Psychiatrist: We are learning that neurochemical imbalances can cause behavior ranging from extreme mental illness to less serious but irritating behavior such as obsessive fantasizing, petulance, or embarrassment. These findings will promote compassion and tolerance when looking at a mental illness, quirk, or mere difference between two persons, since being mentally healthy can now begin to be seen as simply having the same neurochemical balances as most people.
Summarize Argument
The psychiatrist predicts that recent findings about the neurochemical causes of behavioral issues will result in a more compassionate, tolerant view of things like mental illness and behavioral differences. Why the kinder view? Because people can start to view the idea of “mental health” as really just a certain neurochemical balance that happens to be more common.
Identify Conclusion
The psychiatrist’s conclusion is his prediction: “These findings [about neurochemical balances being a cause of mental illness and other issues] will promote compassion and tolerance when looking at a mental illness, quirk, or mere difference between two persons.”
A
Understanding the role of the neurochemical in behavior will foster empathy toward others.
This paraphrases the psychiatrist’s conclusion: knowledge about how neurochemical imbalances affect behavior will “promote compassion and tolerance” or “foster empathy” toward those with mental health or behavioral issues.
B
Neurochemical imbalances can cause mental illness and other behaviors.
The psychiatrist uses this fact as context. His conclusion is that this fact will produce a certain effect: it will promote compassion and tolerance toward those with mental health or behavioral issues.
C
Neurochemical balances and imbalances are the main determinants of mental behavior.
The psychiatrist never suggests what the main determinant of mental behavior is. He merely states that neurochemical balances and imbalances are one potential determinant.
D
Being mentally healthy is a matter of having the same neurochemical balances as most people.
The psychiatrist states that mental health can be viewed this way, but this forms his premise, not his conclusion. The fact that mental health can be seen in this light leads him to conclude that people will become more tolerant of mental health and behavioral issues.
E
Advances in neurochemistry enhance our theories of mental illness.
The psychiatrist doesn’t reach any conclusions about theories of mental illness. He presents findings about a possible cause of mental illness, and concludes that those findings will affect people’s attitudes.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The physicist concludes that determinism (the view that every event is guaranteed by the state of the universe immediately before) is false. This is supported by the fact that it’s impossible to know the entire state of the universe at any given time. In turn, that claim is supported by the impossibility of measuring both the position and the velocity of subatomic particles at the same time.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The flaw in this argument is that the physicist mixes up the factual state of the universe with human knowledge about the state of the universe. Just because we can’t know everything about the universe at any given time, that doesn’t disprove the idea that there can be a complete and determined state of the universe.
A
That it is impossible to measure accurately both the position and velocity of any given subatomic particle does not imply that it is impossible to know either the position or velocity of all subatomic particles.
Like (C), the physicist doesn’t rely on the idea that it’s impossible to know either the position or velocity of all subatomic particles. The physicist’s point is just that we can’t know both of those things at the same time.
B
That the complete state of the universe at any given time is unknowable does not imply that the states at that time of the individual subatomic particles making it up are unknowable.
This gets the argument backwards. The physicist claims that the states of particles are unknowable to imply that the complete state of the universe is unknowable—which is totally reasonable.
C
That it is impossible to measure accurately both the position and velocity of any given subatomic particle at a particular time does not imply that its position or velocity cannot be accurately measured separately.
Like (A), this isn’t a flaw because it isn’t an assumption the physicist actually makes. The physicist’s point is that we can’t ever know both of these things at the same time. Whether we can know one or the other is irrelevant.
D
That it is impossible to know the complete state of the universe at any given time does not imply that there is no complete state of the universe at that time.
This is the flaw, because the physicist only focus on our knowledge about the universe, but draws a conclusion about the factual state of the universe. Without a link between knowledge and the factual state of the universe, the conclusion isn’t supported.
E
That the position and velocity of any given subatomic particle cannot be jointly measured with accuracy does not imply that this is the case for the position and velocity of all subatomic particles.
This just isn’t the case—if no individual particle’s position and velocity can be measured at the same time, then of course the position and velocity of all particles can’t be measured at the same time.
Summary
Jack decided not to make his aunt’s will public. This decision was based on the following:
If the will was made public, his aunt’s money would go to someone who would squander the money, benefiting nobody.
If the will was not made public, the money would go to Jack’s mother, which would benefit her and others, and harm no one.
If the will was made public, his aunt’s money would go to someone who would squander the money, benefiting nobody.
If the will was not made public, the money would go to Jack’s mother, which would benefit her and others, and harm no one.
Missing Connection
We want to justify Jack’s decision not to make the will public. The premises concern the consequences of making the will public vs. not making the will public. We want to connect these consequences to what one should do in a way that proves not making the will public was the right course of action. For example:
When choosing between two options, choose one that benefits at least one person over one that doesn’t benefit anyone.
When choosing between two options, choose one that benefits at least one person over one that doesn’t benefit anyone.
A
Duties to family members take priority over duties to people who are not family members.
We don’t know whether Jack has a duty to allow his mother to get the money. In addition, Jack’s aunt is a family member. So potentially there might be a duty to follow the wishes of her will. (A) doesn’t prove that Jack’s decision was appropriate.
B
Violating a promise is impermissible whenever doing so would become known by others.
Jack violated the promise to his aunt. We want to establish that his decision was appropriate. But (B) tells me when violating a promise is impermissible. It doesn’t prove when violating a promise should be done.
C
One must choose an alternative that benefits some and harms no one over an alternative that harms some and benefits no one.
We don’t know whether the alternative of making the will public “harms some.” We know that it benefits no one, but we don’t know that it harms someone. So (C) doesn’t provide a principle that applies to Jack’s decision.
D
When faced with alternatives it is obligatory to choose whichever one will benefit the greatest number of people.
Making the will public benefited no one. But withholding the will from the public benefited at least Jack’s mother. So withholding the will from the public benefited the greatest number of people. According to (D), then, Jack was obligated to withhold the will from the public.
E
A promise becomes nonbinding when the person to whom the promise was made is no longer living.
(E) establishes that Jack was not bound by his promise to his aunt. But that doesn’t establish that Jack’s decision was appropriate. Just because he was morally allowed to go against his promise to his aunt does not imply that it was something he should have done.
Summarize Argument
Premise 1:
Understand architecture of PC → computer scientist (”only” introduces necessary condition)
Premise 2:
Appreciate tech advances → understand architecture of PC (”only” introduces necessary condition)
Conclusion:
Computer scientist → Appreciate tech advances (”only” introduces necessary condition)
Identify and Describe Flaw
The premises allow us to conclude that appreciating tech advances requires that one be a computer scientist. But the author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions of this inference. The author mistakenly thinks that being a computer scientist requires appreciating the tech advances. This overlooks the possibility that there might be some computer scientists that don’t appreciate the tech advances.
(The conclusion would have been valid if it had said “only computer scientists appreciate the tech advances.”)
A
The argument contains no stated or implied relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advances in technology in the last decade.
This is false. The argument allows us to infer that appreciating the advances requires being a computer scientist.
B
The argument ignores the fact that some computer scientists may not appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade.
The possibility described in (B) undermines the argument by showing that one can be a computer scientists without needing to appreciate the tech advances; this shows why the conclusion doesn’t have to be true.
C
The argument ignores the fact that computer scientists may appreciate other things besides the advances in technology made in the last decade.
The author never argued that computer scientists never appreciate anything else besides technology advances. So the fact allegedly ignored has no impact on the reasoning.
D
The premises of the argument are stated in such a way that they exclude the possibility of drawing any logical conclusion.
We can draw a logical conclusion — appreciating the tech advances requires being a computer scientist. The flaw isn’t that the author drew a conclusion when he shouldn’t have drawn any conclusion, it’s that the author drew an improper conclusion.
E
The premises of the argument presuppose that everyone understands the architecture of personal computers.
The first premise states that only computer scientists understand the architecture of PCs. So the argument does not assume that “everyone” (including non-computer scientists) understands the architecture of PCs.
Anika: I disagree with your prediction. Our customers already are antiques experts. Furthermore, hiring professional appraisers would push up our costs considerably, thus forcing us to raise the prices on all our antiques.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Anika rejects inez’s prediction. As evidence, Anika points out customers are already antique experts and that hiring antique experts would cause prices to increase.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Anika counters the position held by Inez. She does this by predicting a cause-and-effect relationship: if professional appraisers were hired, this would cause the price of antiques to increase.
A
indicating that a particular plan would have an effect contrary to the anticipated effect
The anticipated effect Inez predicts is that people would be more willing to buy antiques. On the other hand, Anika claims that hiring professional appraisers would cause prices for antiques to increase and thus may not result in people being more willing to buy.
B
claiming that a particular plan should not be adopted because, while effective, it would have at least one undesirable consequence
Anika does not believe that Inez’s plan would be effective. Rather, she believes that Inez’s plan would have an effect directly contrary to the goal of selling antiques.
C
arguing that an alternative plan could achieve a desired result more easily than the plan originally proposed
Anika does not present an alternative plan. Rather, she only addresses the weakness of Inez’s plan.
D
questioning the assumption that authorities are available who have special knowledge of the problem under discussion
Anika does not question the existence of professional appraisers that could authenticate antiques. Rather, she questions the assumption why professional appraisers are needed given that customers are already experts.
E
offering a counterexample in order to show that a particular general claim is too broadly stated
Anika does not present a counterexample. Rather, she makes a general prediction about the unintended consequences of Inez’s plan.
Summarize Argument
The president concludes that the only options for Central Supply Company are to reduce planned expansion, or to eliminate less profitable existing operations. Why? Because if the company’s profits stay low, it may go bankrupt. Because of this, the company needs to prevent further decreases in its already low profits.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Based on the company’s need to prevent its profits from falling, the president concludes that there are only two options: reducing expansion or cutting existing operations. The flaw here is that we have no reason to think that other options might not also be possible—the president never addresses other possibilities. For example, why not increase advertising, or improve existing products?
A
It presumes without giving justification that survival of the company has been a good thing.
The president doesn’t ever claim that the company’s survival has been a good thing. The argument is about preventing bankruptcy, not about weighing the company’s impact so far.
B
It does not take into account that there are alternatives to declaring bankruptcy.
The president’s whole argument is about what alternatives may be possible instead of the company needing to declare bankruptcy.
C
It presumes without giving justification that only decreased demand can ever be the cause of decreased profits.
The president never claims that decreased demand is the only thing that can ever cause decreased profits. Saying that decreased demand caused decreased profits in this particular case is not the same thing.
D
It does not allow for the possibility that profits will decrease only slightly during the next fiscal year.
Whether or not it’s possible that profits will decrease only slightly next year is irrelevant to the argument. We already know that if profits continue to fall, the company may go bankrupt. How much they fall doesn’t change that.
E
It does not take into account that there may be other ways to stop the decrease in profits.
The president concludes that there are only two ways to stop the company’s profits from falling, but never tells us why those are the only options. This is a flaw because it means an important part of the conclusion—that these are the “only” options—lacks support.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the “special ink” printing practice should be adopted to fight counterfeit, despite its expense. This is because the standard microprinting practice has serious problems, whereas the “special ink” practice would be more effective.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the practice that reduces counterfeit the most should be adopted, without consideration for the cost associated with that practice. The author also assumes that further technological advances won’t soon allow counterfeiters to evade the “special ink” practice, or even that counterfeiters don’t currently have the ability to do so.
A
The longer the interval between the time a counterfeit bill passes into circulation and the time the counterfeit is detected, the more difficult it is for law enforcement officials to apprehend the counterfeiter.
This seems to support the author’s argument. If current practices don’t identify counterfeit bills quickly enough, those bills proliferate. Hence why we need a practice that catches those bills immediately.
B
Sophisticated counterfeiters could produce currency printed with the special ink but cannot duplicate microprinted currency exactly.
Counterfeiters can perfectly replicate the “special ink” practice, which defeats the purpose of adopting it in the first place.
C
Further advances in photocopying technology will dramatically increase the level of detail that photocopies can reproduce.
If anything, this gives even more reason to switch from the microprinting practice. Photocopying technology will soon render microprinting useless as a defence against counterfeiters.
D
The largest quantities of counterfeit currency now entering circulation are produced by ordinary criminals who engage in counterfeiting only briefly.
Generally, people who create counterfeit bills aren’t committed specialists. This suggests that the “special ink” practice, given its expense, may be effective against counterfeit-makers.
E
It is very difficult to make accurate estimates of what the costs to society would be if large amounts of counterfeit currency circulated widely.
We don’t care about how counterfeit harms society. We need to weaken the idea that the “special ink” practice should be adopted as a defence against counterfeit.