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.
This is an NA question.
The stimulus starts with OPA. Many scientists hypothesize that there’s a “light-absorbing medium” because the existence of a light-absorbing medium would explain why other star systems are only dimly visible from Earth. With the word “but,” the author signals the transition from context to argument. The author opens with the conclusion that there’s no reason to believe that the light-absorbing medium hypothesis is correct. Okay, why? Because the low visibility of other star systems is already fully explained by the general theory of relativity.
What assumption is required? If you already see it, then you can go into hunt mode but I’ll proceed from here as if you don’t and use POE.
Answer Choice (A) says that the low visibility of other star systems wouldn’t be adequately explained by the existence of a light-absorbing medium. So basically (A) contradicts other people’s premise. OPP said that the medium’s existence would explain but (A) says it wouldn’t. This isn’t necessary. In general, if you want to weaken someone else’s argument, you don’t have to contradict their premises. You could, but it’s not a requirement.
Answer Choice (B) says that light-absorbing medium hypothesis requires it to adequately explain the low visibility of other star systems. This is also unnecessary. (B) seems to think that the argument is different from what it actually is. If the argument had been the following, then (B) would be right.
Premise: light-absorbing medium hypothesis fails to adequately explain the low visibility of other star systems
Conclusion: light-absorbing medium hypothesis is false
This is the argument that (B) has in mind. But the actual argument is nothing like this. The premise is different and so is the conclusion. The conclusion in the actual argument isn’t that the hypothesis is false; rather, it’s just that there’s no reason to believe that it’s true. This is a distinction that Flaw questions repeatedly test. The author is concluding that OPA failed to give good reasons for the hypothesis, not that the hypothesis is false. The premise is also different. The actual premise is that the phenomenon of low visibility is already explained by some other theory, not that the OPA hypothesis fails to adequately explain the phenomenon.
Answer Choice (C) is similar to (B). It seems to think that the argument is something else. (C) says that if there’s some phenomenon that a hypothesis adequately accounts for and that is not adequately accounted for by an existing theory, then that hypothesis is likely to be correct. If the argument had been the following, then (C) would be right.
Premise: low visibility of other star systems is a phenomenon that existing theory can’t adequately account for but is adequately accounted for by the light-absorbing medium hypothesis
Conclusion: light-absorbing medium hypothesis is likely correct
The actual premise in the argument is just the opposite. It’s saying that an existing theory does adequately account for the phenomenon. The actual conclusion is also pushing in the opposite direction.
Answer Choice (D) says that most proponents of the light-absorbing medium hypothesis accept the general theory of relativity. That’s not necessary. It’s fine for the argument if OPA rejects the general theory of relativity. The argument is just as strong as it ever was.
Correct Answer Choice (E) says that the general theory of relativity does not depend on the light-absorbing medium hypothesis. Yeah, that must be true. If the general theory did depend on the hypothesis, then the argument would fall apart. There would be reason to believe that the hypothesis is correct.
This is an NA question.
The stimulus starts with OPA. Many scientists hypothesize that there’s a “light-absorbing medium” because the existence of a light-absorbing medium would explain why other star systems are only dimly visible from Earth. With the word “but,” the author signals the transition from context to argument. The author opens with the conclusion that there’s no reason to believe that the light-absorbing medium hypothesis is correct. Okay, why? Because the low visibility of other star systems is already fully explained by the general theory of relativity.
What assumption is required? If you already see it, then you can go into hunt mode but I’ll proceed from here as if you don’t and use POE.
Answer Choice (A) says that the low visibility of other star systems wouldn’t be adequately explained by the existence of a light-absorbing medium. So basically (A) contradicts other people’s premise. OPP said that the medium’s existence would explain but (A) says it wouldn’t. This isn’t necessary. In general, if you want to weaken someone else’s argument, you don’t have to contradict their premises. You could, but it’s not a requirement.
Answer Choice (B) says that light-absorbing medium hypothesis requires it to adequately explain the low visibility of other star systems. This is also unnecessary. (B) seems to think that the argument is different from what it actually is. If the argument had been the following, then (B) would be right.
Premise: light-absorbing medium hypothesis fails to adequately explain the low visibility of other star systems
Conclusion: light-absorbing medium hypothesis is false
This is the argument that (B) has in mind. But the actual argument is nothing like this. The premise is different and so is the conclusion. The conclusion in the actual argument isn’t that the hypothesis is false; rather, it’s just that there’s no reason to believe that it’s true. This is a distinction that Flaw questions repeatedly test. The author is concluding that OPA failed to give good reasons for the hypothesis, not that the hypothesis is false. The premise is also different. The actual premise is that the phenomenon of low visibility is already explained by some other theory, not that the OPA hypothesis fails to adequately explain the phenomenon.
Answer Choice (C) is similar to (B). It seems to think that the argument is something else. (C) says that if there’s some phenomenon that a hypothesis adequately accounts for and that is not adequately accounted for by an existing theory, then that hypothesis is likely to be correct. If the argument had been the following, then (C) would be right.
Premise: low visibility of other star systems is a phenomenon that existing theory can’t adequately account for but is adequately accounted for by the light-absorbing medium hypothesis
Conclusion: light-absorbing medium hypothesis is likely correct
The actual premise in the argument is just the opposite. It’s saying that an existing theory does adequately account for the phenomenon. The actual conclusion is also pushing in the opposite direction.
Answer Choice (D) says that most proponents of the light-absorbing medium hypothesis accept the general theory of relativity. That’s not necessary. It’s fine for the argument if OPA rejects the general theory of relativity. The argument is just as strong as it ever was.
Correct Answer Choice (E) says that the general theory of relativity does not depend on the light-absorbing medium hypothesis. Yeah, that must be true. If the general theory did depend on the hypothesis, then the argument would fall apart. There would be reason to believe that the hypothesis is correct.
This is a Method of Reasoning question.
The argument is pretty abstract which is a big reason why this question is difficult. It starts with other people’s position (OPP). Some researchers claim that people tend to gesture more when they speak about what would typically be considered physical concepts than abstract ones. Okay, so according to these researchers, someone speaking about cats and dogs will tend to gesture more than when speaking about prime numbers. That sounds plausible, I guess.
Now the author transitions to her argument. She opens with her conclusion that to point out that such a correlation (that’s OPP, the correlation between gesture and physical concepts) is far from universal is insufficient to reject OPP. In other words, pointing out exceptions to the correlation isn’t enough to reject the correlation. That also sounds right. In general, a correlation isn’t ironclad. There will be nonconforming exceptions. That’s my reasoning, not the author’s. Before we get to the author’s premise, note that the author is actually defending OPP! Is it Christmas in July? What is happening? The author’s conclusion is basically “Here’s one ineffective line of attack on OPP. You can’t just point out that the correlation isn’t universal and think that constitutes a successful attack on the correlation.”
Okay, now that we’ve gotten over the shock, what is her premise? How does she support that conclusion? “Because” some people perceive words like “comprehension” as a physical action like grasping something, whereas others perceive it as an abstract action like a state of understanding. Alright, that works. She’s saying you can’t attack OPP by pointing out apparent counterexamples because it’s not clear that they even are counterexamples. Take “comprehension,” for instance. Someone gestures a lot when talking about comprehension, whereas someone else gestures a little. Is that a counterexample to the correlation that gesture goes with physical concepts? Well, not necessarily because it could be that the person gesturing a lot perceives “comprehension” as a physical act, whereas a person not gesturing much perceives “comprehension” as an abstract act. In that case, this would fit with the correlation.
Let’s look at the answers now.
Answer Choice (A) can be analyzed piecemeal by looking at the conclusion and premise descriptors separately. (A) says the argument “appeals to X in an attempt to show Y.” We appeal to premises to show conclusions, not the other way around. So the first part is the premise descriptor and the second part the conclusion descriptor. Is there an appeal to the ambiguity of a word in the premise? Yes. “Comprehension” is the word. And it’s ambiguous whether that’s perceived as a physical or abstract concept. Great, let’s now look at the conclusion descriptor. “In an attempt to show that a correlation is universal.” But that’s wrong. The author’s conclusion isn’t trying to show that the correlation is universal. She’s just fending off one particular attack on it being universal. There’s a difference between affirmatively proving a position, which she’s not doing here, and pointing out that a class of arguments is weak, which she is doing here.
Answer Choice (B) can also be analyzed piecemeal. The premise descriptor says that the argument “appeals to a universal psychological generalization.” But that’s not an accurate description of the premise. If anything, the premise is a rejection of a universal psychological generalization. The premise declares that some people perceive a word one way and others another. The only part of the stimulus that might be accurately characterized as a universal psychological generalization is OPP. That’s enough to eliminate (B). The conclusion descriptor says, “in an attempt to support a claim about the use of gestures.” That’s also an inaccurate description. The conclusion is that one claim isn’t powerful enough to reject another claim.
Correct Answer Choice (C) can also be analyzed piecemeal. (C) says the argument “cites X to try to show Y.” We cite premises to reach conclusions, so the first part is the premise descriptor and the second part the conclusion descriptor. The premise descriptor says, “citing a psychological fact.” Yes, that’s true. The psychological fact cited is that people perceive words like “comprehension” differently. The conclusion descriptor says, “to try to reconcile a generalization with apparently disconfirming evidence.” That’s also true. That’s not the most direct description of the conclusion but that’s certainly the underlying reasoning. The reason why the author says this particular line of attack on OPP fails is because what looks like disconfirming evidence (the variable rates of gestures with the word “comprehension”) may be reconciled with the generalization (the correlation) by realizing that people perceive the word differently.
Answer Choice (D) can also be analyzed piecemeal. (D) says the argument “advocates X by attempting to demonstrate that Y.” We advocate conclusions so the first part is the conclusion descriptor and the second part the premise descriptor. But the conclusion descriptor is inaccurate. The author’s conclusion isn’t an explanation of a phenomenon. Her premise, on the other hand, can be viewed as an explanation of a phenomenon. Her premise explains why there’s inconsistency between gesturing and articulations of certain words like “comprehension.” The explanation is that people perceive those kinds of words differently. Yet (D) describes that premise inaccurately as “attempting to demonstrate that other possible explanations are implausible.”
Answer Choice (E) says the argument offers a reason for believing that a widely accepted generalization requires still more supporting evidence. First of all, what’s “widely accepted generalization”? The correlation claimed by “some researchers”? There’s no evidence that that’s widely accepted. Already inaccurate. Second, the author isn’t arguing for the claim that the correlation requires more supporting evidence. Rather, as already discussed, the author is just protecting that correlation from one particular mode of attack.
This is a Method of Reasoning question.
The argument is pretty abstract which is a big reason why this question is difficult. It starts with other people’s position (OPP). Some researchers claim that people tend to gesture more when they speak about what would typically be considered physical concepts than abstract ones. Okay, so according to these researchers, someone speaking about cats and dogs will tend to gesture more than when speaking about prime numbers. That sounds plausible, I guess.
Now the author transitions to her argument. She opens with her conclusion that to point out that such a correlation (that’s OPP, the correlation between gesture and physical concepts) is far from universal is insufficient to reject OPP. In other words, pointing out exceptions to the correlation isn’t enough to reject the correlation. That also sounds right. In general, a correlation isn’t ironclad. There will be nonconforming exceptions. That’s my reasoning, not the author’s. Before we get to the author’s premise, note that the author is actually defending OPP! Is it Christmas in July? What is happening? The author’s conclusion is basically “Here’s one ineffective line of attack on OPP. You can’t just point out that the correlation isn’t universal and think that constitutes a successful attack on the correlation.”
Okay, now that we’ve gotten over the shock, what is her premise? How does she support that conclusion? “Because” some people perceive words like “comprehension” as a physical action like grasping something, whereas others perceive it as an abstract action like a state of understanding. Alright, that works. She’s saying you can’t attack OPP by pointing out apparent counterexamples because it’s not clear that they even are counterexamples. Take “comprehension,” for instance. Someone gestures a lot when talking about comprehension, whereas someone else gestures a little. Is that a counterexample to the correlation that gesture goes with physical concepts? Well, not necessarily because it could be that the person gesturing a lot perceives “comprehension” as a physical act, whereas a person not gesturing much perceives “comprehension” as an abstract act. In that case, this would fit with the correlation.
Let’s look at the answers now.
Answer Choice (A) can be analyzed piecemeal by looking at the conclusion and premise descriptors separately. (A) says the argument “appeals to X in an attempt to show Y.” We appeal to premises to show conclusions, not the other way around. So the first part is the premise descriptor and the second part the conclusion descriptor. Is there an appeal to the ambiguity of a word in the premise? Yes. “Comprehension” is the word. And it’s ambiguous whether that’s perceived as a physical or abstract concept. Great, let’s now look at the conclusion descriptor. “In an attempt to show that a correlation is universal.” But that’s wrong. The author’s conclusion isn’t trying to show that the correlation is universal. She’s just fending off one particular attack on it being universal. There’s a difference between affirmatively proving a position, which she’s not doing here, and pointing out that a class of arguments is weak, which she is doing here.
Answer Choice (B) can also be analyzed piecemeal. The premise descriptor says that the argument “appeals to a universal psychological generalization.” But that’s not an accurate description of the premise. If anything, the premise is a rejection of a universal psychological generalization. The premise declares that some people perceive a word one way and others another. The only part of the stimulus that might be accurately characterized as a universal psychological generalization is OPP. That’s enough to eliminate (B). The conclusion descriptor says, “in an attempt to support a claim about the use of gestures.” That’s also an inaccurate description. The conclusion is that one claim isn’t powerful enough to reject another claim.
Correct Answer Choice (C) can also be analyzed piecemeal. (C) says the argument “cites X to try to show Y.” We cite premises to reach conclusions, so the first part is the premise descriptor and the second part the conclusion descriptor. The premise descriptor says, “citing a psychological fact.” Yes, that’s true. The psychological fact cited is that people perceive words like “comprehension” differently. The conclusion descriptor says, “to try to reconcile a generalization with apparently disconfirming evidence.” That’s also true. That’s not the most direct description of the conclusion but that’s certainly the underlying reasoning. The reason why the author says this particular line of attack on OPP fails is because what looks like disconfirming evidence (the variable rates of gestures with the word “comprehension”) may be reconciled with the generalization (the correlation) by realizing that people perceive the word differently.
Answer Choice (D) can also be analyzed piecemeal. (D) says the argument “advocates X by attempting to demonstrate that Y.” We advocate conclusions so the first part is the conclusion descriptor and the second part the premise descriptor. But the conclusion descriptor is inaccurate. The author’s conclusion isn’t an explanation of a phenomenon. Her premise, on the other hand, can be viewed as an explanation of a phenomenon. Her premise explains why there’s inconsistency between gesturing and articulations of certain words like “comprehension.” The explanation is that people perceive those kinds of words differently. Yet (D) describes that premise inaccurately as “attempting to demonstrate that other possible explanations are implausible.”
Answer Choice (E) says the argument offers a reason for believing that a widely accepted generalization requires still more supporting evidence. First of all, what’s “widely accepted generalization”? The correlation claimed by “some researchers”? There’s no evidence that that’s widely accepted. Already inaccurate. Second, the author isn’t arguing for the claim that the correlation requires more supporting evidence. Rather, as already discussed, the author is just protecting that correlation from one particular mode of attack.
This is a Method of Reasoning question.
We’re asked to describe Espinosa’s argument, how he responds to Jones. Jones speaks first. She argues that a budget deficit is good for the country’s finances because it discourages excessive government spending.
Espinosa responds. He says, “That’s like saying…” Okay, pause. At this point, we already know that he’s arguing by analogy. And that’s already enough to hunt out Correct Answer Choice (A). It’s the only one that describes Espinosa’s argument as an argument by analogy.
Okay, so what is it like? It’s like arguing that reaching the credit limit is good for your finances because it discourages excessive spending. He concedes that reaching the credit limit will likely discourage excessive spending. But reaching the credit limit is still a poor financial decision. That never should have happened in the first place. The same goes for the government, meaning the government never should have had a budget deficit to begin with.
(A) accurately describes Espinosa’s argument. His argument about reaching the credit limit is clearly fallacious. He uses that to show that Jones’s argument is analogously fallacious.
Answer Choice (B) says Espinosa demonstrates that Jones’s argument is circular. That it begs the question. That it presupposes what it sets out to prove. That’s not right. Jones’s argument isn’t circular. The premise and the conclusion are different claims. Espinosa doesn’t mistake Jones’s argument for a circular one. Here’s a circular argument that Jones could have made: A budget deficit is good for the country’s finances because spending in excess of revenues improves a nation’s financial situation.
Answer Choice (C) says Espinosa offers empirical evidence that undermines Jones’s conclusion. No, he doesn’t. Here’s what empirical evidence might look like: Back in 2010, France experienced a budget deficit which caused it to default on its treasury bond interest payments. That shattered international confidence in the French government, which resulted in a decade of economic decline. That’s empirical evidence that a budget deficit isn’t good for a country's finances.
Answer Choice (D) says Espinosa launched a source attack against Jones. Come on. Espinosa knows better than that. Whether Jones’s personal finances are managed well is irrelevant to Jones’s argument. Espinosa doesn’t go there.
Answer Choice (E) says Espinosa suggests that Jones overgeneralized. That’s not right. Jones’s argument didn’t overgeneralize. And Espinosa certainly didn’t claim that it did. Here’s what Jones might have argued that would have been an overgeneralization: Back in 2010, France experienced a budget deficit which caused it to impose austerity measures. Those policies resulted in a decade of economic boom that the country has never seen before. Therefore, a budget deficit is good for a country’s finances. Jones is a bit too eager. Just because it worked out for France doesn’t mean it’s generally good. That’s overgeneralization.
This is a Method of Reasoning question.
We’re asked to describe Espinosa’s argument, how he responds to Jones. Jones speaks first. She argues that a budget deficit is good for the country’s finances because it discourages excessive government spending.
Espinosa responds. He says, “That’s like saying…” Okay, pause. At this point, we already know that he’s arguing by analogy. And that’s already enough to hunt out Correct Answer Choice (A). It’s the only one that describes Espinosa’s argument as an argument by analogy.
Okay, so what is it like? It’s like arguing that reaching the credit limit is good for your finances because it discourages excessive spending. He concedes that reaching the credit limit will likely discourage excessive spending. But reaching the credit limit is still a poor financial decision. That never should have happened in the first place. The same goes for the government, meaning the government never should have had a budget deficit to begin with.
(A) accurately describes Espinosa’s argument. His argument about reaching the credit limit is clearly fallacious. He uses that to show that Jones’s argument is analogously fallacious.
Answer Choice (B) says Espinosa demonstrates that Jones’s argument is circular. That it begs the question. That it presupposes what it sets out to prove. That’s not right. Jones’s argument isn’t circular. The premise and the conclusion are different claims. Espinosa doesn’t mistake Jones’s argument for a circular one. Here’s a circular argument that Jones could have made: A budget deficit is good for the country’s finances because spending in excess of revenues improves a nation’s financial situation.
Answer Choice (C) says Espinosa offers empirical evidence that undermines Jones’s conclusion. No, he doesn’t. Here’s what empirical evidence might look like: Back in 2010, France experienced a budget deficit which caused it to default on its treasury bond interest payments. That shattered international confidence in the French government, which resulted in a decade of economic decline. That’s empirical evidence that a budget deficit isn’t good for a country's finances.
Answer Choice (D) says Espinosa launched a source attack against Jones. Come on. Espinosa knows better than that. Whether Jones’s personal finances are managed well is irrelevant to Jones’s argument. Espinosa doesn’t go there.
Answer Choice (E) says Espinosa suggests that Jones overgeneralized. That’s not right. Jones’s argument didn’t overgeneralize. And Espinosa certainly didn’t claim that it did. Here’s what Jones might have argued that would have been an overgeneralization: Back in 2010, France experienced a budget deficit which caused it to impose austerity measures. Those policies resulted in a decade of economic boom that the country has never seen before. Therefore, a budget deficit is good for a country’s finances. Jones is a bit too eager. Just because it worked out for France doesn’t mean it’s generally good. That’s overgeneralization.
This is an SA question.
The argument opens with OPA. “Many people” believe that independent films have more integrity as work than major studio productions because indies are less conventional. Okay, great. That’s OPA.
The author (filmmaker) transitions to her argument with “however.” The premise is that indie filmmakers’ need to make a profit affects their artistic decisions. The conclusion is that indie films do not have absolute artistic integrity.
This looks a lot like a PSA question. The premise can be represented as P and the conclusion as C. We need to build a P→C bridge. If profit affects artistic decisions, then there is no absolute artistic integrity. Or something like that.
Correct Answer Choice (B) says if any of the artistic decisions made in creating something were affected by the need to make profits, then that creation does not have absolute integrity as a work of art. That works as a P→C bridge. As is often the case, the correct answer covers more than what we need. (B) covers any artistic decision, not just the ones involved in filmmaking. But that’s fine.
Answer Choice (A) can be eliminated on its logic alone. You can either notice that the sufficient condition here is “artistic decision unaffected by profit needs” or notice that the necessary condition here is “creation has absolute artistic integrity.” Both are wrong. The sufficient condition is supposed to be P, not /P. The necessary condition is supposed to be C, not /C. This is a recurring type of wrong answer for SA and PSA questions. It’s sufficiency-necessity confusion.
Answer Choice (C) can be eliminated by noticing that it’s a comparative statement. We need a logically tight bridge. (C) says that individual creations tend to have more artistic integrity than group creations. Okay, but the argument isn’t concerned with comparing “individual creations” to “group creations.” Only OPA talks about indie films in comparison to major studio productions. No doubt major studio productions are “group creations.” But don’t assume that indie films are “individual creations.” They probably involve fewer people but they probably still involve more than one person.
Answer Choice (D) precludes something as having an effect on artistic integrity. (D) precludes the “unconventionality” of a creation as having an effect on artistic integrity. Okay, now what? The argument is assuming that profit requirements have an effect on artistic integrity. More specifically, it assumes that the effect is that it taints artistic integrity.
Answer Choice (E) is a conditional constructed with “unless.” Translated to an “if...then...” construction, we get, “If artistic decisions were affected by views about what is conventional, then no artistic integrity.” The problem here is that the premises in the argument do not trigger the sufficient condition. All we know about indie filmmakers is that they need to make a profit, which affects their artistic decisions. It’s a further assumption that the need to make a profit amounts to a “view about what is conventional.” The necessary condition in (E) is more than what’s needed, but that’s not a problem for SA answers. If we could have triggered the sufficient condition here, then we could have drawn the conclusion that a creation has no artistic integrity. That would have necessarily implied that it doesn’t have absolute artistic integrity.
This is an SA question.
The argument opens with OPA. “Many people” believe that independent films have more integrity as work than major studio productions because indies are less conventional. Okay, great. That’s OPA.
The author (filmmaker) transitions to her argument with “however.” The premise is that indie filmmakers’ need to make a profit affects their artistic decisions. The conclusion is that indie films do not have absolute artistic integrity.
This looks a lot like a PSA question. The premise can be represented as P and the conclusion as C. We need to build a P→C bridge. If profit affects artistic decisions, then there is no absolute artistic integrity. Or something like that.
Correct Answer Choice (B) says if any of the artistic decisions made in creating something were affected by the need to make profits, then that creation does not have absolute integrity as a work of art. That works as a P→C bridge. As is often the case, the correct answer covers more than what we need. (B) covers any artistic decision, not just the ones involved in filmmaking. But that’s fine.
Answer Choice (A) can be eliminated on its logic alone. You can either notice that the sufficient condition here is “artistic decision unaffected by profit needs” or notice that the necessary condition here is “creation has absolute artistic integrity.” Both are wrong. The sufficient condition is supposed to be P, not /P. The necessary condition is supposed to be C, not /C. This is a recurring type of wrong answer for SA and PSA questions. It’s sufficiency-necessity confusion.
Answer Choice (C) can be eliminated by noticing that it’s a comparative statement. We need a logically tight bridge. (C) says that individual creations tend to have more artistic integrity than group creations. Okay, but the argument isn’t concerned with comparing “individual creations” to “group creations.” Only OPA talks about indie films in comparison to major studio productions. No doubt major studio productions are “group creations.” But don’t assume that indie films are “individual creations.” They probably involve fewer people but they probably still involve more than one person.
Answer Choice (D) precludes something as having an effect on artistic integrity. (D) precludes the “unconventionality” of a creation as having an effect on artistic integrity. Okay, now what? The argument is assuming that profit requirements have an effect on artistic integrity. More specifically, it assumes that the effect is that it taints artistic integrity.
Answer Choice (E) is a conditional constructed with “unless.” Translated to an “if...then...” construction, we get, “If artistic decisions were affected by views about what is conventional, then no artistic integrity.” The problem here is that the premises in the argument do not trigger the sufficient condition. All we know about indie filmmakers is that they need to make a profit, which affects their artistic decisions. It’s a further assumption that the need to make a profit amounts to a “view about what is conventional.” The necessary condition in (E) is more than what’s needed, but that’s not a problem for SA answers. If we could have triggered the sufficient condition here, then we could have drawn the conclusion that a creation has no artistic integrity. That would have necessarily implied that it doesn’t have absolute artistic integrity.
This is an NA question.
The stimulus proceeds in order from premises to the conclusion. Bovine remains were found in a certain place back when that place had an arid (dry) climate. There were people present at that time in that region but no other large mammals. If there were natural sources of water available, there would also have been other large mammals. But we already know there were no other large mammals. We can contrapose to infer that there were no natural sources of water available.
The argument hence concludes that these bovines had been domesticated (people were providing it water) and the people there were no longer exclusively hunter-gatherers.
This sounds like a decent argument, right? If you think so, then you’re already supplying the missing assumption, that if they weren’t domesticated, they couldn’t have survived. But really, we don’t know that. Perhaps they were wild and crafty and survived by taking advantage of man-made water sources. That would be bad for the argument. So we do need to supply the assumption connecting the premises (arid climate, no natural water sources) to the conclusion (domestication).
This is what Correct Answer Choice (A) does. Translating the “unless,” (A) says that if the bovines weren’t domesticated, they were unlikely to exist in a region without natural sources of water. The premises fail the necessary condition (the bovines likely did exist), which allows us to infer the failure of the sufficient condition (the bovines were domesticated) as the conclusion. This connects the premises to the conclusion. More than that, it truly is necessary. If we deny this conditional relationship, we’re asserting that it’s possible for the bovines to be wild yet survive anyway in this arid region. That’s exactly the possibility that we contemplated above that would ruin the argument.
Answer Choice (B) says that domesticating animals is one of the first things that a society must do when transitioning from hunter-gatherer to agriculture. This is unnecessary. Why first? Why not second or third? Also notice that it’s trying to bridge the two concepts in the conclusion, that of “domestication” and that of “no longer exclusively hunter-gatherer.” But we don’t need to build that bridge. They are already connected by their definitions. Domestication necessarily implies no longer exclusively hunter-gatherer. A culture that practices domestication cannot be exclusively hunter-gatherer.
Answer Choice (C) says that other large mammals would have been able to inhabit this arid region with the help of humans. So, like what? Horses? That’s required? No, it’s not. Let’s imagine this were false. Even with the help of humans, this arid region could not have supported horses. Who cares? The argument is still as strong as it ever was.
Answer Choice (D) says no human culture can be a hybrid of agriculture and hunter-gatherer. So (D) is claiming that all human cultures must be exclusively either an agricultural society or else a hunter-gatherer society. You can’t do both. But that’s silly. It doesn’t affect the argument if there was a culture that both planted wheat and hunted meat. In fact, the conclusion in the stimulus claims that these people are a kind of hybrid culture.
Answer Choice (E) says that a domesticated cow doesn’t need as much water as a wild cow. This might strengthen the argument? Like their modest demand for water might help explain why humans were able to domesticate them in an arid climate. But it’s not necessary. Imagine this were false and the cows required the same amount of water, regardless of whether they were domesticated or wild. The argument would still be fine. It would just have been not as easy to domesticate them.