Public health experts have waged a long-standing educational campaign to get people to eat more vegetables, which are known to help prevent cancer. Unfortunately, the campaign has had little impact on people’s diets. The reason is probably that many people simply dislike the taste of most vegetables. Thus, the campaign would probably be more effective if it included information on ways to make vegetables more appetizing.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the campaign to increase vegetable intake would have been more successful if it discussed how to make vegetables taste better. This is based on the phenomenon that the campaign was ineffective, which led the author to the sub-conclusion that its ineffectiveness was because people don’t like how vegetables taste.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes causation from correlation. Specifically, the author assumes that there isn’t another reason why the campaign was ineffective—maybe it was underfunded or poorly planned, and its ineffectiveness was not because people don’t like the taste of vegetables.
A
The campaign to get people to eat more vegetables has had little impact on the diets of most people who love the taste of vegetables.
This does not affect the argument. We already know that the campaign had little impact on all people’s diets, including those who like vegetables. The author argues that it would be more successful if it targeted those who don’t like the taste of vegetables effectively.
B
Some ways of making vegetables more appetizing diminish vegetables’ ability to help prevent cancer.
This does not affect the argument. The campaign could just advertise the ways of making vegetables more appetizing that do not diminish their ability to help prevent cancer. “Some” could just mean that one method of preparation diminishes vegetables’ cancer-preventing abilities.
C
People who find a few vegetables appetizing typically do not eat substantially more vegetables than do people who dislike the taste of most vegetables.
This does not affect the argument. There is no reason to suggest that liking a few vegetables would make you eat substantially more vegetables than someone who doesn’t like most vegetables.
D
People who dislike the taste of most vegetables would eat many more vegetables if they knew how to make them more appetizing.
This strengthens the argument. It provides evidence to believe that including information on how to make vegetables appetizing in the campaign would increase its effectiveness, as people would eat many more vegetables.
E
The only way to make the campaign to get people to eat more vegetables more effective would be to ensure that anyone who at present dislikes the taste of certain vegetables learns to find those vegetables appetizing.
This weakens the argument by offering a very specific circumstance under which the campaign’s effectiveness would increase. The author doesn’t argue that vegetables must be appetizing, only that they should be made more appetizing (e.g., from horrible tasting to a little bad).
A
It expresses the conclusion of the argument.
B
It explains what is meant by the expression “pure research” in the context of the argument.
C
It distracts attention from the point at issue by introducing a different but related goal.
D
It supports the conclusion by ruling out an alternative way of achieving the benefits mentioned.
E
It illustrates a case where unfortunate consequences result from a failure to accept the recommendation offered.
A
It states a view that the argument as a whole is designed to discredit.
B
It is an intermediate conclusion that is offered in support of the claim that a television set should be thought of as nothing more than “a toaster with pictures” and for which the claim that we can let market forces determine what is seen on television is offered as support.
C
It is a premise that is offered in support of the claim that we let market forces determine the design of kitchen appliances.
D
It is an intermediate conclusion that is offered in support of the claim that some governmental control of television is needed and for which the claim that the television is on for more than five hours a day in the average home is offered as partial support.
E
It is a premise that is offered in support of the claim that television is the primary medium through which many voters obtain information about current affairs.
Jurist: A nation’s laws must be viewed as expressions of a moral code that transcends those laws and serves as a measure of their adequacy. Otherwise, a society can have no sound basis for preferring any given set of laws to all others. Thus, any moral prohibition against the violation of statutes must leave room for exceptions.
Summary
A nation’s laws must be based on a moral code.
The moral code provides the basis for evaluating laws (E.g., if a law abides by the moral code, it is adequate; if it doesn’t, it’s inadequate.)
Any moral rule that mandates compliance with the law must allow for exceptions. In other words, there are times when moral rules require that the law should not be followed.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
There must be occasions when strict compliance with a nation’s laws would lead to violating the nation’s moral code.
A
Those who formulate statutes are not primarily concerned with morality when they do so.
Unsupported. The stimulus tells us that a nation’s laws can be understood as expressions of a moral code, which indicates that lawmakers are probably consciously or unconsciously deeply concerned with morality when they write said laws.
B
Sometimes criteria other than the criteria derived from a moral code should be used in choosing one set of laws over another.
Anti-supported. The stimulus says that, without a moral code, there would be no sound basis for choosing one set of laws over another. In other words, the moral code is the only thing that allows a society to effectively compare the adequacy of different laws.
C
Unless it is legally forbidden ever to violate some moral rules, moral behavior and compliance with laws are indistinguishable.
Unsupported. (C) says: “if it it’s legally permitted to violate some moral rules, then behaving morally is the same as complying with the law.” The stimulus doesn’t discuss legal permissibility of violating moral rules, so we can’t infer anything from that sufficient condition.
D
There is no statute that a nation’s citizens have a moral obligation to obey.
Anti-supported. Statutes can be viewed as expressions of a moral code, so the nation’s citizens presumably have a moral obligation to obey at least some statutes!
E
A nation’s laws can sometimes come into conflict with the moral code they express.
Very strongly supported. The author’s conclusion is that moral mandates to follow the law need to allow for exceptions. So we can infer that there are times when the moral thing is actually not to follow the law, because the law conflicts with the nation’s moral code!
A
A careful search discovered no live mosquitoes in the vicinity of the device after the test.
B
A very large proportion of the insects that were attracted to the device were not mosquitoes.
C
The device is more likely to kill beneficial insects than it is to kill harmful insects.
D
Many of the insects that were killed by the device are mosquito-eating insects.
E
The device does not succeed in killing all of the insects that it attracts.
A
Sounds that were never used in past musical compositions are used today.
B
Sounds that were once considered dissonant are more pleasing to modern listeners.
C
It is inappropriate to take a developmental view of music.
D
It is unwise to say that one composer is better than another.
E
Our understanding of music can improve over the course of time.
A
attacks the environmentalists themselves instead of their positions
B
presumes, without providing warrant, that only an absence of environmental regulations could prevent environmental degradation
C
fails to consider the possibility that the condition of the environment would have worsened even more without environmental regulations
D
fails to justify its presumption that reducing excessive regulations is more important than preserving the environment
E
fails to consider the views of the environmentalists’ opponents
The question stem reads: The argument's reasoning is flawed because of the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The author describes how since the 1970s, environmentalists have successfully gotten lawmakers to enact extensive environmental regulations. However, the author also notes that the environment has not improved; it has gotten worse. The author concludes that more environmental regulations are not the solution to the problem. The author believes that because the environment is worsening, the regulations must not positively affect the environment. In other words, the regulations are not causing the environment to get better.
However, we do not know all of the problems affecting the environment. It is possible that the regulations positively impact the environment, but the positive impacts are overshadowed by the other events harming the environment. Imagine we enacted environmental regulations to ban disposable straws. At the same time, we doubled the amount of coal-fired electricity plants. The straw regulations have a positive effect, saving many tortoises, but the harm caused by the coal outpaces the positive effects of the straw regulation. The author would argue that more regulations are not the solution, but we could easily say that we need to regulate the coal-fire-powered plants. So the author has failed to consider that there might be other events causing harm to the environment.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect because it is not our identified causation flaw. There is no attack on the environmentalists. In fact, he uses their own words to lend credibility to his argument.
Answer Choice (B) is not presumed the by the author. At no point does the author's argument presume zero regulations are required to prevent environmental degradation can be prevented. The author could say that the regulations are simply ineffective and that whether we have them makes no difference to the environment.
Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we paraphrased. The author does fail to consider the possibility that the regulations are having a positive effect. Without the positive effects of the regulations, the environment could have gotten worse.
Answer Choice (D) is not presumed by the argument. The author does not claim reducing regulation is more important than protecting the environment.
Answer Choice (E) is wrong. While the author does not consider the view of the environmentalist's opponents, that is not the argument's flaw.