Inability to be tested is a problem for a theory.
Lack of success in explaining why a force is not stronger or weaker is a problem for a theory that tries to explain that force.
A
Superstring theory would be more successful if superstring theorists attempted to explain why the force of gravity is not stronger or weaker than it is.
B
Physical theories that are better established than superstring theory provide better explanations of physical phenomena than does superstring theory.
C
Some physical theory more established than superstring theory has had at least some success in explaining why the force of gravity is not stronger or weaker than it is.
D
A physical theory cannot be true if testing that theory would require us to build a particle accelerator 100 trillion kilometers long.
E
A theory that purports to explain the nature of a force is deficient if it cannot account for the strength of that force.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument?
This is a Main Conclusion question.
Banking industry visionaries foresee a bright day in the near future when customers will be able to transact all their financial business by means of computers or telephones from the comfort of their own homes.
We start off with other people’s position: banking industry visionaries predict that customers will be able to do all their banking from home.
What should we expect to see right after getting other people’s position? The author’s view. And that’s exactly what we get here:
But that may be more of a paradise for banks than for their customers.
Once we translate the referential language, “that,” as well as the word “paradise,” (which I’ll loosely translate as “good thing”), the full idea is this: “Customers doing all their banking from home may be more of a good thing for banks than for customers.”
Note that this isn’t a rejection of the banking industry visionaries’ view — the author isn’t saying that people won’t be able to do their banking at home. So in that sense, the author’s response isn’t the one I was most expecting. Usually right after someone’s viewpoint, the author criticizes it or rejects it. Here, the author just comments on the view: a world where banking is done at home might be better for banks than for customers.
That’s an interesting take – why might banking from home not be so great for customers?
Here’s the reason:
As banks eliminate their branch offices and customer-service employees, customers will have to serve as their own tellers—and pay more transaction fees for their efforts.
In other words, when you bank at home, you have to be the teller, and you pay more transaction fees. (I’ve never thought about it that way before…banks should be paying me when I open their apps on my phone, because I’m actually working as a teller for them.) Those sound like reasons banking from home wouldn’t be so great. That confirms that the line starting with “But…” is the conclusion.
Let’s look for something along the lines of “Doing all your banking business at home is better for banks than for customers.”
Answer Choice (A) In the near future, bank customers will be able to transact all their financial business by means of computers or telephones from their own homes.
This matches up with the banking industry visionaries’ view in the first sentence. But that’s not the conclusion – the conclusion is the author’s comment on that view.
Correct Answer Choice (B) Enabling bank customers to transact all their financial business by means of computers or telephones from their own homes may be more beneficial to banks than to their customers.
This is a great restatement of the conclusion. To get to this answer quickly, we have to recognize that calling something “more of a paradise” means that it’s better, or in (B)’s language, “more beneficial.” And, we also have to unpack the referential language “that” in the second sentence.
Answer Choice (C) As banks eliminate branch offices and customer-service employees, bank customers will have to serve as their own tellers and pay more fees.
This is the last sentence of the stimulus, which was a premise. The author did not offer any other statement to prove that this would happen.
Answer Choice (D) Eliminating branch offices and customer-service employees would benefit the banking industry.
This is almost there, but doesn’t capture the author’s claim that banking from home will be worse for customers. Also, the argument was about the effect of banking from home. The elimination of branch offices and customer-service employees are a by-product of a world where people can bank from home. But that by-product is not the thing the author was calling more of a paradise for banks than for customers.
Answer Choice (E) Enabling customers to transact all their financial business by means of computers or telephones from their own homes would allow banks to eliminate branch offices and customer-service employees.
This is supported by the argument, but it’s not the conclusion. (E) is an assumption made by the author. She does believe that banking from home will lead to elimination of branch offices and customer-service employees, but her conclusion is a judgment about the effects of banking from home on banks and customers. An answer that simply describes some of the effects of banking from home doesn’t contain the author’s judgment.
A
In the near future, bank customers will be able to transact all their financial business by means of computers or telephones from their own homes.
B
Enabling bank customers to transact all their financial business by means of computers or telephones from their own homes may be more beneficial to banks than to their customers.
C
As banks eliminate branch offices and customer-service employees, bank customers will have to serve as their own tellers and pay more fees.
D
Eliminating branch offices and customer-service employees would benefit the banking industry.
E
Enabling customers to transact all their financial business by means of computers or telephones from their own homes would allow banks to eliminate branch offices and customer-service employees.
This is a Parallel Method of Reasoning question.
The argument uses causal reasoning. Specifically, when there are multiple sufficient causes, none of them are individually necessary.
The test writers made this harder to see because the stimulus tries to obscure this reasoning whereas (A) is much more direct.
The argument opens with contextual information: a practice. To achieve the traditional hotness of Mexican cuisine or Thai cuisine, cooks are particular about using jalapeno peppers or Thai chilis.
The word "but” signals a transition to a critique of that practice. But, as experienced cooks know, if food is sufficiently spiced, it is impossible to distinguish which ingredient is causing the hot sensation.
It might have occurred to you that “traditional hotness of spicy cuisines” may not fall within the range of “sufficiently spiced” food. If it did, that’s good. Were this a Weaken or an NA question, this conceptual gap might have formed the basis of the correct answer.
But this is a Parallel Method of Reasoning question. As such, we must understand the reasoning underlying the argument. In order to do that, we must interpret this argument as a response to what cooks do. That means we charitably assume that “traditional hotness of spicy cuisines” does fall within the range of “sufficiently spiced” food because otherwise, the argument would already be irrelevant.
That’s one hurdle, recognizing that in this instance, we concede an assumption so that we can proceed with interpreting the argument. Another way to think about this is that the context constrains our interpretation of the argument.
Moving on, the premise says that once food is sufficiently spiced, then we can't tell which ingredient caused the sensation (spiciness). That means with the Mexican chef using jalapeno to cook the traditional Mexican cuisine and the Thai chef using the Thai chili pepper to cook the traditional spicy Thai cuisine, as soon as both of their dishes reach the “sufficiently spiced” threshold, we can no longer tell whether it was the jalapeno or the Thai chili that caused the spiciness.
The argument concludes that none of the hot spices traditionally used are irreplaceable. In other words, any of them could be replaced. So the Thai chef didn’t have to use Thai chili. He could have used jalapeno instead.
You might be thinking, wait, that can’t be right. Surely there must be other differences between Thai chili and jalapeno. Now you’ve encountered the second hurdle. You’re probably right about other differences in aroma or flavor, differences that have nothing to do with spiciness. And I’m sure those are the differences that explain why Thai cuisine uses Thai chili and not just any random pepper. But again, we must interpret this conclusion in context. In context, “replaceable” doesn’t mean “replaceable without any difference to the outcome.” Rather, it means “replaceable without any difference to the outcome in spiciness.” That latter interpretation greatly improves the strength of the argument. Under that latter interpretation, the conclusion follows more strongly from the premise.
But the test writers are banking on us to not take context into consideration. If we don’t, then we think this conclusion is highly problematic. And if we think that, then we’ll likely overlook Correct Answer Choice (A).
I think once we get past those two hurdles, this argument feels quite strong. More than that, the reasoning also becomes much more apparent. The reasoning is that because there are multiple causes (e.g., jalapeno, Thai chili, etc.) of a phenomenon (spiciness), then none of them is necessary to give rise to that phenomenon.
Correct Answer Choice (A) contains the same causal reasoning in a direct argument. It doesn’t give us contextual information to constrain our interpretation of the argument.
It is light-sensitive pigment in the fishes' eyes that makes it possible for them to see. That’s cause-effect. Any one of a variety of pigments makes underwater vision possible. So pigment variant A, pigment variant B, pigment variant C, any one of them makes underwater vision possible. Therefore, no particular variant is necessary for underwater vision.
The analogy is strong. Pigment variant A analogizes to Thai chili. Pigment variant B analogizes to jalapeno. Underwater vision analogizes to a certain level of spiciness. Any one of the causes can result in the effect, and therefore none of them is necessary.
One point of disanalogy is that underwater vision is binary (as presented in (A)) whereas spiciness is on a spectrum. But the argument mitigated that by treating spiciness as if it were binary by laying down a cutoff, a threshold.
Answer Choice (B) contains a circular sub-argument where the premise and the conclusion are restatements of each other.
No country that devotes the majority of its resources to the military can avoid war. Therefore, peacetime cannot persist in any nation that uses over half its resources to support its armed forces. These claims are more or less equivalent.
Answer Choice (C) says to receive a doctorate, a student must complete the required number of classes and write a dissertation. We can already move on. The reasoning in the stimulus is causal. The reasoning in (C) is conditional; it’s talking about a sufficiency-necessity relationship.
To get a PhD, you must complete the required number of classes, and you must write your dissertation. (C) continues to commit the sufficiency-necessity confusion flaw. It concludes the sufficient condition on the basis of premises that satisfy the necessary condition.
Answer Choice (D) says attending a music concert is a far richer experience than listening to a recorded piece of music. Why? Well, when playing music live, musicians depart from the original score; therefore, each live concert is a unique and irreplaceable event.
(D) implies that this “unique and irreplaceable” feature of live music is not to be found in recorded music. Well, yes. The whole point of recorded music is to be exactly the same each time you play it.
(D) assumes “unique and irreplaceable” is more valuable than its absence. On the back of that assumed value judgment, it makes its conclusion that a music concert is a “far richer experience.”
This mode of reasoning has no resemblance to the argument in the stimulus.
But on its own terms, (D) is not a strong argument precisely because of the assumed value judgment. It’s not self-evident that “unique and irreplaceable” is the “richer experience.” Reasonable people may well disagree. They may well have other values that matter more to creating a richer experience, and those other values might be better served by recorded music.
Answer Choice (E) is a cookie-cutter trap answer in Parallel Method of Reasoning questions. It talks about cooking and ingredients. The reason why this trap is here is because the test writers are thinking to themselves, “Hey, you know what? I bet if students haven't done many of these kinds of questions, they'll just see this phrase 'most similar' and they'll conflate 'most similar in reasoning' with 'most similar in subject matter.'”
Reasoning is very different from subject matter. Two arguments about very different subjects can nonetheless be very similar in reasoning, as evidenced by the argument in the stimulus and the argument in (A). And two arguments about very similar subjects can nonetheless be very different in reasoning, as evidenced by the argument in the stimulus and the argument in (E).
(E) says that good cooks always select their ingredients carefully, for they know that every delicious meal is made with high-quality ingredients. Therefore, no meal made without high-quality ingredients is delicious. Wait, that’s circular reasoning again. If every delicious meal is made with high-quality ingredients, then, of course, meals without high-quality ingredients are not delicious.
This is an NA question.
The argument requires us to connect two concepts that both show up in the premises.
We start with the premise that the set of historical figures that we find most engaging have the following attributes: they are mostly without moral virtue but they are brave and they are courageous.
Then, we get a conclusion indicator, "thus.” Thus, moral virtue is not among the characteristics that we most admire. Does that follow? The premise is about historical figures that we find most engaging (no moral virtue) and the conclusion is about figures that we most admire (no moral virtue). The “no moral virtue” concept is already connected between the premise and the conclusion so no gaps there. But the other two attributes better have something to do with each other. Specifically, the figures that we find most engaging better be the ones that we most admire. That’s supplying a premise-to-conclusion bridge and it’s something we often see in NA (and SA) questions.
Here, it’s a bit more complicated because we actually have another premise, as introduced by the word “since.” The people whose lives we would most like to live are those whose characteristics we admire most. This premise does link up to the idea of “most admire” in the conclusion, yet it’s entirely missing the idea of “no moral virtue.” So both the first and the second premises have something to offer and yet each is lacking something as well.
With the second premise, the conceptual gap that we need to fill has moved. We no longer need to bridge the first premise, “most engaging,” to the conclusion because the second premise, “most like to live,” connects to the conclusion already. Now the gap is between the first and the second premise. What does “most engaging” have to do with “most like to live”? There’s the new gap.
That is what Correct Answer Choice (A) provides. (A) says the historical figures that we find most engaging are the ones whose lives we would most like to live. That’s the premise-to-premise bridge that we need. And this bridge is required. Imagine if we didn't have it. It's not true that the historical figures who we find most engaging are the ones whose lives we would most like to live. If that were the case, then the first premise is severed from the conclusion. It has no way to support the conclusion anymore. The second premise cannot support the conclusion on its own since it says nothing about virtue. The argument thus falls apart.
Answer Choice (B) says bravery and creativity are characteristics that make it more difficult to be morally virtuous. That’s a claim about a causal relationship. We don't need to assume it. In fact, we don't need to assume any causal relationship between bravery and lack of virtue or creativity and lack of virtue.
Imagine if we negated this. Bravery and creativity don't make it harder to be morally virtuous. What would that mean? That would mean either they make it easier to be morally virtuous or they have no impact on moral virtuousness. Either way is fine for the argument.
Answer Choice (C) says historical figures are very rarely morally virtuous. This is not required. The argument is not concerned with the entire set of historical figures. Rather, it’s only concerned with a subset of the historical figures whom we find most engaging. What (C) has to say about the larger superset doesn’t matter because it doesn’t change the characteristics of the subset. The most engaging historical figures are still mostly not morally virtuous, yet are brave and creative.
Answer Choice (D) says people develop their conception of what makes an individual admirable based on what they know about historical figures. Interesting. This is not required. This has nothing to do with the argument. According to (D), you and I (people) develop our conception of what makes a person admirable based on what we know about historical figures. Like who? Maybe Genghis Khan, maybe Jesus, maybe whoever.
But who cares? I'm sure this is partially true as a description of my psychology. But that’s where (D) lives. It doesn’t live in the space of bridging the argument’s first premise to its second premise.
Answer Choice (E) says moral virtue is the characteristic of historical figures that we find least engaging. No, we don't need to assume that. Just like how we didn’t care about (B)’s claim about the causal relationship between bravery and moral virtue, we don't care about (E)’s claim about the ranking of what attributes of historical figures we find most and least engaging. (E) says that whatever the reason is that you find historical figures engaging, whether it's their bravery or creativity or whatever it is, virtue ranks at the bottom. And that has to be true. No, that doesn't have to be true. In fact, it's demonstrably false because the argument already conceded, at least for a minority of the historical figures we find the most engaging, that they are morally virtuous. Why do we find Martin Luther King to be engaging? I mean, he had a sexy voice so I get why he was so popular with the ladies, but surely moral virtue does not rank last on that list.
This is a Parallel Method of Reasoning question.
The argument uses causal reasoning. Specifically, when there are multiple sufficient causes, none of them are individually necessary.
The test writers made this harder to see because the stimulus tries to obscure this reasoning whereas (A) is much more direct.
The argument opens with contextual information: a practice. To achieve the traditional hotness of Mexican cuisine or Thai cuisine, cooks are particular about using jalapeno peppers or Thai chilis.
The word "but” signals a transition to a critique of that practice. But, as experienced cooks know, if food is sufficiently spiced, it is impossible to distinguish which ingredient is causing the hot sensation.
It might have occurred to you that “traditional hotness of spicy cuisines” may not fall within the range of “sufficiently spiced” food. If it did, that’s good. Were this a Weaken or an NA question, this conceptual gap might have formed the basis of the correct answer.
But this is a Parallel Method of Reasoning question. As such, we must understand the reasoning underlying the argument. In order to do that, we must interpret this argument as a response to what cooks do. That means we charitably assume that “traditional hotness of spicy cuisines” does fall within the range of “sufficiently spiced” food because otherwise, the argument would already be irrelevant.
That’s one hurdle, recognizing that in this instance, we concede an assumption so that we can proceed with interpreting the argument. Another way to think about this is that the context constrains our interpretation of the argument.
Moving on, the premise says that once food is sufficiently spiced, then we can't tell which ingredient caused the sensation (spiciness). That means with the Mexican chef using jalapeno to cook the traditional Mexican cuisine and the Thai chef using the Thai chili pepper to cook the traditional spicy Thai cuisine, as soon as both of their dishes reach the “sufficiently spiced” threshold, we can no longer tell whether it was the jalapeno or the Thai chili that caused the spiciness.
The argument concludes that none of the hot spices traditionally used are irreplaceable. In other words, any of them could be replaced. So the Thai chef didn’t have to use Thai chili. He could have used jalapeno instead.
You might be thinking, wait, that can’t be right. Surely there must be other differences between Thai chili and jalapeno. Now you’ve encountered the second hurdle. You’re probably right about other differences in aroma or flavor, differences that have nothing to do with spiciness. And I’m sure those are the differences that explain why Thai cuisine uses Thai chili and not just any random pepper. But again, we must interpret this conclusion in context. In context, “replaceable” doesn’t mean “replaceable without any difference to the outcome.” Rather, it means “replaceable without any difference to the outcome in spiciness.” That latter interpretation greatly improves the strength of the argument. Under that latter interpretation, the conclusion follows more strongly from the premise.
But the test writers are banking on us to not take context into consideration. If we don’t, then we think this conclusion is highly problematic. And if we think that, then we’ll likely overlook Correct Answer Choice (A).
I think once we get past those two hurdles, this argument feels quite strong. More than that, the reasoning also becomes much more apparent. The reasoning is that because there are multiple causes (e.g., jalapeno, Thai chili, etc.) of a phenomenon (spiciness), then none of them is necessary to give rise to that phenomenon.
Correct Answer Choice (A) contains the same causal reasoning in a direct argument. It doesn’t give us contextual information to constrain our interpretation of the argument.
It is light-sensitive pigment in the fishes' eyes that makes it possible for them to see. That’s cause-effect. Any one of a variety of pigments makes underwater vision possible. So pigment variant A, pigment variant B, pigment variant C, any one of them makes underwater vision possible. Therefore, no particular variant is necessary for underwater vision.
The analogy is strong. Pigment variant A analogizes to Thai chili. Pigment variant B analogizes to jalapeno. Underwater vision analogizes to a certain level of spiciness. Any one of the causes can result in the effect, and therefore none of them is necessary.
One point of disanalogy is that underwater vision is binary (as presented in (A)) whereas spiciness is on a spectrum. But the argument mitigated that by treating spiciness as if it were binary by laying down a cutoff, a threshold.
Answer Choice (B) contains a circular sub-argument where the premise and the conclusion are restatements of each other.
No country that devotes the majority of its resources to the military can avoid war. Therefore, peacetime cannot persist in any nation that uses over half its resources to support its armed forces. These claims are more or less equivalent.
Answer Choice (C) says to receive a doctorate, a student must complete the required number of classes and write a dissertation. We can already move on. The reasoning in the stimulus is causal. The reasoning in (C) is conditional; it’s talking about a sufficiency-necessity relationship.
To get a PhD, you must complete the required number of classes, and you must write your dissertation. (C) continues to commit the sufficiency-necessity confusion flaw. It concludes the sufficient condition on the basis of premises that satisfy the necessary condition.
Answer Choice (D) says attending a music concert is a far richer experience than listening to a recorded piece of music. Why? Well, when playing music live, musicians depart from the original score; therefore, each live concert is a unique and irreplaceable event.
(D) implies that this “unique and irreplaceable” feature of live music is not to be found in recorded music. Well, yes. The whole point of recorded music is to be exactly the same each time you play it.
(D) assumes “unique and irreplaceable” is more valuable than its absence. On the back of that assumed value judgment, it makes its conclusion that a music concert is a “far richer experience.”
This mode of reasoning has no resemblance to the argument in the stimulus.
But on its own terms, (D) is not a strong argument precisely because of the assumed value judgment. It’s not self-evident that “unique and irreplaceable” is the “richer experience.” Reasonable people may well disagree. They may well have other values that matter more to creating a richer experience, and those other values might be better served by recorded music.
Answer Choice (E) is a cookie-cutter trap answer in Parallel Method of Reasoning questions. It talks about cooking and ingredients. The reason why this trap is here is because the test writers are thinking to themselves, “Hey, you know what? I bet if students haven't done many of these kinds of questions, they'll just see this phrase 'most similar' and they'll conflate 'most similar in reasoning' with 'most similar in subject matter.'”
Reasoning is very different from subject matter. Two arguments about very different subjects can nonetheless be very similar in reasoning, as evidenced by the argument in the stimulus and the argument in (A). And two arguments about very similar subjects can nonetheless be very different in reasoning, as evidenced by the argument in the stimulus and the argument in (E).
(E) says that good cooks always select their ingredients carefully, for they know that every delicious meal is made with high-quality ingredients. Therefore, no meal made without high-quality ingredients is delicious. Wait, that’s circular reasoning again. If every delicious meal is made with high-quality ingredients, then, of course, meals without high-quality ingredients are not delicious.
This is an NA question.
The argument requires us to connect two concepts that both show up in the premises.
We start with the premise that the set of historical figures that we find most engaging have the following attributes: they are mostly without moral virtue but they are brave and they are courageous.
Then, we get a conclusion indicator, "thus.” Thus, moral virtue is not among the characteristics that we most admire. Does that follow? The premise is about historical figures that we find most engaging (no moral virtue) and the conclusion is about figures that we most admire (no moral virtue). The “no moral virtue” concept is already connected between the premise and the conclusion so no gaps there. But the other two attributes better have something to do with each other. Specifically, the figures that we find most engaging better be the ones that we most admire. That’s supplying a premise-to-conclusion bridge and it’s something we often see in NA (and SA) questions.
Here, it’s a bit more complicated because we actually have another premise, as introduced by the word “since.” The people whose lives we would most like to live are those whose characteristics we admire most. This premise does link up to the idea of “most admire” in the conclusion, yet it’s entirely missing the idea of “no moral virtue.” So both the first and the second premises have something to offer and yet each is lacking something as well.
With the second premise, the conceptual gap that we need to fill has moved. We no longer need to bridge the first premise, “most engaging,” to the conclusion because the second premise, “most like to live,” connects to the conclusion already. Now the gap is between the first and the second premise. What does “most engaging” have to do with “most like to live”? There’s the new gap.
That is what Correct Answer Choice (A) provides. (A) says the historical figures that we find most engaging are the ones whose lives we would most like to live. That’s the premise-to-premise bridge that we need. And this bridge is required. Imagine if we didn't have it. It's not true that the historical figures who we find most engaging are the ones whose lives we would most like to live. If that were the case, then the first premise is severed from the conclusion. It has no way to support the conclusion anymore. The second premise cannot support the conclusion on its own since it says nothing about virtue. The argument thus falls apart.
Answer Choice (B) says bravery and creativity are characteristics that make it more difficult to be morally virtuous. That’s a claim about a causal relationship. We don't need to assume it. In fact, we don't need to assume any causal relationship between bravery and lack of virtue or creativity and lack of virtue.
Imagine if we negated this. Bravery and creativity don't make it harder to be morally virtuous. What would that mean? That would mean either they make it easier to be morally virtuous or they have no impact on moral virtuousness. Either way is fine for the argument.
Answer Choice (C) says historical figures are very rarely morally virtuous. This is not required. The argument is not concerned with the entire set of historical figures. Rather, it’s only concerned with a subset of the historical figures whom we find most engaging. What (C) has to say about the larger superset doesn’t matter because it doesn’t change the characteristics of the subset. The most engaging historical figures are still mostly not morally virtuous, yet are brave and creative.
Answer Choice (D) says people develop their conception of what makes an individual admirable based on what they know about historical figures. Interesting. This is not required. This has nothing to do with the argument. According to (D), you and I (people) develop our conception of what makes a person admirable based on what we know about historical figures. Like who? Maybe Genghis Khan, maybe Jesus, maybe whoever.
But who cares? I'm sure this is partially true as a description of my psychology. But that’s where (D) lives. It doesn’t live in the space of bridging the argument’s first premise to its second premise.
Answer Choice (E) says moral virtue is the characteristic of historical figures that we find least engaging. No, we don't need to assume that. Just like how we didn’t care about (B)’s claim about the causal relationship between bravery and moral virtue, we don't care about (E)’s claim about the ranking of what attributes of historical figures we find most and least engaging. (E) says that whatever the reason is that you find historical figures engaging, whether it's their bravery or creativity or whatever it is, virtue ranks at the bottom. And that has to be true. No, that doesn't have to be true. In fact, it's demonstrably false because the argument already conceded, at least for a minority of the historical figures we find the most engaging, that they are morally virtuous. Why do we find Martin Luther King to be engaging? I mean, he had a sexy voice so I get why he was so popular with the ladies, but surely moral virtue does not rank last on that list.
This is an NA question.
Sometimes, when the structure of the argument is very simple, NA answers turn out to also be SA answers. Here, the question stem says “properly drawn,” which hints that the answer might also be an SA answer.
The stimulus begins with OPA. Health experts who advocate moderate consumption of alcohol for its cardiac benefits say that red wine is the most beneficial. Next, we get "but" and “while.” Both indicate transition. “While” indicates a transition to a concession point. The author concedes that there is statistical evidence that people who drink moderate amounts of red wine are less likely to fall victim to heart disease than are people who drink moderate amounts of other alcoholic beverages. So that’s her concession to OPA on red wine’s benefit.
Now we get back to the “but.” What the author really wants to say is that the proponents of red wine have yet to determine what biochemical mechanism, if any, explains this difference. So, the author concludes, their evidence is inconclusive.
Okay, that’s a very simple argument. One premise, one conclusion. Why is the OP’s evidence inconclusive? Because OP have not determined a biochemical mechanism.
Well, we’ve seen this kind of NA question before. We need a P to C bridge. We need to connect the idea in the premise to the idea in the conclusion.
And that’s what Correct Answer Choice (D) does. (D) says that evidence regarding the health benefits of foods or drinks must be corroborated by accurate accounts of the mechanisms involved in order to be conclusive. Great, just what we needed. For evidence to be conclusive, there must be an accurate account of the mechanisms involved. The premise fails the necessary condition (OP gave no account at all of the mechanism). Therefore, contrapose and we can conclude that OP’s evidence is not conclusive.
This is a classic NA question where the correct answer builds a P to C bridge. If this were a PSA question or SA question, (D) would still be the correct answer. That’s not always the case, but sometimes the correct answer in an NA question overlaps with the correct answer in a PSA or SA question.
Answer Choice (A) says if a substance has health benefits when consumed in moderation, then physicians should advocate moderate consumption even if excess consumption is harmful. The argument is not about what physicians should or shouldn't advocate. We’re not talking about what physicians ought to do. We're talking about whether there is enough evidence that red wine consumption is beneficial.
Answer Choice (C) suffers from the same issue. Physicians should not make any recommendations regarding something… We don't care.
The author is not writing an op-ed telling people to drink more or less red wine. Rather, the author is making an argument about whether the people who are claiming that red wine is the most beneficial of alcohols for heart health benefits (OP) have a good argument. And she's saying that they don't.
If (C) isn’t necessary, does it connect at all to the argument? If we take our author's conclusion to be true, that is, evidence is inconclusive about whether red wine is healthy, and if we take (C) to be true, then we can infer that physicians shouldn't make any recommendations.
Answer Choice (B) says assertions regarding the health benefits of foods or drinks should be supported by persuasive statistical evidence. Not necessary. The argument isn’t concerned about statistical evidence. The author already conceded that there is some statistical evidence in support of OPA.
If (B) is negated, the author’s argument still stands as long as (D) is true.
Answer Choice (E) says one should try to find a causal mechanism for the health benefits of red wine only if the health benefits have been conclusively demonstrated. This a mishmash of the words and concepts that we might expect to find in the correct answer choice. The argument just assumes that if you don't have a causal mechanism, then you don't have conclusive evidence. That's it. (E) is trying to mimic those concepts and relationships. (E) is saying if health benefits haven’t been conclusively demonstrated, then you shouldn’t try to find a causal mechanism for those as-of-yet-undemonstrated health benefits. I get the feeling that (E) is worried about wasting time and that’s why (E) is admonishing against prematurely rushing to find a causal mechanism. (E) is saying first make sure that the health benefits have been conclusively demonstrated.
This is an NA question.
Sometimes, when the structure of the argument is very simple, NA answers turn out to also be SA answers. Here, the question stem says “properly drawn,” which hints that the answer might also be an SA answer.
The stimulus begins with OPA. Health experts who advocate moderate consumption of alcohol for its cardiac benefits say that red wine is the most beneficial. Next, we get "but" and “while.” Both indicate transition. “While” indicates a transition to a concession point. The author concedes that there is statistical evidence that people who drink moderate amounts of red wine are less likely to fall victim to heart disease than are people who drink moderate amounts of other alcoholic beverages. So that’s her concession to OPA on red wine’s benefit.
Now we get back to the “but.” What the author really wants to say is that the proponents of red wine have yet to determine what biochemical mechanism, if any, explains this difference. So, the author concludes, their evidence is inconclusive.
Okay, that’s a very simple argument. One premise, one conclusion. Why is the OP’s evidence inconclusive? Because OP have not determined a biochemical mechanism.
Well, we’ve seen this kind of NA question before. We need a P to C bridge. We need to connect the idea in the premise to the idea in the conclusion.
And that’s what Correct Answer Choice (D) does. (D) says that evidence regarding the health benefits of foods or drinks must be corroborated by accurate accounts of the mechanisms involved in order to be conclusive. Great, just what we needed. For evidence to be conclusive, there must be an accurate account of the mechanisms involved. The premise fails the necessary condition (OP gave no account at all of the mechanism). Therefore, contrapose and we can conclude that OP’s evidence is not conclusive.
This is a classic NA question where the correct answer builds a P to C bridge. If this were a PSA question or SA question, (D) would still be the correct answer. That’s not always the case, but sometimes the correct answer in an NA question overlaps with the correct answer in a PSA or SA question.
Answer Choice (A) says if a substance has health benefits when consumed in moderation, then physicians should advocate moderate consumption even if excess consumption is harmful. The argument is not about what physicians should or shouldn't advocate. We’re not talking about what physicians ought to do. We're talking about whether there is enough evidence that red wine consumption is beneficial.
Answer Choice (C) suffers from the same issue. Physicians should not make any recommendations regarding something… We don't care.
The author is not writing an op-ed telling people to drink more or less red wine. Rather, the author is making an argument about whether the people who are claiming that red wine is the most beneficial of alcohols for heart health benefits (OP) have a good argument. And she's saying that they don't.
If (C) isn’t necessary, does it connect at all to the argument? If we take our author's conclusion to be true, that is, evidence is inconclusive about whether red wine is healthy, and if we take (C) to be true, then we can infer that physicians shouldn't make any recommendations.
Answer Choice (B) says assertions regarding the health benefits of foods or drinks should be supported by persuasive statistical evidence. Not necessary. The argument isn’t concerned about statistical evidence. The author already conceded that there is some statistical evidence in support of OPA.
If (B) is negated, the author’s argument still stands as long as (D) is true.
Answer Choice (E) says one should try to find a causal mechanism for the health benefits of red wine only if the health benefits have been conclusively demonstrated. This a mishmash of the words and concepts that we might expect to find in the correct answer choice. The argument just assumes that if you don't have a causal mechanism, then you don't have conclusive evidence. That's it. (E) is trying to mimic those concepts and relationships. (E) is saying if health benefits haven’t been conclusively demonstrated, then you shouldn’t try to find a causal mechanism for those as-of-yet-undemonstrated health benefits. I get the feeling that (E) is worried about wasting time and that’s why (E) is admonishing against prematurely rushing to find a causal mechanism. (E) is saying first make sure that the health benefits have been conclusively demonstrated.
This is an NA question.
The stimulus is abstract so to better understand what it’s saying, we should translate it into something more tangible.
Let’s take “Friends” as the example of the popular TV show. The stimulus is saying that selling reruns of “Friends” while “Friends” is still running on NBC can lead to decreased revenues for NBC. So in other words, new episodes of “Friends” are still being released on NBC but simultaneously, Season 1, 2, 3, etc.’s reruns are also being broadcast on, say, Netflix. The first sentence is saying that would be bad for NBC’s revenues. Okay, but why? I suspect that’s the conclusion.
This next sentence, however, doesn't support this. It just says the show's producers do earn a great deal of money from the sale of the syndication rights because the stations rerunning the programs are assured of a successful show. Okay, so when Netflix buys “Friends,” it’s assured of a successful show so it’s happy to pay the producers a great deal of money. But what does this have to do with NBC, the network, suffering a decrease in revenue? Nothing. This seems like just a throwaway claim. A concession claim.
"However" signals a transition from this throwaway claim, this concession point, to a premise. Good, I’m eager to know why NBC is going to lose money on this deal.
A recent study shows that over 80% of the programs that are made available as reruns and as first-run episodes during the same season suffer an immediate ratings drop for their first-run episodes.
Hmm, okay. So if Season 8 Episode 1 of “Friends” is premiering on NBC, but you've already sold the rights for Seasons 1 through 7 to Netflix, then it's likely that Season 8 Episode 1 is going to suffer an immediate ratings drop. Because that’s what happens 80% of the time.
So that's why NBC will lose money.
Wait a second. The premise is about ratings drop, but the conclusion is about losing revenues. Well, I know what kind of NA question this is. It's one where we have to connect some concept from the premise to some concept in the conclusion. We have to build a bridge from the premise to the conclusion.
For example, a bridge that says ratings drop is relevant to revenue decrease. If that’s not the case, then we have no premise. I mean it, because for something to be a premise, it has to lend at least some support. So if ratings drop had nothing to do with revenue decrease, then there is no premise because there's no support, in which case the argument falls apart.
That’s why (B) is the Correct Answer Choice. A drop in ratings has a negative effect on the network's revenues. This must be true.
Answer Choice (A) says programs that are sold into syndication early tend to be long-running hits that are likely to decline soon.
If this were an RRE question, maybe (A) would be relevant. Imagine the stimulus said something like, a recent study showed that over 80% of programs that are sold into syndication early suffered a ratings drop, and networks consequently experienced decreased revenues as a result. In spite of this, programs are still sold into syndication early. Why? Resolve, reconcile, explain it.
Well, now (A) might do some work. Why? Because the producers of the programs know that they are on the decline anyway and so they want to maximize the value of the shows before they’re completely worthless.
Answer Choice (C) says the price of syndication rights includes some compensation for the network's probable losses. This is not necessary. What if the price of syndication rights didn't include any compensation for the network's probable loss? Who cares? It's not like we're trying to figure out ways to incentivize the network to actually proceed with the deal of selling the syndication rights.
That’s what (C) is concerned with. (C)'s like, “Oh man, I'd better add something to sweeten the deal, otherwise NBC is going to back out of this. Oh, I know. I'm going to tell NBC that my purchase price for the syndication rights for “Friends” will include compensation for what you, NBC, might lose as a result of this deal.”
(C) makes sense in that way, but (C) doesn't make sense at all as a necessary assumption. In the argument, the deal is already done and we're just trying to say what the probable consequences are. It can lead to decreased revenue. And the only premise upon which we have to make this conclusion is because of the study showing the ratings drop. So once again, the assumption is between ratings and revenue. Nothing to do with (C).
Answer Choice (D) says the audience of a popular program will usually prefer first-run episodes to reruns. Okay, so the audience of “Friends,” they usually will prefer a new episode to reruns. That's not necessary.
Imagine it were false. The audience is either indifferent or actually they slightly prefer older episodes. What does that matter? It doesn’t because the premise is still what it is. A study came out that says 80% of programs that are made as reruns and as first-run episodes experienced an immediate ratings drop. On the back of that premise, which is still the only premise we have, we’re arguing that if you sell the syndication rights, it's going to lead to decreased revenue.
So what is (D) doing? How does (D) relate to the argument, if at all? I think (D) might be trying to explain why the study found what it found. Why is it that 80% of the programs experience ratings drop? Maybe it’s because of something having to do with what the audience prefers. But okay, that’s not our job. This isn’t a situation where we have a phenomenon (the study) and then we’re being asked to supply some hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
Answer Choice (E) says most programs are never sold into syndication. This is not necessary. What if this were false? Imagine that all programs are sold into syndication at some point. It doesn’t matter. The argument is still what it is, with the same missing link that it always had. That missing link has nothing to do with what happens to most programs, whether they eventually get sold into syndication or not.