Cookie Cutter Review
Flaw - source or character attack (A)
(B) conflation of distinct ideas
(C) failure to prove X confused with proof of not X
(D) evidence against X confused with evidence for X
(E) too small sample size / over-generalization
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that cattle egrets follows herds of cattle because the cattle herds’ grazing process offers the egrets with convenient access to insects. This is based on the phenomenon that cattle egrets live around herds of cattle.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there is no other explanation for why cattle egrets live around herds of cattle.
A
Birds other than cattle egrets have been observed consuming insects stirred up by the movement of cattle.
This strengthens the argument. It shows that a number of bird species benefit in the same way from herds of cattle, strengthening the argument that this benefit is why cattle egrets live around herds of cattle.
B
Cattle egrets are known to follow other slow-moving animals, such as rhinoceroses and buffalo.
This does not affect the argument. Cattle egrets following other slow-moving animals does not make the author’s explanation for why they follow herds of cattle any less convincing. For all we know, buffalo and rhinoceroses also stir up insects that the birds consume.
C
The presence of cattle dissuades many would-be predators of the cattle egret.
This weakens the argument by offering an alternative explanation for the phenomenon. If living near cattle provides protection from potential predators, the egrets gain a significant safety benefit from their proximity to the herds.
D
Cattle egrets are not generally known to live outside the range of large, slow-moving animals.
This does not affect the argument. Cattle egrets’ propensity for living near slow-moving animals does nothing to weaken the author’s explanation for why they live around herds of cattle.
E
Forests are generally inhospitable to cattle egrets because of a lack of insects of the kind egrets can consume.
This does not affect the argument. The fact that forests are inhospitable to cattle egrets does not challenge the author’s explanation for why these birds live around herds of cattle.
Summarize Argument
The price of pay phone calls should be allowed to increase. This is because twenty years ago they were the same price as a soft drink, and today, the price of a soft drink has more than doubled while the price of a pay phone call has remain unchanged.
Notable Assumptions
The author of the editorial assumes that the price increase of soda is not a necessary response to market conditions that local pay phone calls do not encounter (i.e., if the cost to produce soda increased, the price had to rise accordingly).
A
A pay phone typically cost less than a soft-drink machine in the 1970s.
This does not affect the argument. Regardless of the cost to purchase a pay phone or a soft-drink machine in the 1970s, the services and goods offered by these machines were priced the same.
B
Due to inflation, the prices of most goods more than doubled between the 1970s and 1990.
This does not affect the argument. We don’t know if soft drinks are among the goods whose prices increased due to inflation, or if the increase was caused by something else. It is possible that (B) does not even apply to soft drinks.
C
Government regulation of phone call prices did not become more stringent between the 1970s and 1990.
This does not affect the argument. Whether government regulation did or did not become more stringent during this period does not weaken the author’s conclusion that at the time of writing, the price of pay phone calls should be allowed to increase.
D
Between the 1970s and 1990 the cost of ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment.
This weakens the argument. It attacks the assumption that the increase in the price of soft drinks is not due to a market condition that pay phone calls do not also face. In other words, it costs more to produce a soft drink, but not to service a phone call.
E
Technological advances made telephone equipment more sophisticated between the 1970s and 1990.
This does not affect the argument. The increased sophistication of telephone equipment does not tell us about the cost to service or price to make a phone call.
Members of large-animal species must consume enormous amounts of food to survive. When climatic conditions in their environment deteriorate, such animals are often unable to find enough food. This fact helps make large-animal species more vulnerable to extinction than small-animal species, which can maintain greater populations on smaller amounts of food.
Summary
Large-animal species must consume enormous amounts of food. If climatic conditions deteriorate in their environment, these animals often cannot find enough food. This means that large-animal species are more vulnerable to extinction than small-animal species.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A lack of food is one of the risk factors involved in mass extinctions. Climate changes can risk mass extinctions by undermining the food supply of large-animal species.
A
The maximum population size that an animal species could maintain on any given amount of food is the main factor determining whether that species will become extinct.
This is unsupported because we don’t know anything about the maximum population sizes that species maintain and how that relates to survival.
B
The vulnerability of an animal species to extinction depends at least in part on how much food individuals of that species must consume to survive.
This is strongly supported because different species, varying based on how much food they need, would have different risks of mass extinction. Large species who need more food are at a greater risk than small species needing less.
C
When conditions deteriorate in a given environment, no small-animal species will become extinct unless some large-animal species also becomes extinct.
This is unsupported because small-animal species may go extinct when conditions deteriorate due to reasons unrelated to food supply. The author only states that large-animal species are more from climate shocks to food.
D
Within any given species, the prospects for survival of any particular individual depend primarily on the amount of food that individual requires.
This is unsupported because while food is identified as one of the factors influencing prospects for survival, we don’t know that it is the primary factor. We also don’t know that it is the primary factor for any individual - our author limits analysis to whole species.
E
Whenever climatic conditions in a given environment are bad enough to threaten large-animal species with extinction, small-animal species are able to find enough food to survive.
This is unsupported because it is possible that climatic conditions are so bad as to affect small and large-species animals. We only know that large-species animals typically fare worse in climate changes.
Channen: Not everybody thinks that way. After all, money is the universal medium of exchange. So, if you have enough of it, you can exchange it for whatever other material goods you may need or want even if you are indifferent to what others think of you.
Speaker 1 Summary
Megan doesn’t make an argument, instead just stating a claim that once people’s basic needs are met, they only pursue additional wealth in order to increase their status or prestige.
Speaker 2 Summary
Channen argues that not everyone thinks about wealth in the way Megan describes. To show this, Channen points out that money is the universal medium of exchange. This means that even someone who doesn’t care about status or prestige might want more money in order to buy material goods. This acts as a hypothetical counter-example to Megan’s claim.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. Megan and Channen disagree about the reasons people might have for pursuing wealth after their basic needs are met. Megan thinks the only reason is status and prestige, but Channen thinks there are other possibilities.
A
people ever pursue wealth beyond what is required for their basic needs
Both speakers agree that people can pursue wealth beyond what is required for their basic needs. Their disagreement is just about what would motivate someone to do so.
B
it is irrational to try to achieve high status or prestige in the eyes of one’s society
Like (C) and (D), neither speaker discusses rationality at all. The argument between Megan and Channen is about what people’s motivations are, not whether those motivations are rational.
C
the pursuit of monetary wealth is irrational only when it has no further purpose
Like (B) and (D), neither Megan nor Channen says anything about rationality or irrationality. What’s at question here is why people would seek wealth past a certain point, not whether the reasons for doing so are rational.
D
it is rational to maximize one’s ability to purchase whatever one wants only when the motive for doing so is something other than the desire for prestige
Like (B) and (C), rationality is never brought up by either speaker. The question of whether seeking additional wealth is rational is simply outside the scope of Megan and Channen’s discussion.
E
the motive for pursuing wealth beyond what one’s basic needs require is ever anything other than the desire for prestige or high status
Megan disagrees with this: her only claim is that this statement is not true. Channen, however, agrees and offers a hypothetical example to support this idea. This is the point of disagreement.
Cookie Cutter Review
Causation
(A) direct cause
(B) alternate cause
(D) direct cause
(E) corroborating data
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that HDLs prevent heart disease and stroke. This is based on a few phenomena: cardio increases HDL levels, women have higher HDL levels, and both cardio and being female are correlated with a lower risk of heart disease and stroke.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes causation from correlation. There could be a number of other factors that explain the phenomena described. For example, maybe exercise just improves overall health, and maybe women tend to exercise more than men, which is why exercise and being female are correlated with fewer heart issues.
A
HDLs, unlike LDLs, help the body excrete cholesterol.
This strengthens the argument. (A) says HDLs, unlike LDLs, help the body get rid of something that is known to contribute to heart disease and stroke: cholesterol.
B
Persons who are overweight tend to have a higher risk of early death due to coronary heart disease and stroke, and tend to have low levels of HDLs.
This strengthens the argument by offering a correlation between low HDL levels and higher risk of fatal heart disease and stroke. This reinforces the correlation described in the stimulus (that higher HDL levels are correlated with lower risk of these conditions).
C
HDLs are less easily removed from the bloodstream than are LDLs.
This does not affect the argument. While we know that LDLs increase the risk of heart disease and stroke, we don’t know anything about how them being more easily removed from the bloodstream affects one’s likeliness to have these conditions.
D
A high level of HDLs mitigates the increased health risks associated with LDLs.
This strengthens the argument. We know that LDLs increase the risk of heart disease and stroke—the idea that HDLs mitigate this risk suggests that they have the opposite impact on one’s risk of heart disease and stroke.
E
Men whose level of HDLs is equal to the average level for women have been found to have a lower risk of coronary heart disease and stroke than that of most men.
This strengthens the argument. (E) says men with above-average HDL levels (relative to other men) have a lower risk of heart disease and stroke than men with average HDL levels. (E) offers another correlation between high HDL levels and low risk of the conditions.
Summarize Argument
Central bankers’ success in curbing inflation may make it harder for them to prevent future inflation without making the public angry. Why?
Inflation is restrained by raising interest rates.
These increases take two years to affect inflation.
Therefore, bankers try to increase rates before inflation gets bad. (sub-conclusion)
When inflation is not yet bad, it is not readily apparent.
If inflation is not yet bad, rate increases are seen as hurting the economy.
Inflation is restrained by raising interest rates.
These increases take two years to affect inflation.
Therefore, bankers try to increase rates before inflation gets bad. (sub-conclusion)
When inflation is not yet bad, it is not readily apparent.
If inflation is not yet bad, rate increases are seen as hurting the economy.
Identify Argument Part
This is one premise that sets up the explanation for why successful inflation control makes it harder to continue to control it without incurring public anger. Knowing that inflation is restrained by raising interest rates is essential to the argument.
A
It is presented as a complete explanation of the fact that central bankers’ success in temporarily restraining inflation may make it harder for them to ward off future inflation without incurring the public’s wrath.
This is not the complete explanation. It is one premise within the argument that explains why in combination with other premises.
B
It is a description of a phenomenon for which the claim that an increase in interest rates takes up to two years to affect inflation is offered as an explanation.
This is just a premise about inflation control. It is not explained or supported by other parts of the argument.
C
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that central bankers’ success in temporarily restraining inflation may make it harder for them to ward off future inflation without incurring the public’s wrath.
This is accurate - it is a premise that supports this main conclusion.
D
It is a conclusion for which the statement that an increase in interest rates takes up to two years to affect inflation is offered as support.
It is not the conclusion, it is a premise. The claim receives no support.
E
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that unless inflation is readily apparent, interest rate hikes generally will be perceived as needlessly restraining a growing economy.
This is not the conclusion that the answer choice supports. The conclusion cited here is just another premise.
Cookie Cutter Review
Flaw - (E) is cause-effect confusion
(A) sample size too small / over-generalization
(B) circular reasoning
(D) equivocation
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The scientist hypothesizes that prehistoric human ancestors stood upright before they developed sophisticated tools. This is based on the idea that making these tools required the free use of their hands, which standing would have provided.
Notable Assumptions
The scientist assumes that standing up, a sufficient condition for the free use of hands, is also a necessary condition for the free use of hands. In other words, the scientist assumes there is no other way prehistoric human ancestors could have freed their hands without standing. This overlooks alternative explanations, such as sitting, which also allows for hands to be freed.
A
Many animals that do not stand upright have learned to make basic tools.
This does not affect the argument, which is concerned with sophisticated tools, not basic ones.
B
Advanced hunting weapons have been discovered among the artifacts belonging to prehistoric human ancestors who did not stand upright.
This weakens the argument. It attacks the assumption that standing up is a necessary condition for the free use of hands, which (B) says is not true. If prehistoric human ancestors made advanced weapons without standing up, they must have freed their hands without standing.
C
Many prehistoric human ancestors who stood upright had no sophisticated tools.
This does not affect the argument, as the scientist does not argue that prehistoric human ancestors stood because they required sophisticated tools.
D
Those prehistoric human ancestors who first came to stand upright had no more dexterity with their hands than did those who did not stand upright.
This does not affect the argument. The scientist argues that prehistoric human ancestors stood before they made tools because they required the free use of their hands, not because standing made their hands more dexterous.
E
Many of the earliest sophisticated tools did not require their users to be able to stand upright.
This does not affect the argument. The scientist is concerned with whether the people who made the tools needed to stand, not with whether the people who used the tools needed to stand.