John: I think you are wrong to use that criterion. A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter; however, a great writer must at least have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply.
Speaker 1 Summary
Muriel concludes that Favilla isn’t a great writer. This is because Favilla’s subject matter isn’t varied enough.
Speaker 2 Summary
John asserts that having varied subject matter isn’t a requirement for being a great writer. He proposes a different requirement - the ability to explore a particular theme deeply. John’s implicit point is that we can’t conclude that Favilla is not a great writer even if her subject matter isn’t varied.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether great writers must write about subject matter with enough variety.
A
whether Favilla has treated a wide variety of subjects in her novels
John doesn’t express an opinion. He doesn’t say anything about Favilla’s writing.
B
whether Favilla should be considered a great writer because her style is distinctive
If John has an opinion, it agrees with Muriel. Since he thinks exploring a theme deeply is a requirement to be great, no writers, including Favilla, are great simply because they have a distinctive style. Muriel also believes Favilla is not great even if she has a distinctive style.
C
whether treating a variety of subjects should be a prerequisite for someone to be considered a great writer
This is a point of disagreement. Muriel thinks Favilla isn’t great because she doesn’t have subject matter that’s varied enough. John thinks variety of subject matter is not necessary to be great.
D
whether the number of novels that a novelist has written should be a factor in judging whether that novelist is great
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Nobody mentions the number of novels a novelist has written and whether this is a factor assessing a novelist’s greatness.
E
whether there are many novelists who are considered to be great but do not deserve to be so considered
Neither express an opinion about this. Muriel does say that Favilla doesn’t deserve to be considered great, but she doesn’t say that Favilla is currently considered great.
A
It draws a general conclusion from cases selected only on the basis of having a characteristic that favors that conclusion.
The advertisement commits this error. On the basis of a select group of people who own Sturdimades that have lasted long, the advertisement draws a general conclusion that Sturdimades can be relied upon to drive for long distances.
B
Its conclusion merely restates the evidence given to support it.
This is the cookie-cutter “circular reasoning” flaw, where an argument cites its conclusion as evidence that its conclusion is true. The advertisement doesn’t commit this flaw.
C
It fails to clarify in which of two possible ways an ambiguous term is being used in the premises.
The “long distance” club is for Sturdimade owners who’ve driven Sturdimades for over 100,000 miles. When “long distance” is used in the conclusion, it’s understood that it’s referring to the number of miles a Sturdimade lasts, just as “long distance” was used earlier in the ad.
D
The evidence given to support the conclusion actually undermines that conclusion.
None of the advertisement’s premises go against what’s stated in the conclusion.
E
It treats popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim.
The advertisement doesn’t cite popular opinion as proof that Sturdimades can be relied upon to drive for long distances. The advertisement cites hundreds of owners who have Sturdimades that have lasted for a high number of miles.
Summary
The author concludes that government economists must look beyond national borders in order for their nations’ economies to prosper. This is based on the fact that economies are always open systems — in other words, things outside a nation’s borders can significantly affect an economy.
Missing Connection
The premise establishes that things beyond a nation’s borders can significantly affect a nation’s economy. But this doesn’t establish what government economists must look at in order for their nations’ economies to prosper. Why couldn’t the economists simply focus on things internal to the nation? Sure, there are external factors that influence the economy, but do we have to pay attention to them? Maybe internal factors alone are enough to allow a nation’s economy to prosper.
A
A national economy cannot prosper unless every significant influence on it has been examined by that nation’s government economists.
The premise establishes that there’s at least one significant influence on an economy that’s beyond a nation’s borders — international trade. According to (A), then, in order for a nation’s economy to prosper, government economists must examine international trade. This proves that in order for a nation’s economy to prosper, government economists must examine at least one thing beyond their nation’s borders.
B
Economics is weakly analogous to the physical sciences.
(B) doesn’t establish what government economists need to examine in order for an economy to prosper. The fact economics is somewhat analagous to physical sciences does not lead to anything specific about what government economists need to do.
C
Economic theories relying on idealizations are generally less accurate than economic theories that do not rely on idealizations.
(C) doesn’t establish what government economists need to examine in order for an economy to prosper. Learning what kind of economic theory is more or less accurate doesn’t support anything specific about what government economists need to do.
D
International trade is the primary significant variable influencing prices and wages.
We already know from the premises that international trade significantly influences prices and wages. Learning that it’s the most significant factor in prices and wages doesn’t establish what government economists need to examine in order for an economy to prosper. Do they need to examine things that are the primary variables influencing prices and wages? We don’t know.
E
Some government economists have been ignoring the effects of international trade on prices and wages.
We’re trying to prove that government economists need to do something. What some of them currently do doesn’t establish what they need to do.
Edward: Governments do have that right, insofar as they give people the freedom to leave and hence not to live under their authority.
Speaker 1 Summary
Raphaela argues that governments do not have any right to redistribute resources through taxation. She supports this by appealing to a principle that forcing people to help others is morally wrong. (We can infer that redistribution via taxation would be a form of forcing people to help others.)
Speaker 2 Summary
Edward doesn’t make an argument—he states a claim, but doesn’t support it at all. What Edward claims is that governments do have the right to redistribute resources via taxation as long as they allow the people they govern to leave.
Objective
We’re looking for a statement that Raphaela and Edward disagree about. Their disagreement is over whether governments ever have a right to redistribute resources via taxation. Raphaela thinks they never do, and Edward thinks they do under certain conditions.
A
Any government that does not permit emigration would be morally wrong to redistribute resources via taxation.
Raphaela agrees with this, because she believes that it is always morally wrong for a government to redistribute resources via taxation. Edward, however, never mentions morality. We don’t know what he thinks.
B
Any government that permits emigration has the right to redistribute resources via taxation.
Raphaela disagrees with this: she thinks governments never have the right to redistribute resources via taxation. On the other hand, Edward agrees, because emigration allows people to leave, thus meeting his condition for when a government has this right.
C
Every government should allow people to help others voluntarily.
Neither speaker discusses whether governments should allow people to help others voluntarily. Raphaela mentions helping voluntarily as an alternative to being forced to help, but she doesn’t mention the role of government. Edward doesn’t mention helping voluntarily at all.
D
Any government that redistributes resources via taxation forces people to help others.
This is implied in Raphaela’s argument, but Edward never mentions the idea of forcing people to help others. Only one speaker offers an opinion, so we can’t know if they disagree or not.
E
Any government that forces people to help others should permit emigration.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Raphaela discusses forcing people to help others but never mentions emigration. Edward does the opposite, talking about emigration but not discussing the idea of forcing people to help others.
A
treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect
This is how the environmentalists’ argument errs. While a single trip by the spacecraft may do as much damage to the ozone layer as a year’s pollution by a factory, the spacecraft’s trips have the potential to help the ozone layer in a way that factories don’t.
B
justifies a generalization on the basis of a single instance
The environmentalists don’t justify a generalization. They only say that trips by the spacecraft are unjustified because of the damage they do to the ozone layer.
C
fails to distinguish the goal of reversing harmful effects from the goal of preventing those harmful effects
The environmentalists don’t have to distinguish these goals. They only discuss the scientists’ goal of reversing the harm that has been done to the ozone layer.
D
attempts to compare two quantities that are not comparable in any way
The spacecraft and an average factory are comparable, as they both damage the ozone layer.
E
presupposes that experiments always do harm to their subjects
We don’t know if they presuppose this. The environmentalists only discuss the spacecraft experiment and never state that all experiments harm their subjects.
Editorialist: Some people argue that ramps and other accommodations for people using wheelchairs are unnecessary in certain business areas because those areas are not frequented by wheelchair users. What happens, however, is that once ramps and other accommodations are installed in these business areas, people who use wheelchairs come there to shop and work.
Summary
The Editorialist states that some people argue that accessible features for businesses are unnecessary because wheelchair users do not frequent them. However, the editorialist points out that once such accommodations are installed, people with wheelchairs show up to shop and work.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Some businesses could attract more customers by installing accessible features.
Whether some people decide to go to certain businesses is influenced by whether accommodations are present.
A
Owners of business areas not frequented by wheelchair users generally are reluctant to make modifications.
The stimulus does not say anything about whether business owners feel “reluctant” or not. The stimulus is focused on the effect of modifications, not the owners’ feelings towards them.
B
Businesses that install proper accommodations for wheelchair users have greater profits than those that do not.
This is far too strong to support. The stimulus does not mention increased profits, and the editorial is only focused on the number of wheelchair users frequenting the areas.
C
Many businesses fail to make a profit because they do not accommodate wheelchair users.
The Editorialist does not make any link to profits and a lack of accommodations. The stimulus is focused on wheelchair users frequenting the area.
D
Most businesses are not modified to accommodate wheelchair users.
This is far too strong to support. The stimulus does not say that “most” businesses do not have accommodations. The Editorialist is focused on the effect of the accommodations.
E
Some business areas are not frequented by wheelchair users because the areas lack proper accommodations.
This is directly mirrored in the argument. Wheelchair users do not go to places without accommodations. However, once accommodations are installed, wheelchair users begin to visit those areas.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author looks at the trend of physicians not prescribing herbs and concludes the reason for this is because the current system prevents physicians from recommending the medicinal use of herbs. As evidence, the author states drugs require regulatory-agency approval for medicinal use. Moreover, regulatory-agency approval costs $200 million and only patent holders can expect to recover such large expenses. Herbs themselves and their medicinal uses cannot be patented.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author questions what others claim as the reason physicians do not prescribe herbs. She does this by providing an alternative explanation for why physicians refrain from prescribing herbs. The medical effectiveness of herbs may not be in serious doubt, but rather the current system does not allow this practice because herbs and their medicinal uses cannot be patented.
A
questioning a claim about why something is the case by supplying an alternative explanation
The claim the author questions is the claim that physicians do not prescribe drugs because their medical effectiveness is in serious doubt. The alternative explanation is physicians cannot prescribe herbs because herbs and their medicinal uses cannot be patented.
B
attacking the validity of the data on which a competing claim is based
The competing claim is not supported by any data in the stimulus. The author does not address any data that would support this claim.
C
revealing an inconsistency in the reasoning used to develop an opposing position
The author does not address the reasoning used by others to reach the opposing position. The author only states the opposing claim as a matter of fact.
D
identifying all plausible explanations for why something is the case and arguing that all but one of them can be eliminated
The author does not identify all plausible explanations. We cannot assume that all plausible explanations have been identified just because the author argues for one she thinks is the most plausible.
E
testing a theory by determining the degree to which a specific situation conforms to the predictions of that theory
The author does not test any theory. The argument the author lays out is stated generally and theoretically.
Summary
The ozone layer entirely filters out some wavelengths of light but lets others through. Dangers associated with holes in the ozone layer are well documented. However, one danger that is not talked about enough is that these holes could lead to severe eye damage for some species.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Some wavelengths of light that could damage eyesight are more likely to reach the earth when there are holes in the ozone layer.
A
All wavelengths of sunlight that can cause eye damage are filtered out by the ozone layer, where it is intact.
This answer is unsupported. To say “all” wavelengths are filtered out is too strong here. We only know that the ozone layer filters out some wavelengths but not others. Additionally, we don’t know whether the filtered wavelengths are the same ones that could cause eye damage.
B
Few species of animals live on a part of the earth’s surface that is not threatened by holes in the ozone layer.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t have any information in the stimulus to determine where any species live.
C
Some species of animals have eyes that will not suffer any damage when exposed to unfiltered sunlight.
This answer is unsupported. To say that “some” species could suffer severe eye damage when exposed to unfiltered sunlight does not imply that there are some species that will not suffer any damage. “Some”, in this case, could mean “all.”
D
A single wavelength of sunlight can cause severe damage to the eyes of most species of animals.
This answer is unsupported. To say a “single wavelength” causes the damage is too strong. We know that there are wavelengths that cause damage, but we don’t know from the stimulus if it is one wavelength in particular.
E
Some wavelengths of sunlight that cause eye damage are more likely to reach the earth’s surface where there are holes in the ozone layer than where there are not.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that the ozone layer filters out some wavelengths. If there are holes in this layer, that makes it more likely that damaging wavelengths will not be filtered and cause eye damage.