Summary
The argument concludes that ABC Company should implement a flextime schedule in order to increase production. As support, the argument cites studies which have shown that flextime schedules improve morale.
Notable Assumptions
The argument goes from a premise stating that flextime improves morale to a conclusion that flextime would increase production. This depends on the assumption that an improvement in morale could lead to an increase in production.
A
the employees who prefer a flextime schedule are the most productive employees at ABC Company
Knowing about employees’ preferences isn’t necessary to establish a relationship between morale and production. This could be false without affecting the strength of the argument.
B
an increase in the morale of ABC Company’s employees could lead to increased production
Based on the claim that flextime improves morale, the argument concludes that flextime would increase production. This only makes sense if we assume that increasing morale could lead to increased production.
C
flextime schedules tend to be associated with reduced lateness and absenteeism
Even if this were not the case, it wouldn’t undermine the argument. A decrease in lateness and absenteeism isn’t necessary for morale to affect production.
D
employees are most productive during the part of the day when all employees are present
The argument wouldn’t be affected if this were not assumed—the argument just depends on morale affecting production, not the exact reason why. So, this isn’t necessary.
E
companies that are in competition with ABC Company also use a flextime schedule
The choices of competing companies aren’t essential to establish the argument’s support structure, making this unnecessary.
Summarize Argument
The argument’s conclusion is that a piece of candy made with X grams of cane sugar has no more calories than a piece of fruit containing X grams of fructose. This is based on the claim that cane sugar and fructose have the same amount of calories per gram.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument’s conclusion is about an overall property of candy and fruit, based on evidence about only one ingredient of candy and one component of fruit. In other words, the argument ignores the possibility that candy could have other ingredients that make it higher in calories than fruit, even though cane sugar and fructose have equivalent calorie counts.
A
fails to consider the possibility that fruit might contain noncaloric nutrients that candy does not contain
Whatever noncaloric nutrients fruit or candy contain, that’s irrelevant to this argument, which is only about calorie counts.
B
presupposes that all candy is made with similar amounts of sugar
The argument is limited to the hypothetical situation of a piece of candy and a piece of fruit with the same amount of sugar. It’s irrelevant whether real candies are made with varying amounts of sugar.
C
confuses one kind of sugar with another
The argument clearly distinguishes cane sugar and fructose, and never confuses them.
D
presupposes what it sets out to establish, that fruit does not differ from sugar-based candy in the number of calories each contains
The argument doesn’t presuppose its conclusion, but instead supports it with evidence about the caloric density of different sugars.
E
overlooks the possibility that sugar might not be the only calorie-containing ingredient in candy or fruit
The argument comes to a conclusion about the relative calories of candy and fruit based on evidence only about the types of sugar each one contains. However, if candy or fruit have other calorie-containing ingredients, the conclusion is thrown into question.
Keziah: You have misunderstood. The government has always spent far more, per user, from general revenue sources to fund highways than to fund mass transit. The additional revenue from the gasoline tax will simply allow the government to make its distribution of transportation funds more equitable.
Summarize Argument
Keziah concludes the proposed gasoline tax will allow the government to distribute transportation funds more equitably. As evidence, she points out that the government has always spent more from general revenue sources to fund highways compared to mass transit.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Keziah provides important context in order to support the idea that the proposed gasoline tax is fair. She does this by describing that historically, government funding for highways has been disproportionate compared to funding for mass transit. Since taxpayers in general have always paid more in favor of drivers, the gasoline tax will make funding more equitable by evening-out the tax burden.
A
elaborating the context of the issue in order to place the proposal in a more favorable light
The context is the fact that government has always spent more from general revenue resources to fund highways. With this context, the gasoline tax appears more fair and equitable.
B
appealing to the principle that what benefits society as a whole benefits all individuals within that society
Keziah does not appeal to this principle. Instead, she describes that funding for highways has always been unfairly supported by the general revenue fund, and the gasoline tax is meant to make this burden more equitable.
C
challenging the presupposition that fairness is an appropriate criterion on which to judge the matter
Keziah does accept fairness as an appropriate criterion. Contrary to Lambert, she believes the gasoline tax is actually a more equitable way to fund mass transit networks.
D
demonstrating that the proposed tax increase will not result in increased expenses for drivers
Keziah concedes that the gasoline tax will result in increased expenses for drivers. For Keziah, though, she believes that this is a more equitable way to fund mass transit networks.
E
declining to argue a point with someone who is poorly informed on the matter under discussion
Keziah does not make any claim that Lambert is poorly informed on the issue.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Sara definitely does not have a strep infection, despite having some symptoms of one. Why? Because Sara has the same symptoms as Michael, and the two of them play together every day. This leads to the sub-conclusion that Sara probably has the same illness as Michael. And Michael definitely doesn’t have a strep infection.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author draws a conclusion about what must definitely be the case based on evidence about what is probably the case. The conclusion is that Sara “definitely” doesn’t have strep, because Michael definitely doesn’t have strep. However, Sara and Michael only “probably” have the same illness.
A
presupposes what it sets out to prove
The author doesn’t presuppose that Sara doesn’t have strep—this conclusion is reached based on evidence about Sara’s symptoms matching with those of her playmate Michael, who doesn’t have strep.
B
mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon
The author isn’t making any claims about cause and effect.
C
fails to distinguish between acute streptococcal infections on the one hand, and less severe streptococcal infections on the other
The difference between acute and less severe strep infections isn’t relevant to the argument—the question is just whether Sara might have strep, not what type of strep she might have.
D
treats evidence that the conclusion is probably true as if that evidence establishes the certainty of the conclusion
The author reaches the conclusion that Sara definitely doesn’t have strep based on evidence that Sara probably has the same non-strep illness as Michael.
E
makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective groups that they are each intended to represent
The author never makes a general claim about any groups based on examples taken to be representative. The argument is just about individual children, groups are irrelevant.