We should recognize that this is a weakening question, as we are introducing information which weakens reasoning in the stimulus: Which one of the following, if true, is the strongest defense against the counterexample of dogs that shake hands?
Our stimulus begins with the position of brain studies; they suggest that while humans are majority right-handed, approximately half of any given group of animals will be left-handed. Our author’s conclusion is that this finding is suspect, or in other words likely wrong, because dogs will usually shake hands with their right paw. Our job is to introduce a premise which weakens the author’s criticism of the brain studies. On to the answers:
Answer Choice (A) This wouldn’t undermine whether or not they exhibit a consistent preference for a right limb in certain cases.
Answer Choice (B) The front paw is a limb!
Answer Choice (C) This might explain the results of the brain studies (specifically why animals differ from humans), but it wouldn’t weaken the author’s criticism; why do dogs shake a paw with their right paw?
Answer Choice (D) Their ability to compensate is entirely compatible with their preferring their right limb.
Correct Answer Choice (E) If humans have a preference for their right limb, when they train their dog to shake a paw they could be training them to do so with their right paw, so that although the dogs have preferences compatible with the brain study, human influence leads to more dogs shaking with their right paw.
This is a weakening question, as the question stem asks: Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the author’s hypothesis?
This is a fairly straight forward correlation-causation argument. A study finds that smokers are more likely to snore, and concludes that smoking can cause snoring. Our job is to weaken this argument. Let’s see what we get:
Correct Answer Choice (A) This provides an explanation for why snoring and smoking would correlate, even when smoking might have no influence on snoring, namely that the two share a third cause, stress.
Answer Choice (B) Ok, but unless we know obesity leads to snoring this does nothing for us.
Answer Choice (C) This is completely compatible with the argument.
Answer Choice (D) Same as C.
Answer Choice (E) Interesting! But this could be true while smoking caused snoring, and does nothing to suggest it doesn’t.
This is a resolve, reconcile, explain question, as the stem states: Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the new silencing device will make lower electricity consumptions possible?
As mentioned in our question stem, this stimulus is about a new silencing device. This device negates the sound waves produced by domestic appliances. Sounds high-tech! Next we learn that this device differs from conventional silencers by actively eliminating noise, and because of this vacuum cleaners which incorporate the device will consume less electricity. Interesting, but I’m not sure I see the connection; why does less noise mean less electricity? The correct answer is going to fill this gap, and give us a reason for why this new silencing device’s noise cancelation will save power. Let’s see our options:
Correct Answer Choice (A) Makes sense! With the new device, the designers can just focus on making the motor as efficient as possible because the noise problem is solved by the device, so the vacuum will consume less electricity.
Answer Choice (B) If anything this suggests the device would increase electricity consumption.
Answer Choice (C) This is just a random fact, and clearly irrelevant to what we are trying to explain.
Answer Choice (D) But we are told the new device will operate with lower electricity consumption. This answer only says that the device allows more electricity consumption, which does nothing to explain why it is has actually decreased.
Answer Choice (E) But how would making them heavier and less mobile lead to lower electricity consumption? This doesn’t give us a satisfying explanation like A does.
We should recognize this as a resolve, reconcile, explain question, since it asks: Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain how the deer mouse might have found its way back to its nest?
Our first sentence informs us that deer mice don’t stray far from their nests, and further specifies that when they are moved more than half a kilometer from the nest, they generally never find their way back. Interesting! Since we read the question stem first, we know the discrepancy we are tasked with explaining is that despite the truth of this general statement about the difficulty of deer mice finding their way home, one deer mouse was able to. And that’s exactly what the next sentence introduces, starting with yet which indicates the shift towards our phenomenon in need of an explanation. Our phenomenon is that a young deer mouse was moved two kilometers away, which is four times the distance where a deer mouse will usually never find its way home, and yet was able to return in less than two days. An answer choices which explains how the young deer mouse did this in a way that is consistent with deer mice generally struggling to find their way home will be the correct answer. Let’s see our options:
Answer Choice (A) We’ve been told nothing about how the environment affects a deer mouse’s ability to navigate, or really anything that would make the difference between the deer mouse’s home and where it is moved matter except for distance.
Correct Answer Choice (B) The researchers camped next to the deer mouse nest for several weeks, so it would make sense if the mouse recognized the campfire smell! The answer even specifies that the smoke drifted to the area the deer mouse was released. What this answer does is make the deer mouse’s situation exceptional, such that it is no longer weird that most of the time deer mice will fail to find their way home. Most of the time they don’t have a strong recognizable scent carrying kilometers away from their home!
Answer Choice (C) We’ve been told nothing about how the number deer mice affects a deer mouse’s ability to navigate.
Answer Choice (D) That was nice of them, but it doesn’t do anything for us! If anything this answer makes the situation more confusing, as the deer mouse was unable to see where it was taken; it was within a small dark box.
Answer Choice (E) Ok, but how would that explain the deer mouse’s ability to find its way home? This just makes the fact the deer mouse survived and was able to get home even more incredible, without doing anything to explain why this deer mouse was able to break the general trend of deer mouse navigation failure.