A geologist recently claimed to have discovered in clay a previously unknown form of life: “nanobes,” one-tenth the size of the smallest known bacteria. However, it is unlikely that nanobes truly are living things. They are probably inanimate artifacts of the clay’s microscopic structure, because a nanobe is too small to contain a reproductive mechanism, a prerequisite for life.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that nanobes, a supposedly living organism found in clay, are actually nonliving inanimate artifacts of this clay’s structure. This is because a nanobe is too small to have a reproductive mechanism, which is required to be classified as a living thing.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that nanobes are too small to contain any form of reproductive mechanism.
The author also assumes that the clay can produce non-living artifacts like nanodes

A
No known form of bacteria is complicated enough in structure to engage in a sexual type of reproduction.
The argument is not focused on *sexual reproduction*. Any type of reproduction would suffice for nanodes to be classified as living.
B
Single-celled creatures can combine to form a multicelled structure and then reproduce before they disband into separate single cells again.
This undermines the argument by showing that small organisms without a clear reproduction mechanism can still nonetheless reproduce. This directly weakens the link between the premise and conclusion.
C
The material phenomena that some scientists claim are the fossilized remains of bacteria in meteorites from Mars are approximately the same size as nanobes.
This does not specify whether the nanodes are living or not. It leaves far too much up for assumption.
D
Previous definitions of life were based on research done with inferior microscopes no longer in use.
While this casts doubt on previous definitions of life, it does not seriously weaken the argument’s claim that nanodes are not living due to their inability to reproduce.
E
Animals such as cold-blooded lizards can be physiologically simpler, though still larger, than other animals.
This comparison is completely irrelevant to the argument’s reasoning. The argument is focused on whether nanodes are living due to their size limiting their capacity for a reproductive mechanism.

14 comments

This is an RRE question.

The stimulus tells us that, in general, significant intellectual advances occur in societies with a stable political system. It then goes on to tell us that in ancient Athens during a period of great political and social unrest, Plato and Aristotle made significant intellectual progress.

As with all RRE questions, whether we feel like the phenomenon is surprising or the phenomenon contains some apparent internal inconsistency depends on how much we know about the subject matter. That's just another way of saying it depends on what assumptions we bring into the phenomenon. In this question, whether we think Plato and Aristotle represent a counterexample to the general rule depends on our assumptions about the underlying causal mechanism. The general rule that great intellectual progress occurs in societies with politically stable systems doesn't reveal causation. It merely invites us to speculate that perhaps it's the stability of the political system which causally contributes to the intellectual progress. This is what makes Athens in the time of Plato and Aristotle look like a counterexample. This is not a terrible hypothesis. But it's not the only hypothesis.

Correct Answer Choice (C) suggests a different hypothesis, a different causal mechanism. It tells us that financial support for intellectual endeavors is typically unavailable in unstable political environments, but in ancient Athens wealthy citizens provided such support. This answer suggests an explanation for both the general rule and the apparent counterexample, thus reconciling them. Why is it that we tend to see great intellectual progress take place in politically stable systems? It's not that political stability directly causes intellectual advancement. Rather, political stability enables financial support for intellectual progress and, conversely, lack of political stability typically destroys that financial support. But it’s the financial support that’s causally important. This means that even in a politically unstable society, like Athens in the time of Plato and Aristotle, as long as there is financial support, then intellectual progress can occur anyway. This answer is not ideal. It does require the assumption that financial support for intellectual endeavors has a causal impact on intellectual progress.

Answer Choice (A) says the political systems that have emerged since the time of Plato and Aristotle have in various ways been different from the political system in ancient Athens. This seems so obvious that it's not worth the pixels on which it's displayed. Ancient Athens had a particular political system in the time of Plato and Aristotle. Of course other kinds of political systems have emerged since then. This is a banal fact that doesn't explain the phenomenon above.

Answer Choice (B) says the citizens of ancient Athens generally held in high esteem people who were accomplished intellectually. This is a recurring type of wrong answer. It’s ignoring half the phenomenon in order to explain the other half. We’ll see this again in (D). While (B) may suggest an explanation of the intellectual progress made in Athens, that intellectual progress nonetheless feels like a counterexample to the general rule. If we were simply asked to come up with a list of the causes of intellectual progress in Athens, this answer might be one item on the list. That is to say, one motivating factor for Plato or Aristotle to make progress was prestige or esteem. But that wasn't the task. Our job was to reconcile the apparent counterexample with the general rule. This answer doesn't do that. Now that I know Plato was motivated by esteem, the fact that he made progress in a time of political instability still seems to buck the general rule. 

Answer Choice (D) says significant intellectual advances sometimes, though not always, lead to stable political environments. This answer is similar to (B) in that it's explaining only half the phenomenon while ignoring the other half. (D) can function as an explanation of the general rule. Why do we tend to see significant intellectual advances occur in societies with stable political systems? It's because significant intellectual advances cause that stability. Fair enough. But that leaves unexplained why in ancient Athens the unparalleled intellectual progress made there didn't also result in political stability.

Answer Choice (E) says many thinkers besides Plato and Aristotle contributed to the intellectual achievements of ancient Athens. This is a cookie-cutter wrong answer choice. It doesn't explain the phenomenon above. It merely adds to the phenomenon in need of an explanation. The stimulus already gave us a problem. We needed to explain why Plato and Aristotle seemed to have bucked the trend. (E) merely tells us that it's not just Plato and Aristotle that seem to have bucked the trend; there were other thinkers as well.


6 comments

Historians have found that significant intellectual advances generally occur in cities or countries that have a stable political system. But these same historians acknowledge that in ancient Athens, Plato and Aristotle made unparalleled intellectual progress during a period of great political and social unrest.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
What explains why ancient Athens experienced a lot of intellectual progress during a period of great political and social unrest, even though such progress typically occurs in cities or countries with a stable political system?

Objective
The correct answer should tell us something about ancient Athens that differentiates it from normal cities/countries in a way that could be helpful for intellectual progress even in times of political instability.

A
The political systems that have emerged since the time of Plato and Aristotle have in various ways been different from the political system in ancient Athens.
(A) just tells us that other political systems have been different from the one present in ancient Athens. But we have no reason to think there was anything about ancient Athens’ political system that allowed for intellectual progress in the absence of stability.
B
The citizens of ancient Athens generally held in high esteem people who were accomplished intellectually.
This doesn’t help differentiate ancient Athens from other cities/countries. Also, we have no reason to think that holding intellectually-accomplished people in high esteem would somehow allow for intellectual progress in times of instability.
C
Financial support for intellectual endeavors is typically unavailable in unstable political environments, but in ancient Athens such support was provided by wealthy citizens.
This shows how ancient Athens was different from the typical city/country in a way that helped intellectual progress. Intellectual activities had a source of money in Athens that, for others, wasn’t available in unstable times. This could have helped intellectual progress.
D
Significant intellectual advances sometimes, though not always, lead to stable political environments.
Even if intellectual advances lead to stability, how was ancient Athens able to achieve those intellectual advances when there was no stability? Learning what intellectual advances lead to doesn’t help explain how those advances could have come about in the first place.
E
Many thinkers besides Plato and Aristotle contributed to the intellectual achievements of ancient Athens.
We still don’t know why ancient Athens was able to make intellectual progress during a period of instability. The number of other famous philosophers and scientists has no bearing on what makes ancient Athens an exception to the general rule about the conditions for progress.

6 comments

This is a Strengthen question.

The psychologist starts by defining jargon. “Cognitive plasticity” is the willingness to accept new ideas. Then we’re told the results of a study which found that cognitive plasticity (negatively) correlates with birth order. That means that firstborn children tend to have lower cognitive plasticity than last-born children. Or in other words, later-born children are higher in cognitive plasticity.

The next premise is also a correlation but the psychologist simply declares it to be “reasonable.” For analyzing the argument, we’ll simply treat this second premise as true, because it's a premise. Cognitive plasticity is positively correlated with adventurousness.

So now with the two correlational premises we have a correlation chain. Birth order is correlated with cognitive plasticity which is correlated with adventurousness.

The psychologist concludes with a prediction. She says that birth order will be negatively correlated with adventurousness. That means that firstborn children will tend to be less adventurous than later-born children. Or in other words, later-born children will tend to be more adventurous than their eldest siblings.

As is typically the case with Weaken and Strengthen questions that utilize causation logic, it's hard to anticipate where the answers will go. This is why we default to the strategy of POE. The strategy works pretty well here.

Answer Choice (A) says some of the great creative geniuses in history were firstborn children. We can write this answer off simply for being unrepresentative. The correlations in the premises and conclusion are about people in general. (A) confines itself to great creative geniuses in history. We should be very hesitant to draw any inferences from those people because by definition they are unrepresentative of the general population. Additionally, even if we were to draw some inferences from this unrepresentative sample, it pushes in the wrong direction. Firstborn children are supposed to be less adventurous.

Answer Choice (B) says, in most cases, the more younger siblings one has, the greater one's cognitive plasticity. This is a comparative statement so let’s make sure we understand what is being compared. On the surface it sounds like it's contradicting the correlation above. But that's not true. The correlation above compared cognitive plasticity of siblings to each other. (B) compares the cognitive plasticity of firstborn children to other firstborn children. (B) is comparing people who are not each other's siblings. According to (B), the eldest of five siblings from one family will tend to be more plastic than the eldest of two siblings from another family. Now that we know what (B) is saying, we can eliminate (B) for being irrelevant. Imagine if (B) stated the opposite, that the eldest of five siblings is less plastic than the eldest of two siblings. So what?

Correct Answer Choice (C) says other studies have shown a correlation between cognitive plasticity and the willingness to take risks. This is helpful for the argument because it reveals another correlation (backed up by studies) which suggests a causal mechanism. Now that we know cognitive plasticity correlates with risk-taking, a plausible hypothesis arises which can explain why birth order might correlate with adventurousness. It's because birth order correlates with risk-taking and risk-taking is what causes one to be adventurous.

Answer Choice (D) says a study of business executives shows that several industry leaders have older siblings. This is similar to (A) in that we should be careful about drawing inferences about the population at large based on the sample here which reveals information about only several people. Several people who happen to be industry-leading business executives have older siblings. This should be entirely unsurprising. I'm sure it's also true (even though (D) doesn't say it) that several people who happen to be industry-leading business executives have younger siblings or are the middle child or are the only child. But whatever information is revealed about whether or not they have siblings or the birth order they inhabit, there are just too few of them for us to use this information in a reliable manner. Another issue is the questionable relationship between being a business executive and being adventurous. I'm not sure which way that assumption goes. Are you more likely to be a business leader if you're more adventurous? Perhaps that's true. But the need to make this assumption is also a weakness of this answer choice.

Answer Choice (E) says most participants in the study had characterized themselves as more adaptable than other people. We can eliminate this answer simply by recognizing that it’s not clear what the relationship is between being more adaptable and being adventurous on the one hand and birth order on the other.


17 comments

This is a Strengthen question.

The psychologist starts by defining jargon. “Cognitive plasticity” is the willingness to accept new ideas. Then we’re told the results of a study which found that cognitive plasticity (negatively) correlates with birth order. That means that firstborn children tend to have lower cognitive plasticity than last-born children. Or in other words, later-born children are higher in cognitive plasticity.

The next premise is also a correlation but the psychologist simply declares it to be “reasonable.” For analyzing the argument, we’ll simply treat this second premise as true, because it's a premise. Cognitive plasticity is positively correlated with adventurousness.

So now with the two correlational premises we have a correlation chain. Birth order is correlated with cognitive plasticity which is correlated with adventurousness.

The psychologist concludes with a prediction. She says that birth order will be negatively correlated with adventurousness. That means that firstborn children will tend to be less adventurous than later-born children. Or in other words, later-born children will tend to be more adventurous than their eldest siblings.

As is typically the case with Weaken and Strengthen questions that utilize causation logic, it's hard to anticipate where the answers will go. This is why we default to the strategy of POE. The strategy works pretty well here.

Answer Choice (A) says some of the great creative geniuses in history were firstborn children. We can write this answer off simply for being unrepresentative. The correlations in the premises and conclusion are about people in general. (A) confines itself to great creative geniuses in history. We should be very hesitant to draw any inferences from those people because by definition they are unrepresentative of the general population. Additionally, even if we were to draw some inferences from this unrepresentative sample, it pushes in the wrong direction. Firstborn children are supposed to be less adventurous.

Answer Choice (B) says, in most cases, the more younger siblings one has, the greater one's cognitive plasticity. This is a comparative statement so let’s make sure we understand what is being compared. On the surface it sounds like it's contradicting the correlation above. But that's not true. The correlation above compared cognitive plasticity of siblings to each other. (B) compares the cognitive plasticity of firstborn children to other firstborn children. (B) is comparing people who are not each other's siblings. According to (B), the eldest of five siblings from one family will tend to be more plastic than the eldest of two siblings from another family. Now that we know what (B) is saying, we can eliminate (B) for being irrelevant. Imagine if (B) stated the opposite, that the eldest of five siblings is less plastic than the eldest of two siblings. So what?

Correct Answer Choice (C) says other studies have shown a correlation between cognitive plasticity and the willingness to take risks. This is helpful for the argument because it reveals another correlation (backed up by studies) which suggests a causal mechanism. Now that we know cognitive plasticity correlates with risk-taking, a plausible hypothesis arises which can explain why birth order might correlate with adventurousness. It's because birth order correlates with risk-taking and risk-taking is what causes one to be adventurous.

Answer Choice (D) says a study of business executives shows that several industry leaders have older siblings. This is similar to (A) in that we should be careful about drawing inferences about the population at large based on the sample here which reveals information about only several people. Several people who happen to be industry-leading business executives have older siblings. This should be entirely unsurprising. I'm sure it's also true (even though (D) doesn't say it) that several people who happen to be industry-leading business executives have younger siblings or are the middle child or are the only child. But whatever information is revealed about whether or not they have siblings or the birth order they inhabit, there are just too few of them for us to use this information in a reliable manner. Another issue is the questionable relationship between being a business executive and being adventurous. I'm not sure which way that assumption goes. Are you more likely to be a business leader if you're more adventurous? Perhaps that's true. But the need to make this assumption is also a weakness of this answer choice.

Answer Choice (E) says most participants in the study had characterized themselves as more adaptable than other people. We can eliminate this answer simply by recognizing that it’s not clear what the relationship is between being more adaptable and being adventurous on the one hand and birth order on the other.


17 comments

This is a Weaken question.

The argument starts by telling us a result of a recent study of elementary school computers. They found that keyboards and monitors were positioned higher than what was recommended for children. As a result of this (causation), the children were seated in ways that encourage craned necks, awkwardly placed wrists, and other unhealthy postures. That’s the end of the description of the study. Contained within that description are several phenomena and at least one causal relationship between them.

From this study, the researchers conclude that most elementary school computers are installed without consideration of their effects on posture. This is just one potential explanation for the results of the study. There could be other explanations besides the “not-well-considered hypothesis.” Had the stimulus ended here, then it would be very likely that the correct answer choice would have presented an alternative hypothesis. For example, perhaps the designers of the classrooms considered the effects on posture and concluded (for whatever reason) that it didn’t matter.

But, anyway, the argument continues with its main conclusion, as indicated by the word “thus.” It says thus children are put at the same risk for repetitive stress injuries as office workers. By talking about office workers, the argument now utilizes the logic of analogies in addition to causation logic. Is it true that unhealthy postures put children at the same risk for injuries as office workers? That depends on whether children and office workers are affected in a similar manner by these postures. If children and office workers are relevantly similar in that regard, then this argument is fine. Otherwise it's weak.

Correct Answer Choice (C) says the greater suppleness of children's bodies makes them less susceptible than adults to repetitive stress injuries. This cuts against the analogy assumption. (C) reveals that children and adults are not relevantly similar in how they are affected or how they respond to unhealthy postures.

Interestingly, (C) could be used to generate an alternative to the not-well-considered hypothesis. Perhaps the designers of the classrooms did consider the effects of posture. They knew something that these researchers didn't, namely that children are more supple and therefore don't suffer negative effects from poor posture. And that's why they thought the “awkward” positioning of computer equipment didn't matter. This is pure speculation.

Answer Choice (A) says the recommended height for computers is different for children than adults. This is obvious because children are not only much smaller than adults but also proportioned differently. They have huge heads. But aside from the obviousness of the content in this answer, it's not relevant. While (A) does point out a difference between children and adults, it's not the relevant difference. The argument never assumed that the recommended height would be the same for children and adults. It only said that computer monitors were positioned higher than what was recommended for children.

Answer Choice (B) says children spend more time working with computers at home than at school. We don't care about where children are spending time with computers. We already know that they spend time with computers at school. That is the basis for the conclusion that they’re at risk for repetitive stress injury. Whether that conclusion follows has nothing to do with whether they also spend time with computers at home.

Answer Choice (D) says office workers’ keyboards and monitors are usually not at the recommended height for healthy postures for adults. This only tightens the analogy and therefore strengthens the argument. Now we know that adults are also subject to the same causal forces as children, namely, poorly positioned computer equipment. That doesn’t guarantee the conclusion, since we still need to consider whether adults and children are similarly affected. But at least (D) brings to surface the assumption that the causes are similarly present for both groups.

Answer Choice (E) says office workers are more likely to report injuries than children are. No doubt this is true; after all, office workers are adults and children are children. But who cares? First, note that this doesn't talk about what kind of injuries. Second, even if it specified that the injuries are repetitive stress injuries, we still don’t care, because the argument doesn't assume anything about reported injuries. The conclusion is a prediction about the risk of children suffering injuries, regardless of whether they report them.


2 comments

Researcher: In a recent study of elementary school computers, we found that all keyboards and most monitors were positioned higher than recommended for children. Consequently, children were seated in ways that encouraged craned necks, awkwardly placed wrists, and other unhealthy postures. Evidently, most elementary school computers are installed without consideration of their effect on posture, and thus put children at the same risk for repetitive stress injuries as office workers.

Summarize Argument
A Researcher argues that most elementary school computers are installed without consideration for the children’s postures, which puts them at the same risk for repetitive stress injuries as office workers. This is because a study revealed that much of the computer equipment in elementary schools is positioned in a way that encourages unhealthy postures.

Notable Assumptions
The Researcher assumes that children and adult office workers are equally prone to repetitive stress injuries (there could be a difference between children and adults).
The Researcher also assumes that because the keyboards and monitors are positioned in a way that “encourages” poor posture, that it actually results in bad posture.
The Researcher also assumes that the difference in time spent on the computer is negligible between elementary students and office workers.

A
The recommended height for computers is different for children than for adults.
This does not change the fact that the keyboards and monitors were positioned higher than recommended for “children.” This does not impact the argument’s reasoning
B
Children spend more time working with computers at home than at school.
While this raises questions about the amount of time students spend on school computers, it does not give any reason to seriously doubt the argument’s reasoning
C
The greater suppleness of children’s bodies makes them less susceptible than adults to repetitive stress injuries.
This directly calls out a key assumption in the argument: that the difference between children and adults is negligible. This undermines the argument by suggesting that, even with poor posture, children are less likely to experience the same risks as office workers.
D
Office workers’ keyboards and monitors are usually not at the recommended heights for healthy postures for adults.
This shows that office workers face poorly adjusted workspaces but does not weaken the underlying reasoning or argument. The argument is focused on children.
E
Office workers are more likely to report injuries than children are.
The rate at which children vs. adults *report* their injuries has no bearing on whether they actually face similar risks.

3 comments

This is an RRE question.

The stimulus tells us that individual zebras aren't very well camouflaged in their habitat. On the African plains where it lives, the vegetation tends to be green or brown, but the zebra has black and white stripes. This failure to camouflage makes zebras stand out to lions that hunt them. So the stimulus says that it's surprising that zebras survive.

As with any RRE question, the stimulus presents a phenomenon which is a set of facts in need of an explanation. Whether or not there is anything surprising about the phenomenon largely turns on what naïve assumptions we make. Here, if we simply refrain from making any assumptions, then it isn't surprising that zebras survive with such vivid markings. We simply have to be open-minded to the possibility of some explanation for how the zebras can survive even though their stripes make them stand out.

Correct Answer Choice (E) says that when zebras run in a group, as they generally do in response to danger, the stripe markings make it difficult for predators pursuing a single individual to discern its outline. This phenomenon resolves the problem in the stimulus. The fact that individual zebras stand out from the landscape now seems irrelevant because zebras tend to run in groups, and when they are in a group, their stripes create the effect of blurring the boundaries between any individual zebra and the group as a whole. That's an advantage for the individual zebra in terms of getting away from a predator. All we need to assume is that if it's difficult for a predator to discern an individual zebra, then it's difficult for that predator to effectively catch the zebra.

Using the naïve assumption framework, the phenomenon above only seems puzzling if we naïvely assume that an individual zebra's stripes making the zebra stand out from the landscape is all there is to the story; in other words, if we assume that there were no other causal factors at play. But why would we assume this? This is why I said as long as we keep an open mind about the complexity of the story, we shouldn't really feel a sense of surprise.

Answer Choice (A) says because the vegetation on open plains changes from green to brown as the season changes from wet to dry, true camouflage coloring for prey would have to change according to the seasons. This explains nothing. The zebra stripes are black and white, neither of which is green or brown. The stimulus already told us that the vegetation is green or brown. That's what makes the zebra stand out. This answer choice merely tells us that the vegetation changes from green to brown. But whether the vegetation was statically green or brown or dynamically green or brown doesn't change the fact that the zebras stand out.

Answer Choice (B) says that zebras are able to judge from the demeanor of lions whether or not those lions are preparing to hunt, and the zebras ignore the ones that don't intend to hunt. This is also irrelevant. This phenomenon may explain why zebras can sometimes be found within lions' hunting range, because the zebras know that these lions are not a threat. But it has no bearing on the phenomenon we're actually trying to explain, which has to do with its black and white stripes making it stand out.

Answer Choice (C) says lions that hunt zebras are themselves colored in a way that blends in with the brown color of dry vegetation, so that in the dry season, when prey is scarce, the lions can creep up on their prey to a distance from which lions have a favorable chance of succeeding in the hunt. Okay, so this answer explains the lion's coloration and coat pattern. But we're trying to explain the zebra's coloration and stripe patterns.

Answer Choice (D) says when lions hunt, the whole pride shares in the food obtained when a prey animal is successfully brought down by one of the hunting lions. I don't even know where to start with this answer. Lions are just a little bit socialist. Good for them. What does this have to do with zebras having black and white stripes?


3 comments

On the plains where it lives, an individual zebra stands out because of its black-and-white stripes, which contrast with the green or brown of the surrounding vegetation. Yet zebras are a prey species, and the lions that hunt them can see stripes clearly. It seems surprising that zebras would survive with such vivid markings.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do zebras survive, even though one of their predators (lions) can see stripes clearly, and zebras have black-and-white stripes that contrast with the green/brown of surrounding vegetation?

Objective
The correct answer should suggest something about either zebras, lions, or the environment that could increase zebras’ survivability against lions.

A
Because the vegetation on the open plains changes from green to brown as the season changes from wet to dry, true camouflage coloring for a prey species would have to change according to the seasons.
This suggests zebras don’t have true camouflage. This doesn’t help explain why zebras can survive against lions. We still know zebras’ stripes stand out against the background.
B
Zebras are able to judge from the demeanor of lions they see in the vicinity whether or not those lions are preparing to hunt, and the zebras ignore the lions that are not.
This suggests zebras can identify which lions are preparing to hunt. But it doesn’t suggest zebras can escape from those lions or can somehow hide from those lions. We still know zebras’ stripes stand out against the background. How can they survive being preyed on by lions?
C
Lions that hunt zebras are themselves colored in a way that blends in with the brown color of dry vegetation, so that in the dry season, when prey is scarce, the lions can creep up on their prey to within a distance from which the lions have a favorable chance of succeeding in the hunt.
This tells us a feature of lions that makes them better at hunting. But if we’re trying to explain how zebras survive, we want an answer that makes lions worse at hunting zebras.
D
When lions hunt, the whole pride shares in the food obtained when a prey animal is successfully brought down by one of the hunting lions.
This tells us what lions do with food after killing prey. But we want to know why zebras don’t become dead prey in the first place.
E
When zebras run in a group, as they generally do in response to danger, the stripe markings make it difficult for a predator pursuing a single individual to discern its outline.
This tells us something about zebras’ stripes that can help them avoid being killed by predators. If the stripes can make it harder for a predator to see the outline of an individual zebra, that predator might have a more difficult time killing that zebra.

3 comments

This is a Weaken question.

This is a really difficult question. It's difficult in a way that's quite similar to how other questions are difficult. The test writers engineered a terrible argument that made a number of different kinds of questionable assumptions.

The argument proceeds from premises to conclusion and it also proceeds from a high-level phenomenon to a low-level phenomenon.

The first sentence tells us that productivity growth in industrialized nations has dropped substantially since computer technology became more widespread in the 60s and 70s. This is a correlational phenomenon at the level of nations. At the level of nations, we observe that the ones that have adopted computer technology have seen their productivity growth drop. Does that mean computer technology is what caused the decrease in productivity growth? We don't know. It could be or could be something else.

The next premise presents a phenomenon one level lower. We learned that in industries that rely most heavily on computer technology, productivity growth has dropped the most. I'll ask the same question here. Does this mean that computer technology caused the decrease in productivity growth? Again, we don't know. But the argument is edging towards precisely that causal hypothesis, that computer technology caused the decrease in productivity growth at the level of the industry and at the level of the country.

Now we get to the conclusion which is one level lower still. It says that a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology probably has not improved its productivity growth by doing so.

This conclusion rests upon that causal assumption: computer technology causes decrease in productivity growth (at the level of a business). And we've already talked about why that assumption is questionable. It's the classic correlation causation flaw. Just because two things are correlated doesn't necessarily mean that one of them caused the other. But even if you recognize this causal assumption, you might still be stuck between Answer Choice (A) and Answer Choice (D). This is why the question is difficult.

Answer Choice (A) says the industries that rely most heavily on computer technology have been burdened by inefficiencies that have substantially hindered their productivity growth. It sounds like (A) is providing an alternate hypothesis, an alternate cause to explain the slowdown in productivity growth for industries that rely most heavily on computer technologies. (A) says don't blame computer technologies. Rather, it’s these other things, these other inefficiencies that are truly responsible for the decrease in productivity growth. Doesn't this seem like it weakens the argument? It sure looks like it's cutting against the causal assumption that the argument needs.

Answer Choice (D) says within any given industry, the businesses whose productivity growth has been the greatest have been those that invested most heavily in computer technology. (D) also seems to be cutting against the causal assumption. After all, if it's true that computer technology causes a decrease in productivity growth for businesses, then we certainly would not expect to find what (D) is telling us to be true. In fact, we would expect to find the opposite. (D) exhibits a pattern in causal arguments: confirming the predictions of a causal hypothesis counts as evidence in favor and disconfirming those predictions counts as strong evidence against.

So how do we decide between (A), which seems to be providing an alternate hypothesis, and (D), which seems to be providing facts inconsistent with the causal assumption’s predictions?

That requires our recognition that there is something other than causal logic taking place in this argument. Notice the shift from high-level phenomena to low-level phenomena. We start at nations, then we talk about industries, and finally the conclusion talks about particular businesses. Where the premise talked about industries that rely most heavily on computer technologies, the conclusion picks out a business that may or may not even be part of that industry. There’s been a set change. We can use concrete examples to make this more tangible. Finance is an industry that relies heavily on computer technologies, so we can take the premise to mean that finance has experienced productivity growth slowdowns. The conclusion, on the other hand, is only about a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology. That could mean an investment bank, or it could mean a space company. This is a crucial gap between the premise about what's happening in industries versus the conclusion about what we expect happened in particular businesses. Because of this change in sets, it's not even clear that the causal forces at play for the industries (whatever they may be) are even relevant for the particular businesses the conclusion is talking about.

This is what makes Correct Answer Choice (D) much more relevant to the argument than (A). Even if it's true that at the level of the finance industry, the real explanation for the productivity growth slowdown has nothing to do with computer technology but rather has to do with these other inefficiencies that (A) talks about, the conclusion is still about businesses that may or may not even be in the finance industry. Offering alternative causal explanations at the level of industries may not even matter at the level of particular businesses if those businesses aren’t members of the industry.

This is not so for (D) because (D) is at the level of the businesses. The phenomenon (D) described is straight-up inconsistent with the assumption that a business’ investment in computer technology is bad for its productivity growth. If it’s true that within any industry, the businesses that most heavily invested in computer technologies also saw the greatest productivity growth, then something else explains the industry- and nation-level correlation.

Answer Choice (B) says productivity growth in many less industrialized nations has also dropped substantially since the 60s and 70s. Who cares? We already know that productivity growth in industrialized nations have dropped, and beyond that we know that the industries that rely most heavily on computer technologies have dropped, and so the argument goes on. The strength of the logic of the argument has nothing to do with what's happening in the less industrialized nations. Now, if you're thinking, “Well, productivity growth has also dropped in the less industrialized and therefore less computer-technology-dependent nations, doesn’t that mean there’s some other causal force at work? In other words, it is not computer technology that's responsible for the decrease in productivity growth for the industrialized nations since the less industrialized nations also experienced decreases.” If that’s the line of reasoning, then (B) is just a worse version of (A). For one thing, (A) offers an alternative cause, “inefficiencies.” (B) merely hints at the existence of some other explanation. More than that, (B) is at a level even further removed from that of businesses. (B) is talking about nations.

Answer Choice (C) says productivity growth in industries responsible for producing computer technology has increased substantially as computer technology became more widespread. (C) might be tempting because it's telling us that there are at least some industries that experienced increased productivity growth and there's a reason to assume that those industries rely on computer technology because they produce computer technology. But the problem here is that we have very good reasons to believe that these industries are outliers, that they are unrepresentative. We already know that for the last several decades, computer technologies have been increasingly adopted, so we would of course expect the industries that supplied those technologies to have experienced growth. But the fact still remains that the other industries, the ones that didn't manufacture the computer technologies but merely adopted them, those industries still experienced decreased productivity growth.

Answer Choice (E) says within the two years, recent technological advancements will almost certainly make investments in computer technology among the most effective ways for any business to improve productivity. This is a predictive statement about the future. It's not clear if what is stated here will come to pass. There is a high probability as signaled by “almost certainly,” but there is still a chance that this won't happen. But even if it does, what does that have to do with the past? The entire argument is situated in the past. It describes phenomena that have taken place in the past and it makes a conclusion guessing at what happened in the past. What will happen in the future cannot affect what has already happened in the past.


1 comment