Sharon: The high number of citizens not registered to vote has persisted despite many attempts to make registering easier. Surveys show that most of these citizens believe that their votes would not make a difference. Until that belief is changed, simplifying the registration process will not increase the percentage of citizens registering to vote.
Speaker 1 Summary
Francis concludes that more people would register and vote if local election boards made the registration process easier. This is because failure to properly register prevents a large portion of the voting-age citizens from voting.
Speaker 2 Summary
Sharon concludes that until people start to think their votes make a difference, simplifying the registration process would not lead to more people registering and voting. This is because the portion of citizens who don’t register has been high even after prior attempts to simplify the registration process, and because surveys show most citizens think their votes won’t make a difference.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether making the registration process easier will lead to more people registering and voting.
A
whether changing the voter registration process would be cumbersome
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Francis speaks about a cumbersome registration process, but doesn’t say anything about whether changing the process will be cumbersome.
B
why so many citizens do not register to vote
This is a point of disagreement, although not framed in the way we might have predicted. Francis thinks so many people aren’t voting because of a difficult registration process. Sharon thinks the real problem is a belief that one’s vote doesn’t make a difference.
C
what percentage of those registered to vote actually vote
Sharon doesn’t express an opinion about what proportion of people aren’t registered to vote.
D
whether local election boards have simplified the registration process
Francis doesn’t express any opinion about this. She thinks more people would register to vote if the process were easier, but that doesn’t indicate any belief about whether some simplification has already occurred.
E
why the public lacks confidence in the effects of voting
Neither express an opinion about this. Although Sharon mentions that people don’t think their votes make a difference, she doesn’t describe why people think this way.
The publisher of a best-selling self-help book had, in some promotional material, claimed that it showed readers how to become exceptionally successful. Of course, everyone knows that no book can deliver to the many what, by definition, must remain limited to the few: exceptional success. Thus, although it is clear that the publisher knowingly made a false claim, doing so should not be considered unethical in this case.
Summarize Argument
We shouldn’t consider the publisher’s false claim (about promising exceptional results to readers) to be unethical. Why not? Because everyone knows that, by definition, it’s impossible for many people to achieve an “exceptional” result. (If it’s exceptional, it must be rare!)
Notable Assumptions
The author makes two key assumptions:
(1) That the publisher expected the book to be read by many people. (If the publisher didn’t think many people would actually read the book, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s impossible to promise exceptional results to many people.)
(2) That if everyone knows that a claim can’t possibly be true, it’s not unethical to make that false claim.
We’re looking for a principle that strengthens. Principles are often conditional rules, so an answer that supplies assumption (2), or its contrapositive, is a good prediction.
A
Knowingly making a false claim is unethical only if it is reasonable for people to accept the claim as true.
Everyone knows that the book can’t achieve for many people what the publisher claims it can. So, it’s not very reasonable for people to accept that claim. This triggers the contrapositive of (A), leading to the author’s conclusion: the claim isn’t unethical.
B
Knowingly making a false claim is unethical if those making it derive a gain at the expense of those acting as if the claim were true.
This tells us when knowingly making a false claim is unethical. But we want to support the conclusion that knowingly making such a claim is not unethical. So (B) can’t help us.
C
Knowingly making a false claim is unethical in only those cases in which those who accept the claim as true suffer a hardship greater than the gain they were anticipating.
For this to support the conclusion, we’d first need to fail the necessary condition, thus triggering the contrapositive. But the premise is silent on this necessary condition. We don’t know whether anyone suffers hardship.
D
Knowingly making a false claim is unethical only if there is a possibility that someone will act as if the claim might be true.
For (D) to work, the premise would need to suggest that there’s no chance anyone will act as if the publisher’s promise might be true. This would trigger the contrapositive. But the premise tells us what all people know, not how all people act on that knowledge.
E
Knowingly making a false claim is unethical in at least those cases in which for someone else to discover that the claim is false, that person must have acted as if the claim were true.
This tells us when knowingly making a false claim is unethical. But we want to support the conclusion that knowingly making such a claim is not unethical. So (E) can’t help us.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if human souls are immortal, then the bad will be punished. This is based on the fact that the existence of “moral order,” which is a state in which bad is always punished, depends on human soulds being immortal.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. The premise establishes that human souls being immortal is necessary in order for “moral order” (bad always punished) to exist. But this doesn’t imply that if human souls are immortal, that this would be sufficient for “moral order” to exist.
A
From the assertion that something is necessary to a moral order, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an element of the moral order to be realized.
The premise establishes that human souls’ immortality is necessary for moral order. But the author mistakenly thinks this is sufficient for an element of that mordal order to be true (the element of the bad always being punished).
B
The argument takes mere beliefs to be established facts.
The author does not assume or conclude that anything is an established fact. Although he describes what some cultures believe about moral order in the second sentence, he doesn’t suggest that these beliefs are true.
C
From the claim that the immortality of human souls implies that there is a moral order in the universe, the argument concludes that there being a moral order in the universe implies that human souls are immortal.
The author does not rely on a claim that immortality implies the existence of a moral order. Rather, the premise asserts that immortality is necessary for a moral order. Also, the conclusion does not assert that a moral order implies immortality.
D
The argument treats two fundamentally different conceptions of a moral order as essentially the same.
Although the author describes two conceptions of a moral order in the second sentence, the author does not treat these as the same. These play no role in supporting the conclusion. The conclusion is based on the first sentence, which describes what is necessary for a moral order.
E
The argument’s conclusion is presupposed in the definition it gives of a moral order.
The author does not use circular reasoning. The conclusion asserts that immortality is sufficient for an aspect of moral order. This idea is not assumed in the premise, which asserts instead that immortality is necessary for moral order.
Summary
The Security Council’s structure gives permanent veto power to only those nations that were major powers at the end of World War II. The reason is that major powers are the ones responsible for keeping world peace, and they shouldn’t be made to enforce decisions that they strongly disagree with.
Notable Assumptions
The support says why any major power should have veto powers. But there’s no explanation for why only the major powers at the end of World War II should have those veto powers, or why they should have them permanently. By the argument’s premises, any new major powers should also be given veto powers, and if one of the original five ceased to be a major power, there would be no more reason for it to have veto powers.
The reasoning must assume both that no new major powers will arise and that none of the original five will cease to be a major power.
A
it does not make sense to provide for democracy among nations when nations themselves are not all democracies
We don’t know whether the members of the Security Council are all democracies, or whether the Security Council’s veto structure fails to “provide for democracy.” Since the argument doesn’t involve either of these considerations, it can’t depend on any assumptions about them.
B
no nation that was not among the major powers at the end of the Second World War would become a major power
In other words, no other nations would become major powers. If negated—if other nations were to become major powers—the premises would support giving those other nations veto powers too. So the premises support restricting veto powers to the original five only if (B) is assumed.
C
nations would not eventually gravitate into large geographical blocs, each containing minor powers as well as at least one major power
Allegiances have no effect on the reasoning. The argument is that the five major powers should have permanent, sole veto power so that as peacekeepers, they can say “no” to decisions they strongly disagree with. Whether they form blocs is irrelevant.
D
minor powers would not ally themselves with major powers to gain the protection of the veto exercised by major powers
Allegiances have no effect on the reasoning. The argument is that the five major powers should have permanent, sole veto power so that as peacekeepers, they can say “no” to decisions they strongly disagree with. Whether those vetoes protect allies is irrelevant.
E
decisions reached by a majority of nations in response to threats to world peace would be biased in favor of one or more major powers
Whether decisions are biased has no effect on the reasoning. The argument is that the five major powers should have permanent, sole veto power so that as peacekeepers, they can say “no” to decisions they strongly disagree with. The content or bias of any decision is irrelevant.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that, contrary to the recent article, the rate of animal extinctions is indeed accelerating. She supports this hypothesis with the observation that more fish species have gone extinct since 1950 than went extinct between 1900-1950.
Notable Assumptions
The author takes a very small sample—the number of fish extinctions in each of two time periods—and assumes that they accurately reflect a trend toward increasing extinctions of animals in general. This means she assumes that fish extinctions weren’t significantly higher prior to 1900, and also that the rate of extinction hasn’t now started to slow down. She also assumes that the rate of fish extinctions accurately represents what’s happening with other animal species more broadly.
A
Were the fish species and subspecies that became extinct unrepresentative of animal species in general with regard to their pattern of extinction?
If yes, then there’s no reason to conclude that the overall rate of animal extinctions is increasing. If no, then the data on fish suggest more strongly that extinction is accelerating for other animals, too.
B
How numerous were the populations in 1950 of the species and subspecies of North American fishes that have become extinct since 1950?
Irrelevant—the argument isn’t concerned with the population dynamics of any individual species. The argument is focused solely on whether or not populations have gone completely extinct, and how the total number of extinctions is changing over time.
C
Did any of the species or subspecies of North American fishes that became extinct in the twentieth century originate in regions outside of North America?
Irrelevant—the origins of those fishes have no bearing on the extinction numbers being reported.
D
What proportion of North American fish species and subspecies whose populations were endangered in 1950 are now thriving?
Irrelevant—the argument isn’t concerned with the population dynamics of any individual species. The argument is focused solely on whether or not populations have gone extinct, and how the number of extinctions is changing over time.
E
Were any of the species or subspecies of North American fishes that became extinct in the twentieth century commercially important?
Irrelevant—the argument isn’t concerned with which fish species went extinct or what those species might have been used for. The argument is focused solely on the number of extinctions and how that number is changing over time.
A
The pursuit of paradise does not justify murder.
We never talked about “justifying” murder. Besides, the historian leaves open the possibility that murder would’ve been acceptable in Q had paradise been an attainable goal.
B
The pursuit of paradise justifies fanaticism.
The historian argues that ordinary people pursuing paradise are just ordinary people, not fanatics. We don’t care about what justifies being a fantatic.
C
Execution in pursuit of what is later found to be unattainable constitutes murder.
The historian concludes that many ordinary people in Q were murders precisely because their goal of paradise was unattainable. This principle perfectly validates that claim.
D
Fanaticism in pursuit of paradise constitutes inhumanity.
The historian never talks about inhumanity.
E
Enthusiasm in pursuit of what is eventually found to be unattainable constitutes fanaticism.
The historian says those people weren’t fanatics. Murderers, yes. But not fanatics.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The sociologist concludes that it is false that there is a large number of violent crimes. The sociologist supports this conclusion by proposing an alternative explanation for the large number of newspaper stories about violent crimes: because violent crimes are rare, newspapers are more likely to print stories about them when they happen.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “circular reasoning” flaw, where to support the conclusion, the argument uses a premise that already assumes the conclusion is true. Specifically, the sociologist claims as a premise that violent crime is rare, in order to provide support to the conclusion that violent crime is rare.
A
presupposes that most newspaper stories are about violent crime
The sociologist doesn’t make any claims about whether most newspaper stories are about violent crime, only that there are many newspaper stories about violent crime.
B
presupposes the truth of the conclusion it is attempting to establish
The argument presupposes the truth of violent crime being rare, using this claim as a premise to support the conclusion that violent crime is rare. The conclusion is already presupposed to be true through the premise, making this a circular argument.
C
assumes without warrant that the newspaper stories in question are not biased
The sociologist does not make any claim of whether the newspaper stories about violent crime are or aren’t biased. Bias just isn’t part of the sociologist’s argument.
D
mistakes a property of each member of a group taken as an individual for a property of the group taken as a whole
The properties of members of a group and that group as a whole are not being discussed, so this isn’t relevant to the sociologist’s argument.
E
uncritically draws an inference from what has been true in the past to what will be true in the future
The sociologist is not comparing the past to the future. The argument only deals with the current state of violent crime and newspaper articles about violent crime.
A
Regular exercise prevents weight gain.
Aerobic exercise helps stave off one negative consequence of quitting smoking. This supports the idea that picking up exercise helps people quit smoking.
B
Each group in the study included four hundred randomly selected participants.
The study had a solid sample-size. Works for us.
C
Nonsmokers accustomed to regular exercise do not gain weight when they stop exercising.
We don’t care about nonsmokers. We care about how exercise can help smokers quit smoking.
D
Aerobic exercise can stimulate the brain’s production of endorphins, which reduce tension.
Exercise helps diminish tension, which is a negative side effect of quitting smoking. This supports the idea that picking up exercise helps people quit smoking.
E
Of those in the second group in the study, 38 percent had not smoked at the one-year mark.
The people who quit smoking didn’t relapse later on. Thus, exercise was indeed helpful for quitting smoking.