively correct. The producer presents an appeal to a potential consequence of the producer’s opinion instead of some personal characteristic the critic has. We would need a reference to the critic’s character in order to make this the right answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is descriptively accurate and honestly confusing. It’s not clear what “emphasis” this answer choice would even be referring to. Our producer certainly focuses on argument, but their argument just does not respond to our first speaker.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not descriptively correct. By claiming that the producer invokes “authority in order to intimidate the critic” our argument would need to have some sort of reference to an authoritative figure relevant to the topic of theater.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument’s reasoning is flawed because 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.
We can uncover the classic reasoning flaw in this question by using structural analysis. The argument begins by telling us that to date, no one has successfully communicated with intelligent life outside of planet Earth. The author introduces their main point in the final sentence, saying that because no one has identified evidence of intelligent life outside of planet Earth, it must not exist. We know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Meaning that just because we do not find evidence something exists that thing itself does not exist. Maybe we have poor equipment or lack the skills necessary to find the dozens of alien species that exist on other planets.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not the issue of our stimulus. Whether or not intelligent non-living things exist does not impact our discussion on the existence of intelligent living things.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively accurate telling of the flaw is the only answer choice that points out the lack of evidence used as the basis for our speaker’s overall conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. The argument does not say “because they disagree, they are wrong!” as would have to be the case for this answer choice to be correct. But we do not see any sort of disagreement being referenced as the support of the ultimate conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. If our argument were relying “on the vagueness of the term ‘life’” we would see the underlying meaning or definition arise as an issue in the discussion in some way.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. By saying that our argument relies on a weak analogy, this answer choice claims a comparison between two things that cannot be seen here. Additionally, our answer choice certainly does have some evidence it relies on in contrast with what this answer choice states. Just because the evidence or rationale is bad does not mean that they do not have it.