A
Several other popular beverages contain the same addictive chemical that is found in camellia tea.
B
Addictive chemicals are unlikely to cause kidney damage solely by virtue of their addictive qualities.
C
Some people claim that regular consumption of camellia tea helps alleviate their stress.
D
Most people who regularly drink camellia tea do not develop kidney damage.
E
Many people who regularly consume camellia tea also regularly consume other beverages suspected of causing kidney damage.
A
It serves to bolster the argument’s main conclusion.
B
It identifies a view that is ultimately disputed by the argument.
C
It identifies a position supported by the initial premise in the argument.
D
It provides support for the initial premise in the argument.
E
It provides support for a counterargument to the initial premise.
A recent epidemiological study found that businesspeople who travel internationally on business are much more likely to suffer from chronic insomnia than are businesspeople who do not travel on business. International travelers experience the stresses of dramatic changes in climate, frequent disruption of daily routines, and immersion in cultures other than their own, stresses not commonly felt by those who do not travel. Thus, it is likely that these stresses cause the insomnia.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that increased stress causes more insomnia in businesspeople who travel relative to those who don’t. This is because travelling exposes you to stressors that you wouldn’t have at home.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there isn’t some other factor that makes travelling businesspeople more likely to have insomnia. In other words, the author assumes that stress is the important factor here, and not something else—maybe people who travel for business have more demanding jobs, which makes them more prone to insomnia.
A
Most international travel for the sake of business occurs between countries with contiguous borders.
This does not affect the argument. Most business travel occurring between countries with contiguous borders doesn’t tell us about how similar those countries are culturally and climate-wise. We would have to make several assumptions for this to have any impact.
B
Some businesspeople who travel internationally greatly enjoy the changes in climate and immersion in another culture.
This does not affect the argument. It could be that people enjoy the experience but still feel the stresses described. Also, the argument claims travelling businesspeople are more likely to have insomnia—the author isn’t arguing that all of them do.
C
Businesspeople who already suffer from chronic insomnia are no more likely than businesspeople who do not to accept assignments from their employers that require international travel.
This strengthens the argument by addressing a potential alternative explanation for the phenomenon: that businesspeople who already have insomnia are more likely to travel than businesspeople who don’t have insomnia. This would mean the stress has nothing to do with it.
D
Experiencing dramatic changes in climate and disruption of daily routines through international travel can be beneficial to some people who suffer from chronic insomnia.
This does not affect the argument. (D) says people who already have insomnia may benefit from the stresses described. This is outside the scope of the causal mechanism described in the stimulus, which is that the stresses cause insomnia in the first place.
E
Some businesspeople who once traveled internationally but no longer do so complain of various sleep-related ailments.
This does not affect the argument. We don’t know if these ailments include insomnia, which is what we’re concerned with. Also, the stimulus only discusses stress as the cause of insomnia for travelling businesspeople—other people can have insomnia for other reasons.
The question stem reads: Each of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning similar to that in the argument above EXCEPT… This is a Parallel Flaw question.
The author states that each of the smallest particles in the universe has an “elegantly simple structure.” Since the universe is composed of these particles, the author concludes that the universe also has an “elegantly simple structure.” The argument makes a fallacy of composition (part to whole). Just because a part or all of the parts have a particular property, the property does not necessarily carry over to the whole. By a similar line of reasoning, we could conclude that because the parts of a car cannot move on their own, and a car is composed of those parts, the car itself must not be able to move.
Because this is an except question, the wrong answer choices will contain a fallacy of composition. The right answer choice could exhibit some other fallacy or be a valid argument.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. (A) matches the stimulus by saying that because the parts of a car have the property of being perfectly engineered, then the car (the parts put together) must also have the property of being perfectly engineered. The car's parts may be well-engineered, but the car could be designed and assembled in a terrible fashion. Eliminate (A).
Correct Answer Choice (B) does make an argument from part to whole. However, (B) is not a fallacious argument. If every part of the desk is made of metal, then it must be true the desk is made of metal. While the properties of the parts do not necessarily carry over to the whole, sometimes they do. You must use your judgment to determine whether a “part to whole” argument works or is fallacious. Because (B) makes a good argument, (B) is our right answer.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. (C) matches the stimulus by saying because bricks have the property of being rectangular, the wall of bricks (the bricks put together) must have the property of being rectangular. What if the wall is built in a circle? Eliminate (C).
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect. (D) matches the stimulus by saying that because each piece of wood has the property of being sturdy, then the desk (the wood put together) must also have the property of being sturdy. Perhaps the stool was poorly put together. Eliminate (D).
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. (E) matches our stimulus by saying that because each sentence of the novel has the property of being well constructed, the novel (all of the sentences put together) must also have the property of being well constructed. Eliminate (E).
A
It is in the nature of violent crime that it is not premeditated.
B
About one-fourth of all suspects first arrested for a crime are actually innocent.
C
Many violent crimes are committed by first-time offenders.
D
Everyone accused of a crime has the right to a trial.
E
Countries that promptly punish suspected lawbreakers have lower crime rates than countries that allow long trials.
A
Preschoolers have a tendency to imitate adults, and most adults follow strict routines.
B
Children intensely curious about new things have very short attention spans.
C
Some older children also develop strict systems that help them learn.
D
Preschoolers ask as many creative questions as do older children.
E
Preschool teachers generally report lower levels of stress than do other teachers.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the lawyer's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The lawyer begins by making an analogy. He claims that a body of circumstantial evidence is similar to a rope. He claims that each piece of evidence is like a strand in that rope: just as adding more strings to the rope makes a rope stronger, adding more pieces of evidence strengthens the body of evidence. He then describes how if a strand of a rope is broken, the rope does not break, and it still retains much of its strength. He concludes that, similarly, if you discredit ("break") a few pieces of evidence, the overall body of evidence is still strong.
When analyzing an argument that uses an analogy, a good first step is to ask yourself, "Are the two things being compared actually similar?" As you increase the points of difference between the two things being compared, the analogy's strength diminishes. In this case, we want to determine where the lawyer's analogy between ropes and bodies of evidence frays apart. The idea that adding pieces of evidence to the body increases the strength of the body, like adding strands to a rope, makes sense and seems like a pretty good point of comparison. However, the analogy fails when we consider the fact that strands of rope are all the same. However, not all pieces of evidence are equal: some add much more strength than others. You have experience with this on the LSAT. Take away a premise that strengthens the argument, and the argument can survive. Take away a premise necessary to the argument, and the argument falls apart. So if we took away a few pieces of necessary evidence, the body would fall apart. However, that is contrary to the lawyer's conclusion. If you didn't see this, that is ok! When doing POE, prioritize answer choices that draw a distinction between ropes and bodies of evidence.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is what we discussed. The lawyer takes for granted that no evidence is more important to the body than others.
Answer Choice (B) is wrong. If you picked (B), you likely had trouble determining what (B) means. (B) says to take the strength of each piece of evidence independently and add them up. That will be greater than the strength of the evidence if you take the pieces altogether. If anything, the opposite is true: adding many pieces of circumstantial evidence together tends to count as better evidence than taking each individually.
Answer Choice (C) is not a problem for the argument. If you interpret "many = few": The point of the lawyer's argument is to show that if you take away some strands of evidence, then the body retains its strength, so the possibility is addressed. If you interpret "many"> few": then sure, the possibility is ignored. However, that is not a problem for the argument because the lawyers' conclusion is limited to taking away a few pieces of evidence. Either way, the argument is not flawed because of (C).
Answer Choice (D) is tempting, but we run into problems with the word "any." The lawyer has indicated that bodies of evidence share similarities to ropes. Adding more pieces of evidence or strands increases the strength of both.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. The lawyer does not use his own premise as a conclusion.