Summary
After 1712, all new books legally published in a certain country were approved by a censor.
Under the first censor, 50% of the manuscripts submitted to the censor were approved for publication.
Under the second censor, 75% of the manuscripts submitted to the censor were approved for publication.
Under both censors, the number of manuscripts that were approved was the same.
Under the first censor, 50% of the manuscripts submitted to the censor were approved for publication.
Under the second censor, 75% of the manuscripts submitted to the censor were approved for publication.
Under both censors, the number of manuscripts that were approved was the same.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
The overall number of manuscripts submitted was higher under the first censor than under the second. This is the only way that the number of manuscripts approved could be the same, but the proportion of manuscripts approved smaller under the first censor.
A
More books critical of Country Y’s government were published before the appointment of the first censor than after it.
We don’t know whether any manucripts were critical of the government or whether the number that were critical were higher or lower under the first censor. Don’t assume that if the censor didn’t approve, the manuscript was critical.
B
The first censor and the second censor prohibited the publication of the same number of book manuscripts.
False, because the first censor prohibited a higher number than the first. The second censor prohibited 25%, while the first prohibited 50%. If the number approved was the same for both censors, then the overall number submitted was higher under the first. 50% of a bigger number is larger than 25% of a smaller number.
C
More book manuscripts were submitted for approval to the first censor than to the second.
Must be true, because 50% were approved under the first, and 75% were approved under the second, but the number approved was the same. For example, let’s say number approved was 6. 50% of 12 submitted = 6 approved. 75% of 8 submitted = 6 approved. 12 is greater than 8.
D
The second censor allowed some book manuscripts to be published that the first censor would have considered critical of Country Y’s government.
Not supported, because we have no idea whether the same kinds of manuscripts were submitted to the second censor. There could be a different set of manuscripts about different subjects and raising different concerns.
E
The number of writers who wrote unpublished manuscripts was greater under the first censor than under the second.
We don’t know anything about the number of writers. We only know about the number of submissions from writers. One writer can submit multiple manuscripts.
Keisha: Anarchists have always been few in number, whereas other ideologies have often spawned mass movements. Therefore, the proportion of anarchists who are violent is possibly greater than the proportion of adherents of other ideologies who are violent.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to Tony’s claim that the association between anarchism and political violence is unwarranted, Keisha concludes that the proportion of violent anarchists is possibly greater in comparison to other ideologies. As evidence, she points out that anarchism has always had few members in comparison with other ideologies.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Keisha counters the position held by Tony. She does this by positioning the small number of violent anarchists in the context of the total population of anarchists. Even if violent anarchists are outnumbered by the violent adherents of other ideologies, the proportion of violent anarchists might be greater than the proportion of violent adherents of other ideologies.
A
She shows that Tony’s conclusion is questionable because Tony bases it on a comparison that inappropriately involves absolute numbers rather than proportions.
The comparison Tony makes is between the absolute number of violent anarchists compared to the absolute number of violent adherents of other ideologies. Keisha thinks Tony’s conclusion is questionable without acknowledging the proportion of violent members in each group.
B
She attempts to undermine Tony’s conclusion by introducing plausible evidence that is incompatible with the evidence Tony offers in support of that conclusion.
The evidence Keisha offers is not incompatible with Tony’s evidence. Rather, Keisha is pointing out that Tony’s conclusion is questionable without considering the factors she mentions.
C
She questions the accuracy of the claims on which Tony bases his conclusion.
Keisha does not question the accuracy of Tony’s claims. Rather, Keisha is pointing out that Tony’s premises do not necessarily support his conclusion because his argument only accounts for absolute numbers instead of proportions.
D
She presents evidence that the two groups Tony has compared have no significant qualities in common.
Keisha’s evidence does not suggest that she thinks the two groups Tony compares have no qualities in common. She acknowledges Tony’s comparison and questions it because Tony fails to consider proportions between groups.
E
She indicates that Tony has adopted questionable criteria for including certain people in the groups he is comparing.
Tony does not provide any criteria for determining who belongs to a certain group.
If you know a lot about history, it will be easy for you to impress people who are intellectuals. But unfortunately, you will not know much about history if you have not, for example, read a large number of history books. Therefore, if you are not well versed in history due to a lack of reading, it will not be easy for you to impress people who are intellectuals.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author’s conditional conclusion is that if you’re not widely read—and therefore don’t know a lot about history—then it won’t be easy to impress intellectuals. As premises, he gives two conditional claims:
(1) If you know a lot about history, it’s easy to impress intellectuals.
(2) If you’re not well-read on history, you won’t know a lot about history (or, taking the contrapositive, to know a lot about history, you must be well-read on history).
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. The author treats “know history” as necessary for “impress.” But “know history” is sufficient, not necessary. So negating “know history” tells us nothing about “impress.”
In other words, the argument overlooks the possibility that one can not know a lot about history and yet still easily impress intellectuals.
A
many intellectuals are not widely read in history
This wouldn’t damage the argument, so overlooking it can’t be a flaw. The author argues that knowing a lot about history is necessary to easily impress intellectuals, but he makes no assumptions about those intellectuals’ own knowledge or reading of history.
B
there are people who learn about history who do not impress intellectuals
This wouldn’t damage the argument, so overlooking it can’t be a flaw. The author argues that knowing a lot about history is necessary to easily impress. The possibility that learning something about history isn’t sufficient to impress is entirely consistent with his argument.
C
it is more important to impress people who are not intellectuals than people who are intellectuals
This wouldn’t damage the argument, so overlooking it can’t be a flaw. The argument is simply about whether one can, or cannot, easily impress intellectuals. How important it might be to impress them, or to impress anyone else, is irrelevant.
D
there are other easy ways to impress intellectuals that do not involve knowing history
This means that knowing a lot about history isn’t necessary to easily impress intellectuals. This is exactly what the argument overlooks. The conclusion mistakenly treats “know history” as a necessary condition, while in the premises, “know history” is merely sufficient.
E
people who are not intellectuals can be impressed more easily than people who are intellectuals
This wouldn’t damage the argument, so overlooking it can’t be a flaw. The argument is about whether one can, or cannot, easily impress intellectuals. How easy it is to impress anyone else is irrelevant.
Summary
If any of the Green Ensemble’s corporate sponsors had withdrawn their financial support, the group would have been forced to disband this year. But the Green Ensemble did not disband this year.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
None of the corporate sponsors of the Green Ensemble withdrew their financial support. (We know that if any had withdrawn, the Ensemble would have shut down. But it didn’t shut down. So there’s no way any corporate sponsor could have withdrawn financial support.)
A
None of the Green Ensemble’s corporate sponsors withdrew their financial support of the group this year.
Must be true, because we know the Ensemble has not shut down. This triggers the contrapositive of the first sentence, which tells us that none of the corporate sponsors could have withdrawn their financial support.
B
Earlier this year the Green Ensemble found other sources of funding for next year, making the group less dependent on corporations for financial support.
We don’t know that the Ensemble got funding from other sources. It may have gotten all of its funding from corporate sponsors.
C
During this year corporate funding for the Green Ensemble has been steadily increasing.
We don’t know whether corporate funding has increased or decreased. All we know is that no corporate sponsor withdrew financial support.
D
This year corporate funding was the source of more than half of the Green Ensemble’s income.
We don’t know what proportion of the Ensemble’s funding comes from corporate sponsors.
E
Corporate funding for nonprofit theater groups like the Green Ensemble has recently increased.
We don’t know whether corporate funding has increased. All we know is that no corporate sponsor withdrew financial support.