Summarize Argument
The member of Parliament claims his proposed social reform is a good one. Why? Because it will make his constituents happy, and since social reform is meant to increase human happiness, any reform must be achieving its purpose if it makes at least one person happy.
Notable Assumptions
The member of Parliament assumes any reform that makes at least one person happy must increase the total happiness of humans, and that any reform is good if it achieves its purpose.
A
Different things make different people happy.
This is fully compatible with the member of Parliament’s argument. By his reasoning, his reform will be good even if it only makes his constituents happy.
B
The proposed reform would make a few people happy, but would not increase the happiness of most other people.
This does not challenge the assumption that a reform will increase total human happiness if it makes at least one person happy. The proposed reform may make some people happy and leave everyone else unaffected, in which case it would be a good reform by his rule.
C
The proposed reform would affect only the member of Parliament’s constituents and would make them happy.
This strengthens the argument. If the only people affected by the reform are those it makes happier, then the proposed reform really does increase human happiness in total.
D
Increasing some people’s happiness might not increase the sum total of human happiness if others are made unhappy.
This challenges a key assumption—that any reform that makes somebody happy must make people happier overall. The proposed reform might decrease total human happiness, even if it pleases the member’s own constituents.
E
Good social reforms usually have widespread support.
This does not say a good reform must be popular. Nowhere does the member of parliament argue his reform would be good because it receives widespread support.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the coast of Norway do not represent a description of the painters’ diets. This is because the author believes the painters needed to eat the sea animals in the waters around Norway in order to travel to the islands, and no paintings clearly show those sea animals.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the paintings don’t depict sea creatures. (Just because they don’t unambiguously depict sea creatures doesn’t imply that they don’t show sea creatures.) The author also assumes that the painters needed to cross the waters to get to the islands. (Maybe the painters originated on the islands?) The author also assumes that the painters needed to eat sea creatures.
A
Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals.
This shows that the painters’ current diets did not need to include sea creatures. So the lack of sea creatures in paintings does not prove that the paintings don’t represent the painters’ current diets.
B
Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.
This raises the possibility that sea creatures might have appeared in paintings that are no longer around. So, the cave paintings could have been a description of the current diets of the painters, even if the paintings that remain no longer depict sea creatures.
C
The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals.
The author never denied that the paintings could show land animals. The author’s position is that we’d expect to see sea creatures, too. So, the presence of land animals in the paintings doesn’t undermine the author’s argument.
D
Those who did the cave paintings that were discovered on the islands had unusually advanced techniques of preserving meats.
This raises the possibility that the painters did not need to eat sea creatures, contrary to the author’s assumption. The painters might have been able to travel to the islands while eating preserved meat from land animals.
E
The cave paintings on the islands were done by the original inhabitants of the islands who ate the meat of land animals.
This shows that the author’s assumption that the painters needed to cross the islands and eat sea creatures is wrong. The painters could have been done by inhabitants of the islands who may not have needed to eat sea creatures.
Notice to subscribers: In order for us to provide you with efficient and reliable newspaper service, please note the following policies. You will be billed for home delivery every four weeks, in advance. If you do not receive delivery, call us promptly to receive a replacement copy. Credit can be given only if the missed copy is reported to us within twenty-four hours and only if a replacement copy is unavailable. Request for temporary nondelivery must be made at least three days prior to the first day on which delivery is to stop. No subscription will be canceled unless the subscriber explicitly requests the cancellation beforehand and in writing.
The Daily Gazette
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
This is a MBT Except question. For this question, all the wrong answers must be true (i.e., the denials can be justified), and the right answer must be false (i.e., the denial cannot be justified). We are looking for an answer choice that describes a subscriber who fulfilled all the requirements to be granted their request but was still denied.
A
Mr. Rathanan did not send in his advance payment two weeks ago; he states that his inaction was intended as cancellation and requests that he not be charged for the past two weeks of delivery of The Daily Gazette.
This denial is justified. A written request must be made beforehand to cancel a subscription, and Mr. Rathanan did not fulfill this requirement. We can also see this relationship by taking the contrapositive of the last conditional statement in the stimulus.
B
Dr. Broder called The Daily Gazette Monday morning to report that her Sunday edition had not been delivered; she requests credit instead of the offered replacement copy.
This denial is justified. A credit will only be offered if a replacement copy is unavailable. Because a replacement copy was available, a credit cannot be offered. We can also see this relationship by taking the contrapositive of the second conditional statement in the stimulus.
C
The Daily Gazette was delivered to Ms. Herrera during her one-week vacation even though she called on a Wednesday to stop delivery the following Monday for the entire week; she requests credit for the full week’s delivery.
This denial is not justified. Ms. Herrera requested temporary nondelivery more than three days before the first day she wanted delivery to stop, fulfilling the requirements for requesting temporary nondelivery. Based on the stimulus, there is no reason for her claim to be denied.
D
Although Ms. Jackson telephoned The Daily Gazette at the beginning of June requesting that her subscription be canceled on June 30, delivery was continued until July 3 when she called to complain; she requests that she not be charged for the papers delivered in July.
While Ms. Jackson did request her subscription be cancelled in advance, she did not make this request in writing. Therefore, the denial is justified. We can also see this relationship by taking the contrapositive of the last conditional statement in the stimulus.
E
Ms. Silverman was out of town on Sunday and Monday and when she returned on Tuesday she found that her Sunday edition had not been delivered; she called The Daily Gazette on Tuesday afternoon requesting credit for the undelivered copy.
This denial is justified. As we can see from the second conditional statement in the stimulus, a missing copy should be reported within 24 hours. Ms. Silverman failed to meet this condition, which implies the denial is justified.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author seems to disagree with people who think that increasing police numbers is the only way to reduce crime. There’s no outright statement of disagreement, but the rest of the argument proceeds as though disputing those people’s view. Specifically, the author cites statistical evidence: various cities with similar police-to-population ratios have very different crime rates. This leads to the implied conclusion that boosting police numbers isn’t the only way to lower crime rates.
Identify Argument Part
The statistics cited in the argument are support (i.e. a premise) for the implicit conclusion that it is not the case that increasing police numbers is the only way to solve crime.
A
establish that the number of police officers does not need to be increased
Like (B), the author never takes a stance on whether or not police numbers need to be increased. The argument doesn’t do this, and nor does any part of it.
B
illustrate the need for increasing the number of police officers in major cities
Like (A), the author never offers a suggestion on whether police numbers should or shouldn’t be increased, in major cities or anywhere else. This isn’t in the argument at all.
C
prove that there are factors other than the number of police officers that are more important in reducing the crime rate
The author doesn’t say anything about whether other factors are more important than the number of police in reducing crime. The argument is just meant to suggest that other factors make a difference, not say which is most important.
D
demonstrate that there is no relation between the number of police officers and the crime rate
The author never denies that police numbers make a difference to crime rates, just that they’re the single, only factor. The statistics suggest that something else might also contribute to lowering crime rates, not that police numbers are irrelevant.
E
suggest that the number of police officers is not the only influence on the crime rate
This correctly identifies that the statistics act as a premise to support the conclusion that factors other than police numbers could help to address crime.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a family business is a family’s surest road to financial prosperity. This is based on the fact that in a business whose owners and employees are all part of a family, the employees can be paid exceptionally low wages. This allow general operating expenses to be lower than they would be for non-family business, which makes profits higher.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that paying family members exceptionally low wages is something that might undermine a family’s financial prosperity. Although profits might be higher for the family, if family members get lower wages, that might counteract the higher profits and leave the family in no better an economic position.
A
ignores the fact that businesses that achieve high levels of customer satisfaction are often profitable even if they pay high wages
The author never assumed that businesses that pay high wages can’t be profitable. His position is simply that paying exceptionally low wages can help a business become more profitable than it otherwise would be.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that businesses that pay the lowest wages have the lowest general operating expenses and thus the highest profits
This is too extreme. The author does assume that paying low wages leads to lower expenses and higher profits, but that doesn’t mean the business that pays the “lowest” wages has the “lowest” expenses or the “highest” profits.
C
ignores the fact that in a family business, paying family members low wages may itself reduce the family’s prosperity
The author overlooks the fact that paying family members exceptionally low wages might reduce family prosperity, which might cancel out whatever extra profits can be gained in a family business. The overall $ brought in might not be higher if you pay family low wages.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that family members are willing to work for low wages in a family business because they believe that doing so promotes the family’s prosperity
The author doesn’t make any assumptions about employees’ intentions. Maybe they are willing to work for low wages because otherwise they’ll be punished by their parents? The author doesn’t have to think they want to make money for the family.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that only businesses with low general operating expenses can succeed
The author doesn’t take a position on whether only businesses with low general operating expenses can succeed. Maybe other kinds of businesses can succeed, too, but just not as easily or as much.
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: And the best writer?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: In fact everyone she assigned to work on the project was top notch?
Witness: That’s true.
Lawyer: So, you lied to the court when you said, earlier, that Congleton wanted the project to fail?
Summarize Argument
The lawyer’s implicit conclusion is that the witness lied when he said that Congleton wanted the project to fail. This is based on the fact that everyone Congleton assigned to the project was excellent.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that Congleton did not know that the people assigned were excellent.
The author overlooks the possibility that Congleton may have wanted the project to fail despite assigning only excellent people to it.
The author assumes that Congleton had the ability to choose other people for the project.
The author assumes that the witness believed Congleton did not want the project to fail when the witness said that Congleton did want the project to fail.
A
It takes for granted that Congleton was not forced to assign the people she did to the project.
If Congleton had been forced to assign those people to the project, that shows we cannot infer anything about Congleton’s state of mind or purpose from that assignment. So, (A) must be assumed.
B
It takes for granted that the project could fail only if Congleton wanted it to fail.
Whether the project actually can or will fail is irrelevant. The argument concerns only whether Congleton wanted the project to fail and whether her hiring decisions indicate that desire.
C
It ignores the possibility that Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together.
If Congleton knew that the people assigned wouldn’t work well together, that could show how she could have thought her assignments would not produce good results, despite the individual excellence of each employee.
D
It ignores the possibility that the witness failed to infer from known facts what should have been inferred and therefore was not lying.
If this possibility were true, then the witness was not necessarily lying when he said what he said about Congleton. So, this possibility would undermine the argument.
E
It ignores the possibility that Congleton failed to allot enough time or resources to the project team.
If this possibility were true, this shows how she could have thought her assignments would not produce good results, despite the individual excellence of each employee.
(D) points out that there is a distinction between being stupid and being deceitful.
For example, say we know that "X is a banana" and we know that "all bananas are fruits". Does it follow that X is a fruit? Of course it does. Simple logic. But, does it follow that we should know that X is a fruit? Well, that depends on a lot of circumstances. Are we 15 months old? If that's the case, then probably not. Are we 15 years old with normal brain function? If so, then probably yes.
(D) is simply saying that when the witness said that "X is not a fruit" it could be that he's lying or it could be that he's stupid (or that he's a 15 month old baby, but now I'm being redundant).
Pat: I agree with your conclusion, but not with the reasons you give for it. Some good actions actually do not have favorable consequences. But no actions considered to be bad by our society have favorable consequences, so your conclusion, that some actions our society considers bad are actually good, still holds.
Terry says that some actions considered to be bad by our society are actually good. As premises, he gives two conditional claims, shown in the diagram below. Pat arrives at the same conclusion, that some actions considered to be bad by our society are actually good, but he arrives at this conclusion by citing two different conditional claims, shown in the diagram below.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Both speakers commit the cookie-cutter “confusing sufficiency and necessity” flaw. Terry mistakenly argues that since some bad actions and all good actions share the necessary condition of favorable consequences, some actions considered bad are actually good. Alternatively, Pat mistakenly argues that because some good actions and all bad actions share the necessary condition of not having good consequences, some actions considered bad are actually good.
A
presupposing that if a certain property distinguishes one type of action from another type of action, then that property is one of many properties distinguishing the two types of action
Neither Terry nor Pat makes assumptions about the number of properties distinguishing actions. They only argue that some actions considered bad by our society are actually good.
B
presupposing that if most actions of a certain type share a certain property, then all actions of that type share that property
This is a cookie-cutter flaw of confusing “most” for “all.” Neither Terry nor Pat discusses “most” actions of any type.
C
presupposing that if a certain property is shared by actions of a certain type in a given society, then that property is shared by actions of that type in every society
Neither Terry nor Pat discusses “every” society. Both Terry and Pat only argue that some actions considered to be bad by our society are actually good.
D
presupposing that if an action’s having a certain property is necessary for its being a certain type of action, then having that property is sufficient for being that type of action
This is the cookie-cutter “confusing sufficiency and necessity” flaw committed by both Terry and Pat. They both draw unfounded conclusions about two sufficient conditions because those sufficient conditions share a necessary condition.
E
presupposing that if a certain property is shared by two types of action, then that property is the only property distinguishing the two types of action from actions of other types
Neither Terry’s argument nor Pat’s argument addresses the number of properties distinguishing any actions. Both Terry and Pat just argue that some actions considered to be bad by our society are actually good.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if North Americans drink more red wine, they can become healthier without cutting their fat intake. This is based on the theory that the reason the French have low rates of heart disease despite a diet high in fat is the amount of red wine the French drink.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that red wine consumption is the cause of the French people’s low incidence of heart disease despite a diet high in fat. The author also assumes that there won’t be negative health effects from drinking red wine that would outweigh any benefit from reducing the rate of heart disease.
A
French men consume as much red wine as French women do, yet French men have a higher rate of heart disease than do French women.
French men might eat more fat or do other things that increase heart disease. So, the men’s higher rate of heart disease compared to women doesn’t undermine the theory that red wine consumption helps reduce the rate of heart disease.
B
A greater intake of red wine among North Americans would likely lead to a higher incidence of liver problems and other illnesses.
This points out that an increase in red wine consumption could lead to other health problems that might outweigh the benefit of lower heart disease. Thus, drinking more red wine might not make North Americans healthier.
C
Not all French people have a diet that includes large amounts of fat and a high quantity of red wine.
The author never suggested every person in France has the kind of diet described. On average, the French have a low rate of heart disease, a diet high in fat, and a high quantity of red wine. Some people might have a different diet, but that doesn’t change the overall average.
D
All evidence suggests that the healthiest way to decrease the chance of heart disease is to exercise and keep a diet low in fat.
The author never suggested drinking red wine is the best way to reduce heart disease. Pointing out that there’s a better way to reduce heart disease doesn’t undermine the position that drinking red wine can be one way to reduce heart disease.
E
Many other regions have much lower rates of heart disease than France, though their populations consume even less red wine than do North Americans.
The reason the author cites to France is that they, on average, have a diet high in fat. If other regions have lower rates of heart disease, it could be that they don’t eat as much fat, or do other things to reduce heart disease besides red wine.