This is a Parallel Flawed question.
The argument opens with premises that Devan has never been kind nor offered help nor companionship to me. These omissions are taken to amount to a failure to meet the basic requirements of friendship. Okay, so we can conclude that Devan is not the author’s friend.
But the author takes it a step further to conclude that Devan is his enemy.
What kind of flaw is this? False dichotomy. The author assumes that one can only be a friend or an enemy and not both. But the true dichotomy is friend or not friend. And not friend isn’t equivalent to enemy. Not friend is a super-set that contains enemy but it also contains acquaintances, colleagues, strangers, etc.
Answer Choice (A) begins by laying out necessary conditions for being an officer of this club. There are three disjunctive necessary conditions. One must either be a member of two years standing, or a committee member, or have special qualifications. Evelyn fails two of the three conditions. She has been a member for only one year and she is not a committee member. Okay, but does she also fail the third condition? Does she have special qualifications? The argument is silent. It assumes she doesn’t and on that assumption draws the conclusion that Evelyn cannot be an officer. This is poor reasoning but it’s not the same poor reasoning in the stimulus. There’s no false dichotomy.
Answer Choice (B) begins by laying out necessary conditions for a plant to thrive. There are two conjunctive necessary conditions. The plant must be located in a sunny spot and be watered regularly. The argument continues by failing one necessary condition. This spot isn’t sunny. Okay, that’s enough to fail the entire conjunctive necessary condition. We can validly draw the conclusion that this plant cannot be thriving. (B) attempts to fail the other necessary condition but does a bad job of it. The author didn’t regularly water this plant regularly. But that doesn’t mean the plant wasn’t watered regularly. Whose plant is it? Is it true that if the author didn’t water it, then no one watered it? The argument merely assumes so. But thankfully, we don’t care, since the necessary condition has been failed already.
Okay, so at this point, (B) is looking decent. The proper conclusion should be /thriving just like how the proper conclusion in the stimulus should be /friend. A false dichotomy for /thriving is “dead” or “dying.” That’s a false dichotomy because the true dichotomy for /thriving is a super-set that contains “dead” or “dying” or “just limping along” or “doing pretty good,” etc. There’s a whole spectrum of possibilities.
But the actual conclusion is “it explains why this plant is not as healthy as it should be.” That’s not a well-supported conclusion but for a different reason. This conclusion requires the assumption that the plant being “as healthy as it should be” means that it should be thriving. But thriving is a pretty high standard. (B) doesn’t give us any reason to believe that should be the standard.
Correct Answer Choice (C) opens with the premise that this book has been widely reviewed and hasn’t received even one hostile review. From that premise, (C) concludes that all the critics have loved this book. This is the false dichotomy flaw. The author assumes that one can only be hostile to or love the book and not both. But the true dichotomy is hostile to or not hostile. And not hostile isn’t equivalent to love. Not hostile is a super-set that contains love but it also contains indifference, like (not love), and other gradations of feelings.
Answer Choice (D) begins with a conditional that a decision in favor of developing the northern border of the town logically implies that it would be equally acceptable to develop the southern, eastern, or western borders. (D) concludes that it’s possible that at least one of the S, E, or W borders will also be developed. This is a strange argument. The premise has nothing to do with the conclusion. Just because it would be acceptable to develop doesn’t mean that development will take place. Moreover, we don’t even know if a decision in favor of developing the northern border has been reached.
Answer Choice (E) begins with a conditional that if everyone were an author, poet, or academic, then society would come to a halt. (E) then fails the sufficient condition. Few people are poets, authors, or academics. (E) then concludes that society will not come to a halt. This is sufficiency-necessity confusion. It’s the oldest flaw in the book but it’s not the flaw of false dichotomy.
This is a Parallel Method of Reasoning question.
The stimulus states a conditional rule: complete-24 and thesis → elig-masters
Then it applies the rule to one particular person, Roger: complete-24R and /elig-mastersR
The /elig-mastersR contraposes on the conditional, which implies that for Roger, either he /complete-24 or he /thesis. But we’re already told that he complete-24, therefore it must be true that he /thesis.
All together, the argument looks like this:
- complete-24 and thesis → elig-masters
- complete-24R and /elig-mastersR
- ________________________________________________
- /thesisR
Correct Answer Choice (A)
- mayor-app and council-app → open
- /open and council-app
- ________________________________________________
- /mayor-app
Answer Choice (B) has two problems.
- sci-fic → love or hate
This is the first problem. We need two jointly sufficient conditions. The second problem is that it’s not even clear if the “hate” condition is failed. (B) says, “I do not hate the movie I am watching now.” That suggests the author is reporting to us mid-movie. Like, he’s not even done with the movie yet. So, it’s possible that he changes his mind. The conclusion reinforces this with “probably.”
Answer Choice (C)
- govt-bought or other-bought → improve
- /improve
- ________________________________________________
- /govt-bought and /other-bought
This argument is valid but doesn’t match the form in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (D)
- sale → used or paperback
- saleB
- ________________________________________________
- /paperbackB → usedB
This argument is valid but doesn’t match the form in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (E)
- owe → higher or bankruptcy
- owe and /want-bankruptcy
- ________________________________________________
- higher
This argument doesn’t match the form in the stimulus. It’s also not valid because not wanting to declare bankruptcy isn’t the same as not declaring bankruptcy.
This is a Parallel Method of Reasoning question.
The stimulus states a conditional rule: complete-24 and thesis → elig-masters
Then it applies the rule to one particular person, Roger: complete-24R and /elig-mastersR
The /elig-mastersR contraposes on the conditional, which implies that for Roger, either he /complete-24 or he /thesis. But we’re already told that he complete-24, therefore it must be true that he /thesis.
All together, the argument looks like this:
- complete-24 and thesis → elig-masters
- complete-24R and /elig-mastersR
- ________________________________________________
- /thesisR
Correct Answer Choice (A)
- mayor-app and council-app → open
- /open and council-app
- ________________________________________________
- /mayor-app
Answer Choice (B) has two problems.
- sci-fic → love or hate
This is the first problem. We need two jointly sufficient conditions. The second problem is that it’s not even clear if the “hate” condition is failed. (B) says, “I do not hate the movie I am watching now.” That suggests the author is reporting to us mid-movie. Like, he’s not even done with the movie yet. So, it’s possible that he changes his mind. The conclusion reinforces this with “probably.”
Answer Choice (C)
- govt-bought or other-bought → improve
- /improve
- ________________________________________________
- /govt-bought and /other-bought
This argument is valid but doesn’t match the form in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (D)
- sale → used or paperback
- saleB
- ________________________________________________
- /paperbackB → usedB
This argument is valid but doesn’t match the form in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (E)
- owe → higher or bankruptcy
- owe and /want-bankruptcy
- ________________________________________________
- higher
This argument doesn’t match the form in the stimulus. It’s also not valid because not wanting to declare bankruptcy isn’t the same as not declaring bankruptcy.
This is an AP question.
We’re asked to describe the role played by the statement that “the purpose of a law is to deter certain actions by threatening to punish those performing the actions.”
That appears as the first sentence in the stimulus. So that’s what the purpose of a law is. It’s to deter via threat of punishment. The next sentence reveals a potential weakness in the form of a necessary condition. In order for deterrence to work via threat of punishment, potential violators must believe that they’re likely to be punished. Is that a problem? Do potential violators believe that they’re likely to be punished? The next sentence says that the likelihood that someone will be punished decreases as the number of types of prohibited actions increases. That could be a problem. The more prohibitions we have, the less likely that someone will be caught and punished for violating the prohibitions. So the more prohibitions we have, the less likely potential violators will believe that they’ll be punished. But that would risk undermining the deterrence purpose of a law.
The argument could have established that as its conclusion. It could have given a clear statement to crystalize the problem: the more prohibitions we have, the less likely we are to have a successful legal system.
But the argument actually reaches a different kind of conclusion. It reaches a conclusion about how to prevent that problem from arising. Thus it concludes that a successful legal system (one that achieves its deterrence purpose) prohibits only those few behaviors that citizens find absolutely intolerable. In other words, keep the number of prohibitions small so as to avoid the problem outlined above.
So, what’s the role played by stating that the purpose of a law is deterrence? It’s to support the argument’s conclusion by laying out what it means for a legal system to be successful. It has to achieve its purpose of deterrence via threat of punishment. It’s a premise.
That’s what Correct Answer Choice (C) says.
Answer Choice (A) is correct in claiming that it offers support, but it’s incorrect in identifying the target of that support. There’s no implicit conclusion about the necessity of police officers.
Answer Choice (B) says it’s the conclusion of the argument and that’s incorrect.
Answer Choice (D) says it’s an intermediate conclusion. But in order to be an intermediate conclusion, the claim must receive some support. This claim receives no support.
Answer Choice (E) says it’s a view that the argument is designed to discredit. But that’s not true. The argument uses this view to reach its main conclusion.
A
It is offered in support of the implicit conclusion that a legal system needs a significant number of police officers.
B
It is the conclusion of the argument.
C
It is a premise of the argument.
D
It is an intermediate conclusion.
E
It is the view that the argument as a whole is designed to discredit.
This is an AP question.
We’re asked to describe the role played by the statement that “people generally notice and are concerned about only the most obvious public health problems.”
That appears as the first sentence in the stimulus. It’s a rule or principle about psychology at a group level. How can we apply this rule or principle to a particular situation? If we can identify the most obvious public health problem, then we can infer that people will notice and be concerned with only that problem (and hence no other problems). The next claim starts with “although,” which signals a concession point. Although ozone (air pollutant) can be dangerous and hence a public health problem, most people are currently well aware that contaminated water presents a much more widespread threat to our community. So contaminated water is the most obvious public health problem. It looks like we have enough information to apply the principle. Contaminated water will obscure the air pollution problem. And that’s exactly what the conclusion says. There’s unlikely to be a widespread effort for new more restrictive air pollution controls.
So, what’s the role that the principle or rule played? It’s to support the argument’s conclusion. It’s a premise.
Answer Choice (A) says it’s a premise offered in support of another premise. That’s wrong. The claim that contaminated water presents a more widespread threat is given no support. If you are skeptical of the claim, the argument doesn’t care to change your mind. Notice the absence of any evidence that water contamination is even a problem at all. We just have to take the argument’s word for it.
Correct Answer Choice (B) identifies the conclusion that there’s unlikely to be a widespread effort for new more restrictive air pollution controls.
Answer Choice (C) says it’s used to explain the current public awareness of the severity of the problem of contaminated water. No, it’s not. It’s used to predict a consequence of the current public awareness of the severity of the problem of contaminated water, namely that nobody will care about air pollution. If we wanted an explanation of the current public awareness of the severity of the problem of contaminated water, we’d have to start conjecturing. Perhaps a local news story publicized the water contamination problem. Perhaps the mayor shone a spotlight on this issue. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. We have no information about why the current public awareness is what it is.
Answer Choice (D) says it’s “indisputable evidence” (premise) that ozone can be dangerous. No. That’s nuts. Ozone is the air pollutant. This is a general rule of social psychology.
Answer Choice (E) says it’s the main conclusion. No, it’s not.
A
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that contaminated water currently presents a much more widespread threat to the community than does ozone.
B
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that there is unlikely to be a widespread, grassroots effort for new, more restrictive air pollution controls at this time.
C
It is used to explain the current public awareness of the severity of the problem of contaminated water.
D
It is presented as indisputable evidence that ozone can be dangerous for severe asthmatics even if found in levels much lower than maximum levels permitted by law.
E
It is the main conclusion drawn in the argument.
This is an AP question.
We’re asked to describe the role played by the statement that “you cannot travel back in time to spend a year abroad at Plato’s Academy.”
That’s interesting. Let’s take a look at the argument. The Classicist (author) begins with a conclusion: that our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is at best imperfect. I say this is a conclusion because I instinctively want to ask, “Why?” Convince me this is so. The author tries. She says that the best students of a modern language—okay, pause. Do you see the analogy? She’s trying to conclude something about Latin and Ancient Greek yet she’s using premises about modern languages. This is an argument by analogy. Whatever she’s going to say about modern languages, we have to at minimum assume that the ancient languages are similar to modern languages in this regard. So what does she say? She says that students can immerse themselves in, say, Italy, so as to attain nearly perfect knowledge of Italian. But we cannot travel back in time to spend a year abroad at Plato’s Academy. See? That’s why our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is at best imperfect.
Alright, this isn’t a Weaken or Strengthen question so let’s resist the urge to analyze the strength of the support. Instead, we’ve already done our job of labeling the various parts of this argument. The claim in question is a premise. Let’s turn now to the answers.
Answer Choice (A) says it’s the main conclusion. No, it’s not. The first sentence is the main conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (B) says it points out by example a contrast from which the conclusion is drawn. Yes, that’s right. The example given in the middle of the argument is a student of a modern language traveling to the country to gain near perfect knowledge via immersion. That we cannot travel back in time to spend a year abroad at Plato’s Academy is the example that points out the contrast. Plato’s Academy is just an example. It could just as well have been Aristotle’s Lyceum. The point is to contrast what modern students of modern languages can do versus what modern students of ancient languages cannot do in order to support the conclusion that our knowledge of ancient languages is at best imperfect.
Answer Choice (C) says it’s a mere rhetorical flourish having no logical relation to the argument’s conclusion. It has a logical relation to the conclusion. It supports the conclusion. Here’s an example of a “mere rhetorical flourish.” Imagine editing the last claim, “But as much as it would disappoint Plato, we cannot travel back in time to study with him at his Academy.” That bit of language is a mere rhetorical flourish, dull as it may be, having no logical relation to the argument’s conclusion. Whether or not Plato would be disappointed has nothing to do with the argument.
Answer Choice (D) says it’s a premise. That’s good. But what follows isn’t. (D) says the truth of the argument’s conclusion is guaranteed. No, I’m afraid not. (D) claims that this argument is deductively valid. But arguments by analogy cannot be valid. At best, they can only be “very strong” because all analogies fall apart at some point. I think (D) may be attractive because we confuse the truth of a conclusion with the validity of its support. We all think it’s just true that our mastery of Ancient Greek is at best imperfect. That seems obviously true. No one really knows how Ancient Greek was spoken. We can only make educated guesses. That’s all fine and good. But that says nothing about whether this argument guarantees the truth of that claim. The argument we have is an argument by analogy. Arguments by analogy are inherently precluded from guaranteeing the truth of their conclusions. Imagine a different kind of argument:
If a language is no longer the native language of any community, then our mastery of it will at best be imperfect. Latin and Ancient Greek are not and haven’t been the native languages of any community for hundreds of years. Therefore, our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is at best imperfect.
Notice that the conclusion is exactly the same as that in the actual argument. But in this argument, the conclusion is deductively valid. That means the premises guarantee its truth.
Answer Choice (E) says it’s an ancillary conclusion drawn in the argument. Ancillary means sub or intermediate. But that’s right. There is no support given to this claim. It’s just a premise.
A
It is the main conclusion drawn in the argument.
B
It points up by example a contrast from which the conclusion is drawn.
C
It is a mere rhetorical flourish having no logical relation to the argument’s conclusion.
D
It is a premise that guarantees the truth of the argument’s conclusion.
E
It is an ancillary conclusion drawn in the argument.
This is an NA question.
The argument starts with a causal premise. There are at least two causes for the “troubles from which a patient seeks relief through psychotherapy.” One cause is “internal: [stimulus doesn’t tell us what].” The other is external: the patient’s relationship with other people.
The argument concludes that to help a patient heal, the psychotherapist must focus on the need for positive change in those relationships.
Okay, so the argument assumes that because the relationship is a partial cause of the problem, solving the problem requires working on that cause.
Answer Choice (C) sounds like it’s addressing that link. It tells us that those patients who do change their relationships will consequently find relief from at least some of their troubles. If it’s the right kind of change, then this strengthens the argument. (C) shows that improving the relationship does produce positive effects. That makes the conclusion more plausible. But (C) isn’t necessary. Think about how the conclusion could still be true even if (C) were false. First, what would it mean for (C) to be false? It would mean that it’s possible for a patient who changed their relationships with other people to find no relief at all. How can the conclusion still be true, i.e., how can we still require therapists to focus on the need for positive change in the patient’s relationships? Because the change in (C) didn’t reveal direction. That means the change could be positive or negative. Clearly, if the change is in the negative direction, the therapist would just tell them that they did it wrong. But even if the change was in the positive direction, there’s no reason to assume that all positive changes are equal. Some positive changes to the relationship might not yield relief. The therapist would still have room to say that yes, you made positive changes in your relationship, which is good, but the kind of positive change that I want to help you make is different. And it’s those kinds of positive changes that will help you heal.
Correct Answer Choice (D) doesn’t have any of these issues. (D) starts with the therapists, not the patients. (D) says that no therapist can help a patient heal solely by addressing the internal causes of the patient’s troubles. This is absolutely necessary. (D) protects the assumption we identified above, that because relationships contribute to the problem, they must be a part of the solution. Imagine if (D) were false. That means a therapist can help a patient heal solely by focusing on the internal causes. This is incompatible with a requirement to have the therapist focus on the external (relationship) causes. If (D) were false, then the premises lose all their supportive power. We don’t care that some of the causes are external because we can disregard them yet solve the problem anyway.
Answer Choice (A) lays out a necessary condition for therapists to help change their patients’ relationships. (A) says that it requires those patients to focus on “other people’s troubles.” Okay, why do we need to assume this? What if it’s possible for therapists to help change their patients’ relationships without the patients having to focus on other people’s troubles? That would seem to be just fine with the argument.
Answer Choice (B) says that if a therapist helps change a patient’s relationships, then there must be at least some patients who won’t be healed. What, why? Why must there be at least one patient who doesn’t improve? This cuts against what the argument is saying. Perhaps (B) wanted to say if a therapist helps change a patient’s relationships, then there must be at least some patients who would be healed? Even then, I don’t think this would be required since the conclusion claims the positive change in the relationship to be a necessary condition of healing whereas this edited version of (B) is claiming the positive change to be a sufficient condition.
Answer Choice (E) says that if a therapist helps a patient focus on the set of troubles that are purely internal, then relief will be achieved. This is also unnecessary. First, notice that this refuses to accept the premise. The premise already claimed that the troubles from which patients seek relief are not purely internal. Second, we do not need to assume that a strategy that ignores external (relationship) causes will be successful.