The question stem reads: The Conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed? This is a Sufficient Assumption question.
Love is complicated in the real world, which is no different than love in the LSAT. It's possible to love someone and not be loved back. Unfortunately, love is not a biconditional. My previous relationships confirm that. While reading this stimulus, it is essential to see which "way" the love is going. Are you loving or being loved? The stimulus is short and conditional heavy, so let's break these down as we go. The stimulus starts with "whoever is kind is loved by somebody or another." This translates into the lawgic:
kind -> loved by someone
Next, the stimulus claims that "whoever loves anyone is happy." This translated into the lawgic:
Love anyone -> happy
The argument concludes, "Whoever is kind is happy." Translated:
Kind -> happy
Let's organize this argument into:
P1: Kind -> loved by someone
P2: Love anyone -> happy
______________________________________________
C: Kind -> happy
We can kick up the sufficient condition so we now have:
P3: Kind
P1: Kind -> loved by someone
P2: Love anyone -> happy
______________________________________________
C: Happy
We want to get to "happy," and P2 will get us there if we can satisfy "love anyone." Let's make that our necessary condition: (__) -> love anyone. Now we need to find a sufficient condition that will be satisfied by the argument. Notice how P3 satisfies the sufficient condition of P1, so we can infer that "loved by someone" occurs. Let's make "loved by someone" the sufficient condition of conditional: loved by someone -> love anyone. Now we have a valid argument:
P3: Kind
P1: Kind -> loved by someone
SA: Loved by someone -> love anyone
P2: Love anyone -> happy
______________________________________________
C: Happy
P3 will trigger P1, P1 triggers our SA, and our SA will trigger P2, which brings us to the desired conclusion of "happy." Happy is exactly what we are because we just solved this four-star problem. Let's move to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. If you picked (A), you likely misread P1 and thought that being kind meant you loved someone. You can rule out (A) quickly by seeing we are missing the concept of "loved by."
Answer Choice (B) is also out. You can rule out (B) because we are missing the concept of "loved by."
Answer Choice (C) is also out. We want to get to "happy," but (C) has "happy" in sufficient condition; we can rule (C) out.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is the contrapositive of our prephase. (D) translate to:
Loves no one -> loved by no one
We take the contrapositive:
/(loved by no one) -> /(loves no one)
Not being loved by no one means you are loved by someone. Not loving no one means you love someone. So we get our SA: "Loved by someone -> love anyone."
Answer Choice (E) is the most popular wrong answer. If you picked (E), you likely thought that (E) would let you infer "loves everyone." "Loves everyone" would satisfy "loves anyone" and deliver you to "happy." The problem with (E) is that it has "Kind" in the necessary. Remember, satisfying the necessary condition has no effect on the sufficient condition.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds? This is a Flaw question.
The author begins by claiming that it is clear that Egyptians were the first society to produce alcoholic beverages. That sounds like a conclusion; let's see the author's evidence for that claim. The author then describes how it had been thought the Babylonians were first because they had a process for fermentation around 1500 BC. However, archaeologists have found an Egyptian cup from 2000 B.C. With chemical residue that indicates it contained an alcoholic form of beer. So the author's argument uses the premise that the Egyptian cup is the oldest evidence of alcohol to conclude that Egypt must have been the first society to produce alcohol. Immediately, we can see the author's line of reasoning as flawed. Let's go back in time to 5 seconds before the archaeologists found this Egyptian cup. Then, the oldest evidence we had of alcohol was from the Babylonians. Using the authors' line of reasoning, we conclude that the Babylonians were the first society to produce alcohol. We would be subsequently proven wrong when the archeologists find the Egyptian cup 5 seconds later. All that was needed to prove our argument wrong was finding new evidence that an older civilization had alcohol. Let's return to the present, where the author claims that Egyptians must have been the oldest society to produce alcohol. How do we know we won't find even earlier evidence of alcohol in the future? We can't. The author has made an error in assuming what is true of the past must be true in the future. This is the Problem of Induction.
However, there is an even more fundamental problem. What we humans know has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter. Even if we could see into the future and determine that this Egyptian cup would be the oldest evidence we find, we could not say that Egyptians were, in fact, the first society to produce alcohol. An earlier society could have created alcohol but left no evidence behind for us to find. The upshot is that a lack of evidence for a claim does not constitute evidence that the claim is false.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect because the claim that Egypt was the first society to produce alcohol is not a generalization about Egyptian society. Either they were the first to produce alcohol, or they were not. A generalization would be that all Egyptians drank alcohol. If the author argued that all Egyptians drank alcohol because we found a single cup in a pharaoh's tomb, then (A) would look better.
Answer Choice (B) is wrong. The premises talk about two distinct types of alcoholic beverage (Egyptian beer vs. Babylonian wine). However, the conclusion talks about alcoholic beverages in general. Alcoholic beer counts as an alcoholic beverage.(B) would look better if the author used the old cup of Egyptian beer to conclude Egyptians were the first society to produce wine.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. If we mapped the stimulus onto (C), we would get the following: Because Egpyt developed fermentation before the Babylonians, the development of fermentation in Babylon depended on the development of fermentation in Egypt. Wildly off base from the argument, eliminate.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is what we prephased. The argument does ignore that the first known instance of alcohol (the Egyptian wine cup) is not the first instance of alcohol.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. While it is true that the author provides no evidence for the claim that they produced wine as early as 1500 BC, it is irrelevant. If it is true the Babylonians had wine as early as 1500 BC, the Egyptian cup is still older. If it is false, the Babylonians had wine as early as 1500 BC, and the Egyptian cup is still the oldest. Additionally, Even if the author provided evidence for the claim about Babylonian wine, we would still the argument would still be flawed due to the problem discussed in (D).
The question stem reads: Which one of the following, if true, best resolves the discrepancy above? This is a Resolve Reconcile Explain question.
In the Core Curriculum, we discussed how our job is to develop a hypothesis or explanation for the seemingly contradictory phenomena the stimulus provides. The stimulus tells us that "Sambar deer are physically incapable of digesting meat." Ok, the deer cannot consume and process meat for energy. But the stimulus also tells us that Sambar deer have been observed killing and feeding on box turtles. That’s puzzling. If the deer can’t eat meat, why are they killing and eating the box turtles? Our job is to explain that exact question.
Before we move into the answer choices, let's do some prephasing. We know that Sambar deer are incapable of digesting meat, so it would be bizarre if we noticed the deer consuming turtle meat. However, the stimulus says that the deer have been observed eating turtles. Is there more to a turtle than its meat? Of course there is! Perhaps the deer are eating the turtles' bones, skin, or eyes (are eyes meat? I digress). That would help explain the phenomena. The deer can’t digest meat, but they are not hunting and eating the turtles' meat; they are eating something else. Now that we have a solid prephase, we can join the Sambar deer and go hunting.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is exactly what we prephrased. (A) explains that the deer eat only the bony shell of the turtles. The deer are not killing and eating the turtles for meat (which the deer cannot digest); they are killing and eating the turtles for their shells.
Answer Choice (B) almost looks good but only provides a partial explanation. If you picked (B), you likely realized that (B) would explain why the deer kill the turtles when they cannot eat them. The deer aren't hunting the turtles. The deer are killing turtles by accident (turtle-slaughter?) However, (B) fails to explain why the deer go on to eat their unfortunate victims. Imagine your friend found you feeding on the carcass of a squirrel you had recently driven over and asked, "why are you doing that?" Responding through your blood-soaked teeth with, "I did it by accident," would leave your friend mildly horrified and still confused. For that reason, (B) is out.
Answer Choice (C) fails to explain both the eating and the killing. The fact that the deer kill and eat the turtles only on occasion does nothing to explain why they kill and eat the turtles when they cannot digest meat.
Answer Choice (D) is similar to (B) in providing only a partial explanation. (D) says that the turtles compete with the deer for food. That might explain why the deer have the incentive to kill the turtles. If they kill the turtles, the deer won't have to compete with them for food. However, that does not explain why they go on to eat the turtles. You could argue that the eating of the turtles is to strike fear into the other turtle's hearts and warn them away from the deer's territory. But at that point, though, we are making too many assumptions to make (D) work. So (D) is out.
Answer Choice (E) would explain how the deer are able to kill the turtles by saying that the deer are faster and more agile. However, our job isn’t to explain how the deer are killing the turtles, but why the deer are killing the turtles. For that reason, (E) is out.
The question stem reads: which of the following most accurately describes a way in which Willet's reasoning is questionable? This is a Flaw question.
The stimulus begins with Benson's argument. Because we are interested in Willet's argument, we do not need to evaluate Benson's argument. However, it is still important to read Benson's argument to understand the context in which Willet's reply is made. Benson believes that maintaining the quality of life in his city requires that the city restrict growth. That is why he supports the new zoning regulations.
Willet replies that he heard the same argument (that protecting the quality of life requires restricting growth) ten years ago and five years ago. He then says both times; the city council was justified in not restricting growth. So he agrees with the city council's decision not to restrict growth. Willet claims that since there is nothing new in this idea of restricting growth, he opposes the new zoning regulations that restrict growth.
Right here, we have the fallacious reasoning that what is true of the past must be true of the future, which is an example of the Problem of Induction. The classic example is concluding that all swans must be white because you have only seen white swans. The conclusion is proven false once you eventually encounter a black swan. Similarly, Willet is assuming that because the city council was justified in not restricting growth in the past, it must be the case that there is no reason to restrict growth now. However, there may be new reasons the city should restrict growth that didn't exist five and ten years ago.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect because Willet does not presume growth is necessarily good. We do not know his opinion on growth at all, only that the city council justified not restricting growth five and 10 years ago.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect because there is no attack on Benson's personality.
Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we discussed. Benson assumed that what was true in the past must be true in the present/future. However, there might be new reasons to restrict growth now that did not exist five and ten years ago.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because other factors contributing to quality of life are irrelevant not only to Willet's argument but Benson's also to Benson's argument. Benso claims that restricting growth is necessary for maintaining the quality of life (maintain quality of life -> restrict growth). So it would not matter how many other factors contribute to maintaining quality of life; failing to restrict growth would result in an inability to maintain quality of life ( the contrapositive: /restrict growth -> /maintain quality of life).
Answer Choice (E) is arbitrary. If you picked this, you likely missed that Willet claimed: "The city council was justified in deciding not to restrict growth." It does not matter how qualified or poorly qualified they were; their decisions were justified. One can both be poorly qualified to make a decision and end up making a justified decision. One can also be both highly qualified to make a decision and also make an unjustified decision (looking at you, American politics).
The question stem reads: Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument? This is a Weaken question.
The author begins by describing how the laboratory experiment, which is the most effective method for teaching science, is disappearing from secondary school curricula. Instead of the laboratory experiment, students are simulating experiments using computers. We then see that the author believes this (simulating) experiments on computers) should be stopped, which is the author's conclusion. The reason the author gives is that the practice of simulating experiments in high school results in many students going to university without knowing how to work with laboratory experiments. We can reorganize the argument to read:
P1: High school students are using computers to simulate experiments.
P2: Using computers to simulate experiments results in many students going to university without knowing how to work with lab equipment.
C1: Simulating experiments should be stopped.
I highlighted the should to indicate that this conclusion is normative. Normative claims deal with good and bad. However, nothing is inherently good or bad about the world; determining what is good and bad requires us to make a value judgment. Is there anything inherently wrong with intentionally driving over a squirrel? You might argue that deliberately mowing down squirrels is wrong because it takes away life. Then I would ask you why taking away life is bad. You say it causes suffering. I say, what is wrong with suffering… and you see where I am going here. The upshot is that normative claims can only arise from other normative claims. If I have a normative claim in the conclusion, I need a normative claim in the premises.
The conclusion that we should stop simulating experiments in high school is normative, so I need to have a normative premise. However, the premises are descriptive; they describe a state of affairs. So what if kids go to college without knowing how to use laboratory equipment? There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The author assumes that it is a bad thing when we do not know if it is. To weaken this question, we need to look for an answer choice that suggests that going to college without knowing how to use laboratory equipment is not bad. The correct AC does not need to destroy the argument. It merely needs to cast doubt on the conclusion.
Answer Choice (A) says it is difficult for secondary schools to keep up with scientific knowledge without using computers. We have multiple issues. That might be true, but there is more to computer usage than just simulating experiments, so we do not know if this AC is even relevant to the argument. Even if we modified this (A) to say "difficult to keep up without simulating experiments," this would still be an incorrect AC. So what if it is difficult to teach students without computers? Just because something is easier for schools to teach using computers, that does not mean it is the right thing to do.
Answer Choice (B) is wrong on multiple counts. First, these schools might still have students simulate experiments on the computer and observe the teacher in other experiments. Even if there were mutually exclusive practices, the more critical issue is that the author's argument is entirely unconcerned with schools that do not simulate experiments on computers. The author merely wants to say that schools using computer simulations should stop.
Answer Choice (C) is irrelevant to the argument. The fact that computers are useful for teaching scientific terminology does not rule out computer simulations' bad downstream effects on university students. It can be true that both computers are useful for teaching scientific terminology, and using computers to simulate experiments is bad for students.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because the fact that secondary schools and universities have invested a lot of money into computers does not magically make using computers to simulate experiments acceptably. The author would simply reply, "That's unfortunate." (D) is the sunk cost fallacy.
Correct Answer Choice (E) because it identifies a reason that students going to college without knowing how to use lab equipment might be bad and rules that out. If not knowing how to use laboratory equipment makes students ill-prepared to learn science, that certainly seems bad. (E) rules that possibility out by saying students can learn just fine without knowing how to use lab equipment.
A
Scientific knowledge is changing so rapidly it is difficult for secondary schools to keep up without using computers.
B
In some secondary schools, teachers conduct laboratory experiments while students observe.
C
Computers have proven to be a valuable tool for teaching secondary school students scientific terminology.
D
Secondary schools and universities across the nation have put a great deal of money into purchasing computers.
E
University students can learn science effectively without having had experience in working with laboratory equipment.
Elwell: But despite election rhetoric, to put together majority coalitions in democracies, politicians usually end up softening their stands on individual issues once they are elected.
A
politicians heighten the differences between themselves and their opponents during elections
B
basic policies change drastically when one party succeeds another in a democracy
C
in a democracy the best way of ensuring continuity in policies is to form a coalition government
D
most voters stay loyal to a particular political party even as it changes its stand on particular issues
E
the desire of parties to build majority coalitions tends to support democratic systems
The question stem reads: The career consultant's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that it. This is a Flaw question.
The consultant begins the argument by claiming the most popular career advice suggests emphasizing one's strengths and downplaying one's weaknesses to employers. The consultant then claims that research shows this advice to be incorrect. We have referential phrasing, so let's rephrase that claim to research shows emphasizing one's strengths and downplaying one's weaknesses to employers is bad advice. So if you are an employee, it is ill-advised to emphasize your good qualities and downplay your bad qualities, which is the consultant's conclusion.
Before we move forward, ask yourself what kind of research would provide the best evidence for the consultant's claim. Imagine if the consultant cited a study using dogs. Would you think that is excellent evidence for a claim about employees? Of course, you wouldn't because dogs are not the same as employees. Unless you are a Police K9, but let's not get too technical here. Good evidence would be research on employees. We want to be anticipating what the argument ought to say. If what the argument actually says deviates from what the argument ought to say, then bingo - we have found our flaw.
So what research does the consultant use? They say that a study of 314 managers shows that those who use self-deprecating humor in front of their employees are more likely to be seen by them (the employees) as even-handed, thoughtful, and concerned than those (the managers) who do not. Wait a minute, did the consultant just cite research about how managers present themselves to employees to conclude how employees should present themselves to employers? The argument uses evidence about one group to make a conclusion about another group. That is our flaw right there. Let's move to the answer choices.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is exactly what we identified as a flaw. When we map the stimulus onto (A), we get Bases a conclusion about how one group (managers) will respond to self-deprecation on information (the study of 314 managers) about how a different group (the employees) responds to it (self-depreciation). Bingo.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect because the argument's conclusion is not about humor; the conclusion says that employees should not downplay weakness and emphasize strength. If the consultant's conclusion were about how managers should use (any type of) humor in front of their employees, then (B) would look better.
Answer Choice (C) is wrong because the research cited by the consultant says that managers who used self-deprecating humor were in a more positive light than managers who did not use self-deprecating humor. So the proposed problem in (C) is covered by the argument. (C) would look better if the stimulus said, "Managers who used self-deprecating humor were seen positively by employees," instead of comparing the managers who used the humor and those who did not. Even then, we would still run into the mismatch between employees and managers.
Answer Choice (D) is simply not done by the argument. Eliminate it.
Answer Choice (E) is the popular wrong answer, but I think that is primarily out of desperation. It is difficult to map this onto the stimulus. Those who picked (E) likely saw that the manager made a conclusion about the popular career advice (to emphasize strengths and downplay weaknesses). However, the evidence cited by the researcher is not a critique of that career advice. It is simply research.