The question stem reads: The editorialist's reasoning is flawed in that it fails to take into account that… This is a Flaw question.
The editorialist states that a recently passed law limits freedom of speech to silence dissenters. He then describes the claim that those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. In this claim, "doomed" is a necessary condition indicator. So we can rewrite the claim into lawgic: ignorant of history -> repeat history. The editorialist concludes that "If this (ignorant of history -> repeat history) is true, then those responsible for passing the laws must be ignorant of a great deal of history." In lawgic, the conclusion reads:
(ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
The editorialists note that in the past, silencing dissenters have tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes. Let's outline the argument::
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
______________________________________________
C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
Looking at the premises, we can infer that history has been repeated. Dissenters have been silenced in the past, and lawmakers today are trying to silence dissenters now.
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
P3: history has been repeated
______________________________________________
C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
Finally, we can kick up the sufficient condition of the conclusion:
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
P3: history has been repeated
P4: ignorant of history -> repeat history
______________________________________________
C: law passers are ignorant of history
Remember, satisfying the necessary condition yields no information about the sufficient condition. The editorialist has used the fact that history has been repeated (P4's necessary condition) to conclude that the lawmakers are ignorant of history (P4's sufficient condition). The editorialist is affirming the consequent, a classic logical fallacy. Now that we see the error in the editorialist's reasoning let's move the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is irrelevant to the argument. The purpose of the law does not matter. What matters to the argument is that history is repeating itself.
Answer Choice (B) is irrelevant. If you picked (B), you likely got caught up in irrelevant parts of the stimulus, i.e., "limits freedom of speech" and "tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes." But the editorialist's argument is not about what freedoms need or need not be protected.
Answer Choice (C) is actually taken into account by the argument. The stimulus says, "silencing dissenters has tended to promote… the establishment of authoritarian regimes." The fact that you can find some instances of undermining regimes is compatible with the editorialist's claim. Furthermore, what matters is that a law "silencing dissenters" is a repeat of history. Whether or not the law ends up establishing or undermining an authoritarian regime is arbitrary.
Answer Choice (D) is also irrelevant. Whether the law is good or bad has no effect on the argument.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is an illustration of our prephase. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, but it is entirely possible to be aware of history and still repeat it. Maybe these lawmakers intend to establish an authoritarian regime. Maybe not. In either case, (E) is good to go.
This is an MBT question which we know because the question stem reads: If the statements above are true, then which one of the following must also be true?
Our stimulus gives us a set of facts about a plant called “false chicory”--which I can only assume is the sworn enemy of true chicory (kind of like the false chicory Wario to the true chicory’s Mario).
We know that false chicory (why is it false? Does it tell lies?) has a taproot that is half the size of the plant’s height. We also are told that false chicory tends to grow more as it receives more rain. We know that false chicory definitely reaches above average heights if it receives more than twice the average rainfall of its normal habitat.
Notice the shifting from tends to grow taller in sentence two, to always reaches above average heights in sentence three. One happens more often than not, the other always happens.
So what inferences can we make here? Well we know that the taproot is directly proportional to the height of a false chicory (it’s always half the value of the height). We also have some information about what causes the height of a false chicory plant to increase (namely, rain—more specifically twice than average normal rainfall). So can we make some conclusions about what might cause a taproot to grow? I think we can! Anything that makes the false chicory grow taller will also make its taproot grow longer (to exactly one half its height). Therefore rain that contributes to an increase in height would also contribute to a growth in the length of the taproot (that is exactly one half the value of its increase in height).
Cool? Cool!
Now let’s move on to the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) This is tempting because it's playing on what we know about rain contributing to the height of a false chicory. But all we know about false chicory plants that receive more than twice the standard amount of rain is that they are always above average height. Does this mean that plants that don’t receive this much rain can’t be above average height? No! There may be all sorts of things that contribute to the growth of false chicory and rain is just one of them. There’s also the possibility that both of these plants with different heights received greater than average rainfall. This would mean that they both are above average height, but there would still most likely be a difference in height between them.
Answer Choice (B) So we know that if a false chicory plant has above average height, its taproot will be above average length (because it is always exactly one half of the plant’s height). But this AC has the same error that we found in (A). Receiving more than twice the amount of average rain is sufficient to cause above average height, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only thing that can cause it.
Answer Choice (C) Yet another answer choice that is demonstrating the same error we found in (A) and (B). More than twice the average rainfall is the sufficient condition and above average height is the necessary condition. This answer choice flips the two conditions.
Answer Choice (D) A few problems here. First, to reiterate: there are any number of factors that could contribute to the growth of false chicory. Just because these groups are the same height, does not mean that we can determine if they received the same amount of rainfall. Secondly, this question reads “[if] one group [is] not taller than [another] group,” then those groups must have received the same amount of rainfall. What does this mean? It means the first group could be the same size as the second group, or it could be any other size smaller than the second group. The chicory plants in the second group could all be 6 feet tall compared to the plants in the first group coming in at just over 6 inches tall—this would fit within the parameters set by our stimulus. So even if there was a direct correlation between rainfall and height (and no other factors involved in height), this would not be supported.
Correct Answer Choice (E) We know that if a false chicory plant receives greater than twice average rainfall it will be above average height. We also know that taproots are exactly half the size of the plant’s stalk (or whatever you call the vertical section of a false chicory plant–if you can’t tell by now, I am not a botanist!). Therefore, average taproot length would be exactly one half of average taproot height. So we can definitively say that if receiving more than twice the average amount of rainfall will lead to false chicory plants being above average height, it will also lead to them having taproots that are above average length.
A
If two false chicory plants differ in height, then it is likely that the one with the shorter taproot has received less than twice the average rainfall of the species’ usual habitat.
B
If a false chicory plant has a longer-than-average taproot, then it is likely to have received more than twice the average rainfall of the species’ usual habitat.
C
It is not possible for a false chicory plant to receive only the average amount of rainfall of the species’ usual habitat and be of above-average height.
D
If the plants in one group of false chicory are not taller than those in another group of false chicory, then the two groups must have received the same amount of rainfall.
E
If a false chicory plant receives greater than twice the average rainfall of the species’ usual habitat, then it will have a longer taproot than that of an average-sized false chicory plant.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the Detective's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw Question.
The Detective begins by saying Bill was accused of burglarizing a warehouse last night. The Detective then claims that no one saw Bill in the vicinity of the warehouse last night. Using that claim as evidence, the Detective concludes that Bill must not have committed the burglary. Right off the bat, we can see that this argument is flawed.
When evaluating an argument, our job is to be agnostic. That means we have to start with no position on a conclusion. If I make an argument that fails to prove that x is true, all you can conclude is that I have failed to prove that x is true. You cannot claim that x is false. So just because I lack evidence for a claim, that does not mean the claim is false. Turning back to the Detective, we do not have any witnesses to prove that Bill was burglarizing the warehouse. So all we know is that the Detective has no witnesses. That does not mean Bill didn't burglarize the warehouse. Maybe Bill is a ninja. Maybe the warehouse is located in a community for the blind. Maybe there was simply no one near the warehouse who could have witnessed the crime. If Bill robs a warehouse and no one is there to see it, did Bill really commit a burglary? You get the point. Let's move to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is wrong because the fact that no one saw Bill near the warehouse is relevant to the identity of the Burglarer. It is just not enough to say that Bill is not the burglar.
Answer Choice (B) is wrong because there is no attack on the character of the witnesses. If the Detective made an argument, "Everyone who claims to have seen Bill near the warehouse is a known Bill-haters, therefore Bill must not have robbed the warehouse," then (B) would look better.
Answer Choice (C) is wrong because the Detective argues that Bill did not commit the burglary.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is what we discussed. The Detective does treat a lack of evidence that Bill robbed the warehouse as if it exonerates Bill (which means Bill didn't rob the warehouse).
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. The Detective does not need to establish the true identity of the burglar in order to prove Bill did not commit the robbery. He just needs better evidence. For example, if the Detective could show that Bill was in a different state during the time of the crime, he could exonerate Bill without establishing the burglar's identity.
We start with the question stem: Which of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the psychologist's argument? This is a Main Conclusion question.
The argument begins with what seems like an argument by saying that because of the “social stigma against psychotherapy, and because of age discrimination on the part of some professionals, some elderly people feel discouraged about trying psychotherapy” (the old people don't want to get therapy because they don't want to be bullied). Although this is an argument, it’s still a contextual information because of the Context Indicator “however” in the next sentence, which indicates a turn to the author's argument.
The first few words of the next sentence say “They should not be,” which sure looks like referential phrasing. Who should not be what? When we see Referential Phrasing we need to understand what the author is referring to. Referring back to the previous sentence, the who is “old people,” the what is “be discouraged from trying psychotherapy”. Let’s try translating that sentence now that we know our referential phrasing.
“However, the old people should not be discouraged to try psychotherapy, for many younger people have benefited from it, and people later in life have certain advantages over the young...that contribute to the likelihood of a positive outcome.”
We skipped over some of the stimulus, but right here we have everything we need. We have a Premise Indicator “for,” which tells us that everything after is a reason to think that old people should not be discouraged from trying therapy. In other words, the fact that “young people have benefited from therapy” and that “old people have advantages to therapy” supports the idea that old people should not be afraid to try therapy. An idea with support? That sounds like a Conclusion. Terrible argument? Certainly. But our job here isn’t to judge the quality of this argument; it's to find the conclusion.
So, our conclusion is that “Old people should not be discouraged from trying therapy.” Now, all we need to do is find an answer choice that expresses the same idea.
Answer Choice (A) is wrong. Not because it is bad for certain psychotherapists to discriminate against old people but because it is Contextual Information. (A) is a reason the elderly are reluctant to try therapy, but the author used that to introduce his argument.
Answer Choice (B) says that elderly people are better able to benefit from psychotherapy than young people. This is wrong because it’s not the same idea as our Main Conclusion. Additionally, we cannot actually infer (B), so even if this were an MSS question, (B) would also be wrong. Ultimately, it still would be the right answer for a Main Conclusion question.
Correct Answer Choice (C) expresses the same idea as our Main Conclusion. While it is not written exactly the same, “Elderly people should not be reluctant to undergo psychotherapy” expresses the same idea as our main conclusion. Therefore, it is correct.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect. It might be tempting to say that this is a premise, but it's not. And even if it were a premise, we need to be looking for not a paraphrase of our premises, but a paraphrase of our main conclusion. Where in the stimulus does it say that the advantages the elderly have over the youth are important? It doesn’t.
Answer Choice (E) is also wrong. (E) does not accurately express the same idea as our Main Conclusion, and we additionally don’t know if this is true. Sure, we know that old people are discouraged from going to therapy, but we do not know how discouraged the youths are. Maybe youths are discouraged, too. Maybe they are bullied even more than old people for going to therapy and that makes them even less inclined to go.
The Question stem reads: The reasoning in the argument is the most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The stimulus begins by describing how many books describe the rules of etiquette. Usually, etiquette book authors classify behavior standards as polite or rude. We turn to the argument with the context indicator, however. The argument claims that the classifying behavior (as polite or rude) suggests there is a universal, objective standard of politeness. The argument subsequently claims that there are standards of politeness that vary from culture. The argument concludes that it is absurd to label a set of behaviors as correct and another set of behaviors as incorrect.
That is one of those rare Flaw questions that are hard to prephase. On the surface, it doesn't seem completely awful. At the very least, picking out a specifically egregious problem is difficult. Let's turn to the answer choices and see what we find.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. We can eliminate (A) because the argument does not make a conclusion on how people actually behave. Additionally, there are no premises that make a claim on how people ought to behave.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect because the argument does not make a generalization about all books. The stimulus says that authors of etiquette books usually classify behavior as polite or impolite. Additionally, the argument does not conclude that all etiquette books are absurd, merely the ones that label one set of behaviors as correct and another as incorrect. (B) would look better if the argument said something to the effect of: etiquette books are absurd; therefore, all etiquette books are absurd.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect because the argument does not rely on nor conclude anything about how these etiquette books actually influence behavior.
Correct Answer Choice (D) looks good. If it is true that etiquette books attempt to show what is polite or impolite in their specific cultures, there would be no suggestion of a universal standard of politeness. The fact that other cultures have different standards of politeness wouldn't be a problem for a book on British politeness because the author only suggests that these etiquette guidelines are British.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect because the argument is not attempting to strengthen itself by labeling the author's position as absurd; the argument is trying to prove that the author's position is absurd.