Summarize Argument
The linguist concludes that Austronesian-speaking peoples originated in Taiwan before migrating elsewhere. This is because Austronesian languages must all have one point of geographic and linguistic origin, and because Taiwan is where Austronesian languages have been spoken the longest.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is where Austronesian-speaking peoples originated: “Austronesian-speaking peoples originated in Taiwan and later migrated to other islands.”
A
The Austronesian family of languages has four subfamilies, three of which are found only among indigenous peoples in Taiwan.
This is context for the argument. There’s no support for this statement, so it can’t be a conclusion.
B
Wherever most subfamilies of the Austronesian family of languages have been spoken longest is probably the homeland where Austronesian languages originated.
This is a sub-conclusion that acts as a premise. Since Taiwan is probably the homeland where Austronesian languages originated, Austronesian-speaking peoples likely migrated from Taiwan.
C
Taiwan is probably the homeland where Austronesian languages have been spoken longest.
Our conclusion is about the likelihood that Austronesian-speaking peoples migrated from Taiwan. This answer is a premise that contributes to that conclusion.
D
Austronesian-speaking peoples originated in the homeland where Austronesian languages have been spoken longest.
This is a premise that supports the conclusion. Taiwan is where Austronesian languages have been spoken the longest, and is thus where Austronesian-speaking peoples originated.
E
Austronesian-speaking peoples probably originated in Taiwan and later migrated to other islands.
The linguist establishes Taiwan as the geographic and linguistic origin of Austronesian-speaking peoples. Since Austronesian-speaking peoples are spread broadly from Madagascar across the Pacific, the linguist concludes that they migrated from their origin, Taiwan.
A
infers a cause from a mere correlation
The author infers a causal relationship between eating cereal every day and exercise even though the evidence presented only a correlation between these things.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that Fantastic Flakes are more nutritious than other cereals
The conclusion does assert that Fantastic Flakes will put one on the best path toward fitness, but that’s only because the author thinks eating cereal will make you exercise. This doesn’t mean the author thinks Fantastic Flakes is more nutritious than other cereals.
C
infers that a given factor is the sole predictor of a result merely on the grounds that the factor has been shown to contribute to that result
The evidence does not establish that anything has been “shown to contribute” to anything else. The evidence presents a correlation and tells us what fitness experts believe is effective in becoming physically fit.
D
draws a conclusion about all adults from a sample that is too small to be representative
We don’t have any reason to think the studies mentioned are too small to be representative. The premises don’t say anything about the size of the samples.
E
infers that some members of a group have a particular characteristic merely from the fact that the group as a whole has it
The argument doesn’t commit a whole-to-part fallacy. The premises aren’t a statement about a whole, and the conclusion isn’t about individual members of a whole.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
When traffic lights and street markings that are designed to increase street safety were removed, the number of accidents on the street did not increase as expected, but instead diminished greatly, even though the amount of traffic on the street did not decrease.
Objective
The right answer will describe a safety benefit to the removal of the traffic lights and street markings. The benefit will help explain why accident numbers went down after the traffic lights and street markings were removed.
A
People often disregard traffic lights and street markings.
This doesn’t matter to us. If people were frequently disregarding the traffic lights and street markings anyway, we would expect little change when they were removed. There was a substantial change, though, and we want to know why.
B
The lack of traffic lights and street markings caused drivers to drive more cautiously.
This is a safety benefit that came from removing the traffic lights and street markings: drivers started driving more cautiously. It’s easy to see how more cautious driving would lead to decreased numbers of accidents on the street.
C
Most drivers were not aware that traffic lights and street markings had been removed.
This doesn’t help us. Whether or not most drivers were aware of the change, the number of accidents on the street decreased. We want to know why.
D
Traffic lights and street markings are intended to have benefits in addition to those related to safety.
This doesn’t matter to us. We’re interested in the safety implications of having or not having traffic lights and street markings, not any other potential benefits.
E
Drivers were given advance notice that the traffic lights and street markings would be removed.
This doesn’t help us. Drivers knowing that the change was coming does not explain why the number of accidents decreased.