This is a method of reasoning “except” question, which means there will be 4 answer choices that are method of reasoning answer choices that are correct and one that is not a method of reasoning used in the argument - the latter is the correct answer. We know this is a MR question because of the questions stem: In order to advance her point of view, the author does all of the following EXCEPT...
The first sentence gives us a question: do people who pluck their gray hairs out have a more negative attitude toward older people than those who don’t care about their grays? The answer is given in a conditional: If a person’s psychopathology does not make them overgeneralize, there is no connection. This is because it’s fine to dislike the idea of getting older while liking elderly people. The other reason is that it’s immoral to dislike older people just because they’re old, according to the stimulus. Adding onto this, there is nothing wrong about disliking the idea of getting older. That conditional is our conclusion and everything after that is support given for this conclusion.
Answer Choice (A) describes what the conclusion is doing - it’s saying the assertion posed in the question is not necessary.
Answer Choice (B) is what the author is doing in the third sentence: “Clearly, it is reasonable...”
Answer Choice (C) is a method of reasoning employed in the stimulus - the general principle is the fact that it is immoral to be ageist.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is a method of reasoning that is NOT used in the stimulus. We’re leaning into stereotypes of the elderly (graying, eyesight), not discrediting them.
Answer Choice (E) is a method used - it’s the fourth sentence.
This is a flaw question, and we know this because of the question stem: which one of the following indicates an error in the reasoning leading to the prediction above?
We’re told that the national savings rates for certain countries have dropped. Since older people have fewer reasons to save than do younger people, this trend of decreasing savings rate will continue if the average age of the population continues to get older.
If older people have fewer reasons to save, does that mean that what their saving up for is worth less? Maybe older people just have distinct priorities, for example retirement, house, and car. All of these are huge investments. Younger people might be saving up for more things, but these things could be worth a lot less. It is not logical to assume that quantity is proportional to value.
Answer Choice (A) is descriptively accurate; however, it is not a flaw. The reason the argument is flawed has nothing to do with listing out many reasons younger people have and the strongest of those reasons. It’s about how these reasons compare to older people’s reasons.
Answer Choice (B) is not descriptively accurate. Nowhere does the argument assume that a negative savings rate can’t happen.
Answer Choice (C) is descriptively accurate but it isn’t the flaw. The average age rising comes into play in the conclusion where this is the sufficient condition: if the age rises, then the savings rate will drop lower. The author is not outright claiming that age is rising and does not need to do this.
Correct Answer Choice (D) addresses the argument overlooking the difference between amount and value. This is perfect.
Correct Answer (E) is descriptively accurate but it’s not the flaw. The different kind of taxes being compared does have anything to do with age increasing.
The flaw/descriptively weakening questions, we know this because of the question stem: A flaw in the argument is that the author...
We’re first told that a common procedure for figuring out whether a food additive should be banned is to compare health-related benefits with risks. We’re then given a specific food additive: Yellow Dye No. 5. This could cause allergic reactions for some people. However, the yellow die enhances the drinking experience for some consumers. The argument concludes that because the benefits of enjoying the drink greatly outweighs the allergic reaction risk, the food dye should not be banned.
This argument is internal incoherent. Remember the first sentence we’re giving says that in order to assess whether a food additive should be banned, we should compare it’s health-related benefits to the risks. Enjoyment is not really a “health-related” benefit, it’s just a benefit. Based on what criteria we have in the argument, the conclusion does not logically follow.
Answer Choice (A) is not right because the argument does not imply this; this answer choice is not descriptively accurate. The stimulus implies that enjoyment is a health-related benefit, which isn’t reasonable.
Correct Answer Choice (B) demonstrates the flaw within the argument - the equivocation of enjoyment of a beverage to a health-related benefit.
Answer Choice (C) is descriptively accurate: the stimulus does ignore the possibility that some additives harm people. But this is not a flaw in the argument; this is not even within the scope of what the argument is talking about.
Answer Choice (D) is not good either; remember, we have to accept our premises. The claim about yellow dye has to be accepted.
Answer Choice (E) is debatable on whether it’s relatable. Let’s be generous and say it is. This still isn’t a flaw. What about the some that do not pay attention to the warning labels and are allergic to the dye? Would the enjoyment benefit still outweigh the risks?
This is a weakening question, since the question stem demands: Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion that change in the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field happened very slowly?
The stimulus begins with the conditional indicator when, and tells us that whenever lava solidifies, it necessarily magnetizes in the direction that the earth’s magnetic field points at the moment of solidification. Interesting! The next sentence gives us some more information about this event, namely that lava flows from different volcanos that erupted at different points over the past several million years are magnetized in different directions. From this evidence, the next sentence concludes that the direction’s of the earth’s magnetic field has changed over time. Seems like a fairly reasonable conclusion! The next sentence begins with the support indicator since, and whenever we see a sentence that takes the form “since X, Y”, we should expect X to be the final premise introduced before the conclusion Y. That’s exactly what we get here. The final premise tells us that lava flows that are separated by only a few thousand years have very similar magnetization directions. Based on this and our sub-conclusion from the last sentence, the stimulus ends with the main conclusion that the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field changes gradually. Our job is to select the answer choice which most weakens this conclusion; we want something that suggests non-gradual change. Let’s anchor ourselves in the argument, and consider the implications of the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) This answer might be tempting because the movement of the liquids is described as chaotic, but there’s no reason why a gradual change couldn’t have a chaotic cause.
Answer Choice (B) If anything this answer would suggest gradual change, since we have not detected any real change during the short period we have been monitoring the field.
Answer Choice (C) The problem with this answer is that we don’t know what a complete reversal means in this case; maybe it was a very small change. And even if it was a significant change, it occurred over a long time period (a few million years), so it could still be entirely consistent with gradual change.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This answer does what C fails to; it introduces a significant change in a short timespan. A significant change in the span of weeks is completely inconsistent with a theory of gradual change over thousands of years.
Answer Choice (E) This answer is just entirely irrelevant to the gradual change theory we want to undermine. Who cares how long some lava flows will take to solidify, we want to know whether the magnetic field the point to is changing rapidly!
This is a weakening question, which we should recognize as the question stem says: Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
The stimulus begins by informing us that stress is not one of the primary complaints of workers. Following this context, the author cites a recent survey in which boredom was listed as the main complaint of a majority of workers. Based on this survey, the author concludes that job-related stress is not the most serious problem for workers. Our job is to weaken this conclusion. One thing we should notice is that the support concerns what workers complain about, while the conclusion is about what the most serious problem for workers is. Surely it's possible to not complain the most about something even if it is your most serious problem! Let's see what the answer choices have in store for us:
Answer Choice (A) We are interested in whether there is a reason to assume that stress is the most serious problem workers in the corporate world face. This only tells us that a particular subset of workers is less likely to complain about stress than are workers as a whole.
Correct Answer Choice (B) If boredom correlates with stress, and a majority of workers complain of boredom, then we have a reason to believe that the study the author cites actually suggests that stress might be the most serious problem workers face.
Answer Choice (C) This answer may somewhat weaken the accuracy of the survey, insofar as workers may be exaggerating recent experiences of boredom, but it does so in a fairly minor way, and the survey being somewhat poorer evidence does not significantly weaken the argument as a whole.
Answer Choice (D) This just tells us about a subset of workers and how they complain about boredom. There is nothing here for us to work with to weaken the argument's actual conclusion.
Answer Choice (E) Seems reasonable, but I don't see how this would weaken the conclusion that stress is not the main problem for corporate workers. We are interested in stress, not the relative tendency to complain.
This is a weakening question, though I’d forgive you if you failed to immediately identify it as it throws a particularly dense question stem at us. This is one of those question stems that introduces a final premise which is to be added to the stimulus in our judgment of the answer choices, but in this case, it does so in an incredibly confusing way. Our objective is to specifically weaken an interpretation that holds that the lines serve unrelated purposes rather than refer to astronomical phenomena. Despite the density of this question stem, what should tip us off that it is specifically a weakening question is that it asks: which one of the following, if true, most effectively counters.
The first sentence of the stimulus is very strangely worded, but what we should pick up on is that these lines are ancient, about as wide as a footpath, and stretch long distances; sounds like some old roads! We next learn that these lines form giant shapes, and that one where a bunch of lines emerge from a point intersects with one shaped like a bird; ok not sounding so much like roads anymore. The rest of the stimulus concerns the interpretation of an investigator who thinks the markings are landing strips for aliens and argues that they couldn’t have been roads. From him, we learn a bunch of information that casts doubt on the roads hypothesis; the lines run in strange patterns and will sometimes just end in the middle of the desert. Our job is to weaken an explanation of these weird lines which interprets their shapes as serving unrelated purposes, and specifically to do so from a perspective that believes the lines have an astronomical purpose. Let’s see what we get in the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) Interesting, but we are trying to weaken the interpretation that these specific lines in Peru had no purpose; what North American peoples do isn’t of interest to us.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This answer strongly suggests that the lines have an astronomical purpose which unites the straight lines (observation spot) with the figure (represents a constellation).
Answer Choice (C) This fails to weaken the interpretation that the figures are unrelated; in fact, it seems to suggest the straight lines are part of a complex of patterns and have nothing to do with the bird.
Answer Choice (D) Similar to A, this brings in a different phenomenon and does nothing to explain how the straight lines and bird figure could have together served an astronomical purpose.
Answer Choice (E) This strengthens the hypothesis we want to weaken; if one was made well before the other, it’s far more likely they were unrelated.