Summarize Argument
The editorial argues that copycat “me too” drugs can benefit consumers. Why? Because their presence sometimes reduces the prices of the drugs they resemble.
Notable Assumptions
The editorial assumes consumers can benefit from the price reduction caused by “me too” drugs entering the market. This means assuming the lower prices are enjoyed by end consumers and that they aren’t accompanied by some disadvantage that outweighs the benefit of lower prices.
A
Some “me too” drugs turn out to be more effective than the drugs they were designed to imitate.
This is another way “me too” drugs can benefit consumers. It rules out the possibility that all “me too” drugs are less effective than the originals.
B
If “me too” drugs were prohibited, more money would be available for the development of innovative drugs.
This weakens the editorial’s argument because it suggests consumers might benefit in a different way if “me too” drugs were prohibited: from the availability of more innovative drugs.
C
Pharmaceutical companies often make more money on a “me too” drug than on an original drug.
This doesn’t prevent “me too” drugs from benefitting consumers as well. Pharmaceutical companies might make more money on “me too” drugs simply because the lower price allows more people to purchase them.
D
If all pharmaceutical companies developed “me too” drugs, fewer innovative drugs would be developed.
The editorial says “[m]any” pharmaceutical companies, not all of them, produce “me too” drugs. Even if fewer innovative drugs were developed, that would disadvantage consumers, so this would weaken the argument.
E
Some pharmaceutical companies lose money on the development of innovative drugs because of the development by other companies of “me too” drugs.
This disadvantages some pharmaceutical companies, but it doesn’t necessarily benefit consumers. It’s not stated whether losses by the companies that develop innovative drugs translate to savings by consumers.
Micki: I know, but just one person walking across the grass doesn’t hurt it.
Sid: Your statement is false. If everyone believed as you do, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die.
Summarize Argument
Sid concludes that Micki’s statement is false because if everyone believed Micki’s statement, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Sid reasons that if everyone adhered to Micki’s belief, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die. Therefore, Sid concludes that Micki’s statement is incorrect. However, Sid’s argument is questionable because Sid mischaracterizes Micki’s position.
Micki simply states that a single person walking across the grass wouldn’t hurt the grass. Sid then responds by explaining what he believes would happen if everyone walked across the grass, which has nothing to do with Micki’s assertion.
Micki simply states that a single person walking across the grass wouldn’t hurt the grass. Sid then responds by explaining what he believes would happen if everyone walked across the grass, which has nothing to do with Micki’s assertion.
A
attempts to use a statement about the consequences of actions to disprove a statement about the actions themselves
Sid doesn’t attempt to use a statement about the consequences of walking across the grass to disprove a statement about the action of walking across the grass. Sid only talks about the consequences of walking across the grass, not the action of walking across the grass itself.
B
treats a statement about the consequences of an action as though it were instead about the consequences of everyone believing the statement
This is why Sid’s argument is flawed. Sid responds to Micki’s statement about the consequences of a single person walking across the grass as though Micki was discussing the consequences of everyone believing it’s okay to walk across the grass.
C
contradicts itself by treating a statement that the arguer does not believe as though it were a statement believed by everyone
Sid’s argument doesn’t contradict itself. Sid’s response to Micki mischaracterizes Micki’s statement, but Sid never discusses his own beliefs.
D
discounts the fact that there may be circumstances under which hurting the grass is justified
We don’t know if Sid understands that there may be situations where hurting the grass is justified. (D) has nothing to do with whether Sid is putting forth a sound argument to disprove Micki’s statement.
E
attempts to undermine a statement by calling into question the character of the person making the statement
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where someone attacks a person making an argument rather than attacking the argument itself. Sid doesn’t commit this flaw, as Sid never attacks Micki personally.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The essayist hypothesizes that extraterrestrial spaceships have been spotted near Earth. Why? Because British security agencies don’t release much information about UFO sightings.
Notable Assumptions
The essayist assumes no alternative explanation accounts for the security agencies’ refusal to release information about UFOs. That requires assuming the agencies do, in fact, have information about UFO sightings that they’re withholding.
A
The British government is generally not forthcoming with secure information.
This doesn’t mean the information about UFOs is considered secure—perhaps the government is also not forthcoming with some insecure information. Even if it is secure, this doesn’t advance the argument by making any alternative hypothesis less likely.
B
The British government would withhold information pertaining to UFOs only if it were established that they were from other planets.
This implies the UFOs must be extraterrestrial if the British government is withholding information about them. It rules out the possibility the agencies are keeping silent about sightings of aircraft that might be from Earth.
C
The British government would deny the requests by civilian researchers to have access to data only if this government had something to hide.
This implies the government has something to hide, not that the spacecraft sighted are extraterrestrial. There are many possible reasons the government might want to hide this information that have nothing to do with extraterrestrial spaceships.
D
The British government is less trusting of civilian researchers than it is of military researchers.
This comparison is irrelevant because the essayist doesn’t mention military researchers. Even if the government were particularly mistrustful of civilian researchers, that wouldn't imply they’ve spotted extraterrestrial UFOs.
E
The British government has always attempted to deny the existence of UFOs.
This doesn’t mean their refusal to provide information indicates those UFOs are extraterrestrial. It’s not established whether the security agencies actually have information about UFOs.
Summarize Argument
The geologist concludes scientists must investigate the mountain for geological faults before a nuclear waste storage facility is built there. Why? Because a fault could allow waste to leak out or water to seep in while the nuclear waste is still dangerous, a disastrous circumstance.
Notable Assumptions
The geologist assumes waiting to build the facility until the study is completed poses no greater risk than building the facility before the study. She assumes scientists will be able to tell, upon investigation, whether the mountain has a dangerous fault.
A
In a few thousand years, human civilization may no longer exist.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests a disaster caused by leakage or seepage could have lesser consequences in the future—because no humans would be left to suffer those consequences.
B
The scientists’ investigation would conclusively show whether or not the mountain has any geological faults.
This supports the geologist’s assumption that a scientific study would be able to detect a geological fault in the mountain. It rules out the possibility that such a study would be inconclusive, and thus unhelpful.
C
The proposed facility was not initially intended to be used for the storage of nuclear waste.
This is irrelevant. There’s no indication the facility’s original purpose would affect the potential consequences of a nuclear accident or increase the ability of scientists to detect a geological fault.
D
The scientists’ investigation would increase dramatically the cost of storing nuclear waste under the mountain.
If anything, this weakens the argument. If cost is an issue, it’s a reason not to conduct the study, and if cost is no issue, it’s irrelevant.
E
Nuclear waste could be stored in the proposed facility on a temporary basis.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests there’s some chance nuclear waste will only be stored in this facility temporarily, which would lessen the chances of a nuclear disaster caused by a geological fault.