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?