We start with the question stem: Which of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument? This is a Main Conclusion question.
The stimulus begins by stating, “Baumgartner’s comparison of the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered cars with those of electric cars is misleading.”
Ok, that sure sounds like a claim that I need to be convinced of. If this is the Main Conclusion, then the argument will give premises to support that idea. The author then goes on to say that “Baumgartner examines only production of the cars, whereas it is the product's total life cycle - production, use, and recycling - that matters in determining the environmental impact.” Ok, that definitely Supports the idea that Baumgartner is misleading. You can’t compare the two books by looking only at the first chapter; you need to compare the entirety of the book. Similarly, you can’t compare cars by looking only at production; you need to look at production + use + recycling. Baumgartner made an error by only looking at a small piece of the puzzle, the production, when you actually need to examine more. This is a reason why Baumgartner’s comparison is misleading.
The author doesn't think you should take his word for it that production and use, and recycling should be considered. He provides evidence for the claim by saying that a typical gasoline-powered car both consumes more resources and pollutes more than an electric car. So the idea that gas cars consume more and pollute more are Minor Premises that support the Sub Conclusion that we should consider production, use, and recycling to determine environmental impact. The Sub Conclusion supports the Main Conclusion that Baumgartner’s comparison is misleading when he only evaluated a small piece, the production, of the larger environmental impact puzzle. Since our job is to identify the Main Conclusion, we can now go to the answer choices to figure out which one expresses the same idea.
Correct Answer Choice (A) While saying that “Baumgartner makes a deceptive comparison between the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered and electric cars” is slightly more pointed, it gets at the idea that the comparison is misleading. This is the correct answer.
Answer Choice (B) is a minor premise that supports the sub conclusion in Answer Choice (D). Since this is a Main Conclusion question, both of these are wrong.
Answer Choice (C) is a popular trap answer choice, the trap being “inaccurate data.” A test-taker who picks this answer realizes that the author is saying that Baumgartner’s evidence is insufficient, but the test-taker inaccurately assumes that it is because the data is inaccurate. Does the author charge Baumgartner with using inaccurate data? No. The author simply claims that the data Baumgartner uses is not the full story. Take a shot every time the author is inaccurate jeez.
Answer Choice (E) is not the Main Conclusion, and even worse, it’s an assumption. Earlier, we discussed how we actually do not know the environmental impact of gas vs. electric cars. All we know is that gas cars consume more and pollute more. We do not know if producing gas-powered cars is more environmentally hazardous than producing electric cars. While the author does argue Baumgartner’s analysis of production is misleading, we do not know the way it is misleading. Is it a matter of degree? Does Baumgartner think producing gas-powered cars is less environmentally damaging? Does the author think producing gas-powered cars is less environmentally damaging? The answer to all of these questions is “maybe.”
A
How much more salt than is contained in a rat’s normal diet was there in the high-salt diet?
B
Did the high blood pressure have any adverse health effects on those rats that developed it?
C
What percentage of naturally occurring rat colonies feed on high-salt diets?
D
How many rats in the colony studied had abnormally high blood pressure before the study began?
E
Have other species of rodents been used in experiments of the same kind?
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.
The psychologist does give some reasons why some elderly people may be reluctant to try psychotherapy (social stigma against the treatment and age discrimination) but these reasons provide context for the idea that the psychologist is arguing against.
A
Certain psychotherapists practice age discrimination.
B
Elderly people are better able to benefit from psychotherapy than are younger people.
C
Elderly people should not be reluctant to undergo psychotherapy.
D
Characteristics associated with maturity are important factors in psychotherapy’s success.
E
Elderly people are less inclined to try psychotherapy than are younger people.
A
Even water that contains up to 5,000 milligrams of dissolved salt per liter is safe to drink.
B
The concentration of dissolved salt in Albritten’s groundwater is expected to reach 400 milligrams per liter within a few decades.
C
Salting icy roads is the simplest way to prevent accidents on those roads.
D
Albritten’s groundwater contained roughly 90 milligrams of dissolved salt per liter 20 years ago.
E
Salting of Albritten’s roads is likely to decrease over the next few decades.
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.
Having striking musical ideas is not required to contribute to a jazz recording.