Self-study
Support There are rumors that the Premier will reshuffle the cabinet this week. ████████ █████ ████████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████
Summary
The author concludes that the rumors about the premier planning to reshuffle his cabinet are likely false. The reasoning is that in prior instances where it happened, such a move was always preceded by a meeting between the premier and cabinet members, and this time, no meetings have occurred.
Notable Assumptions
Since previous reshuffles were preceded by a meeting, we would expect, based on previous experience, that another reshuffle would also be preceded by a meeting. This is the evidence the author uses to conclude the rumor is likely false. But fundamentally, this is an argument about the present, based on the past. Thus, it relies on the principle that we can apply expectations based on past experiences to the present.
10.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ █████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████
a
When a conclusion ███████ █████████ ████ █ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ █████
The point of the question is that the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow logically from the premises — we are trying to find a principle that is used implicitly in the argument. And the argument isn’t talking about how probabilities transfer from premises to the conclusion.
b
A hypothesis is ██████████ ████ █ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ █████
(B) means that a conclusion is undermined when what we would expect to happen if the conclusion was true doesn’t actually happen. (B) says that if we expect that a reshuffle would be preceded by a meeting, and a meeting doesn’t happen, a reshuffle is less likely.
c
It is possible ███ █ ██████████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███ █████████ █████
Here, the hypothesis that the premier will reshuffle the cabinet isn’t supported by all the available data. In fact, the author gives reasons that the hypothesis is unlikely to be true. So (C) isn’t relevant.
d
Even if in ███ ████ █ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██████████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ███ █████████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ █████████
The argument is trying to conclude that it is proper, not erroneous, to assume a phenomenon will recur only under the circumstances in which it previously occurred. Additionally, the phenomenon (reshuffle) wasn’t necessarily caused by the circumstances (meeting) in the past.
e
If two statements ███ █████ ██ ██ ████████████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ █████ █████ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ █████
This is true, but it’s not used in the argument. We’re not given 2 statements that are inconsistent with each other.