This is a most strongly supported question, as it asks: The statements above provide the most support for which one of the following?
The stimulus begins by informing us that there is a correlation between the distance animals travel and the size of their groups, and their diets. This just means what an animal eats is consistently related to how far it travels and what kind of group it lives with. So maybe herd animals that travel long distances usually live off mostly grass or something; we don’t get any details, just that the relationship exists. Next we learn that diet itself correlates with the animals’ faces and teeth. And that’s it! With a short MSS stimulus like this, we should be thinking about what kind of inferences we can make with so little information. In this case, if there is a connection between traveling/group behavior and diet, and between diet and face/teeth, then maybe you can somewhat reliably predict how an animal travels/groups just based off what kind of face/teeth it has. Let’s take a look at the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) We’ve been told that diet and travel correlate, but not how. This answer requires a lot of assumptions about the actual details of the correlation.
Answer Choice (B) We’ve been told that diet correlates with face and teeth shape and size, but not the details of this correlation and certainly nothing about how overall size correlates with diet.
Answer Choice (C) This is a very specific detail. To infer it just off the two sentences we were given would require a ton of assumptions.
Answer Choice (D) What should really signal that this answer is wrong is “all that is needed”. That is a very strong claim to draw from our two sentences.
Correct Answer Choice (E) Compare the “all that is needed” of D to the mere “can” of this answer choice. Exactly as we predicted in our pre-phrase, this answer makes the relatively small inference that if diet correlates with teeth and face, and diet also correlates with how an animal travels, then there might be a correlation between teeth and face, and how an animal travels.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism at that…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The argument begins by paying out two factual events; at the same time humans spread to America, several species went extinct. The stimulus goes on to conclude from this information we know that hunting on the part of the humans is what ultimately caused the extinction of these different species.
The word “cause” points out exactly what type of flaw we are dealing with. Our author assumes a causal relationship from a correlation between two variables. Remember that our conclusion, if valid, would be something that must be true on the basis of the premises. But it does not make sense to conclude one thing caused another if all we know is that those two events happened at the same time. Just because they occur at the same time does not preclude the possibility of a 3rd outside factor causing both human migration and the extinctions.
Knowing this stimulus incorrectly assumes causation from correlation, we can jump into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. We are not introduced to a viewpoint where humans are seen as “not included in nature”. Rather, we are told that humans are so involved in nature there is an impact on the animals inhabiting this area.
Answer Choice (B) There are a few things that are not descriptively accurate about this answer choice. First, the answer accuses our argument of identifying a “myth” – a belief not based in objective fact and reason. But our issue with the argument is not the lack of reasoning. Our issue is that the reasoning provided does not lead us to our conclusion. Additionally, by telling us that the stimulus “presupposes what it attempts to prove,” answer choice B claims the existence of circular reasoning in our argument. When reasoning is circular, the conclusion is used as the evidence for the conclusion. We do not see an argument in the form of “B is true because B is true.” Knowing this, we can eliminate the answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice does not contradict the content of our stimulus, but it is not the flaw of our overall stimulus. It is true that there may have been a different level of significance of the extinctions of animals in modern times versus prehistoric times, our stimulus is not concerned with the past versus the future. Instead, our answer choice has to describe something affecting something else simply because they exist at the same time.
Answer Choice (D) We can’t eliminate this answer choice based on its descriptive accuracy. There very well could have been many other species that went extinct after humans inhabited North America. But whether or not other animals happened to go extinct during this time period does not point out the problem with our stimulus. Our argument takes a specific position on what the extinction of some animals means. Whether or not there were additional extinctions does not point out the causal issue at play in this argument.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively accurate answer choice points out the issue in our author’s interpretation of the evidence. This is the only answer choice that attacks that interpretation while pointing out the far too strong causal relationship the author concludes.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning that Oscar uses in supporting his prediction is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
This question presents us with two speakers. Right away, we should recognize that there are two conclusions and two reasons behind them. Our first speaker begins by telling us that due to emerging technology, speed of information processing will become the single most important factor in determining wealth. By this, Oscar means that countries will no longer be generally rich in the northern hemisphere and generally poor in the southern hemisphere. The first speaker uses this evidence to assert their overall conclusion that a country’s economic state will soon reflect the speed at which they process information.
The assumption in Oscar’s argument is tricky to find. At first glance, the argument does not seem terribly egregious. It makes sense that if tech speed = wealth, then the fastest countries would be the wealthiest and the slowest countries would be the least wealthy. But remember when looking at a flaw question that our conclusion must be forced to occur on the basis of our premises. Oscar is drawing a pretty strong conclusion here. By saying that a country’s wealth will be determined by speed of information processing, the speaker is also assuming that there is not some other factor that is going to be more important in the future. That feels almost like an obvious piece of information. Clearly, if Oscar thinks information processing speed is #1, he does not think some other factor is #1. But this is exactly how the assumption plays out into our correct flaw answer choice.
You may have noticed our question stem does not actually require us to analyze Sylvia’s argument. But, Sylvia does provide good insight into at least one way to describe what is wrong with Oscar’s position. Sylvia tells us that poor countries lack the means to acquire this technology to begin with. As a result, the technology will only worsen the existing wealth disparity between north and south. This is where we can see some disagreement between Oscar and Sylvia. While Oscar believes speed of information processing is going to be the ultimate determining factor, Sylvia identifies the beginning wealth of the country to begin with will actually impact eventual economic performance. The second speaker’s argument can help us confirm what we suspect to be the problem with the argument. Oscar concludes one factor will reign supreme. Sylvia confirms the assumption of our first speaker by saying there is a possibility some other factor will actually play the most important role.
Knowing our correct answer will point out Oscar’s assumption of wealth distribution through the globe, we can proceed into answer elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in Oscar’s argument. The first speaker tells us because speed is the most important factor, the conclusion follows. Whether or not there is another teeny tiny nearly insignificant factor that weighs .05% on wealth generation in a country is not the issue asserted by Oscar’s reasoning.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is again descriptively accurate but not what we are looking for as the flaw of Oscar’s position. The failure to establish this wealth division as the most important problem does not address Oscar’s assumption about the dissolution of that northern and southern hemisphere divide.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is exactly what we are looking for. This descriptively correct answer choice is the only one that points out the same possibility as Sylvia; maybe processing speed is not the guaranteed determinant of wealth. Instead, other factors such as beginning economic performance would change predicted wealth levels. This is the only answer choice that hits on the reasoning of Oscar’s argument. Although Sylvia isn’t the one telling us about a “combination” of other factors, this answer choice does point out the importance of some other considerations.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate issue of our argument. While it is true that Oscar does not provide us with an exact reason as to why technology will provide only beneficial effects, that is not the concern of our discussion. Rather than debating whether this technology will be purely beneficial, Oscar explores the consequences of one aspect.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is again descriptively accurate but not the ultimate issue in our discussion. Whether or not there is a distinction between the rich people in wealthy countries versus slightly less rich people in wealthy countries does not hone in on Oscar’s assumption about the factors impacting wealth and the adaptation of technology.
The argument begins with an explanation of the pharmacists' position; doctors should not sell medicine to patients due to the risk of over prescribing them. All seems well until we get to our speaker’s position. Rather than responding to the overprescription issue, the patient attacks the speaker and their motives for having that opinion. On the basis of those motives, our patient concludes that we can’t trust what the pharmacists are saying.
The answer to a method of reasoning question is going to exist in the evidence or explanation of our conclusion. One word we can use to summarize this stimulus would be “interests.” Using this prediction can help us effectively narrow down the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is incorrect because we are not actually refuting any of the pharmacists’ claims - we just cannot trust the opinion of that group entirely.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This answer choice lines up well with our prediction, confirming our speaker is attacking their opponent rather than the basis of their argument. This is our correct answer!
Answer Choice (C) Similar to answer choice A, we can eliminate this one based on the scope. Rather than refuting the argument they are faced with, our patient pursues a personal attack.
Answer Choice (D) We don’t have any information on what the general public thinks about all this. So, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) While our prediction regards a personal attack, this answer choice attacks the qualification of the pharmacist group. This is not what we are looking for.
This is a main conclusion question, which we can tell from the question stem, “The main point in Kim’s argument is that...”
Kim opens their argument with a statement about a claim from other people, stating that electric cars running on batteries might pose a solution to air pollution. Then, Kim adds in their take on that claim: apparently “some people” conveniently forgot about how batteries recharge, via electricity. Most of which comes from burning fossil fuels, which also pollutes the air. Kim says that because the electricity-generating facilities we have right now are at capacity, if we want more electric cars on the road, we would have to build more of those facilities. Alright, now were getting to Kim’s point, led in with “so” (a common conclusion indicator) to the extreme of the electric car proposal: even if we replaced literally all of the gas cars with electric ones, we’d just be trading of one form of air pollution for another. Looks like that’s our conclusion! In other words, Kim is saying battery-powered electric cars won’t actually solve the pollution issue as they’ll just contribute to it by different means.
Answer choice (A) says that Kim’s main conclusion is that to build more electric cars we need to build more electricity generating facilities. That was stated in the argument, but it was just one piece of support that made Kim’s final conclusion more likely to be true. It can’t be our answer, then, because it’s just a premise.
Answer choice (B) comes totally out of left field. Did Kim ever go as far as saying it’s absolutely necessary for people to just drive less to reduce air pollution? Goodness no, they’re just saying electric cars aren’t a great solution.
Answer choice (C) is not stated in the argument either. Can we point to any place in the stimulus where Kim claims that all types of cars are equally bad for air pollution? Nope.
Correct Answer choice (D) looks like a perfect rephrase of our prediction. Although it may not be stated word-for-word in the argument, there’s no way it’s not Kim’s main point. Why would Kim have said everything they did, ending on the note that electric cars are just an exchange of one form of pollution for another, if they didn’t think that battery-powered cars were not a viable solution as (D) states? This is our winner!
Answer choice (E) also goes too far and was never stated or supported in the argument. We don’t know if Kim thinks gas-powered cars are here to stay, we just know they don’t think electric cars are a viable solution.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The stimulus begins with an if-then statement: if Blankenship switches suppliers, they will not turn a profit. Based on this sentence our speaker concludes that if Blankenship does in fact show no profit, it must have been because they switched suppliers.
Diagramming the relationships can help us see the conditional reasoning mistake being made. While we know that a switch in suppliers guarantees a lack of profit, we cannot simply switch around our sufficient and necessary conditions in the conclusion. The evidence presented by the author tells us that S (switch) → /P (no profit).
From here we can conclude only a few things. We could correctly conclude the contrapositive to be the case, that if we do in fact turn a profit we know the company has not switched suppliers during their production run (P → /S). We also know that if the switch occurs profit will be affected. However, we are not able to draw the conclusion that because we have the necessary condition of no profit does not mean we can confirm the existence of our sufficient condition - switching suppliers.
Knowing our speaker mistakes the information we can conclude from a conditional relationship, we can proceed into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) Answer choice A is not descriptively accurate. By accusing our speaker of circular reasoning, this answer claims the argument uses its conclusion as evidence for the argument. Without a statement telling us “the conclusion is correct because the conclusion is correct,” we can eliminate this answer choice from consideration.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for. This descriptively accurate answer choice correctly points out the mistaken conditional reasoning made in the stimulus. Simply because we know S → /P, this does not mean we can just switch the arrow in the opposite direction like our speaker does in the conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is also not descriptively accurate. Rather than shifting the meaning of a word over the course of the argument, our speaker confuses the direction of the relationships between terms that remain consistent in meaning.
Answer Choice (D) Answer choice D is not descriptively accurate. We have no information to determine whether or not Blankenship represents an exception case or a run-of-the-mill operation. Even still, Blankenship being a unique case would not change the conditional flaw presented in the author’s reasoning.
Answer Choice (E) This is not what we are looking for. Accusing the speaker of failing to consider some third possible event does not identify the mistaken reversal occurring in the stimulus. This answer choice aligns with the common correlation/causation flaw often presented in flaw questions - but that is not the issue here.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The basic step in Eileen’s method of attacking James’ argument is to…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker, Eileen.
Immediately we should note we have two speakers in our stimulus. That means we need to be on the lookout for two conclusions and two sets of explanations. James begins the conversation by telling us that at their house they have complete personal freedom. On the basis of that freedom, James concludes the government is ignoring the right of individuals to set smoking policies on their own property. This argument is not a good one. Sure, James can do whatever they want in their own home. But boarding a domestic flight does not mean one should receive the same rights as if they were in the privacy of their own home. James has improperly assumed there is no difference between the rights someone has at home versus the rights someone has on an airplane around the general public.
Eileen points out this consideration exactly. In their response, our second speaker highlights what James has assumed. While James has assumed the government has violated a right by not allowing people to do as they please, Eileen points out the difference between actions at home versus on a domestic flight. Smoking on a domestic flight impacts others far more than it would if James were to smoke in his own home.
Knowing that Eileen exactly hits on the assumption of James’ argument, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly points out how Eileen highlights the apparent differences between an individual at home versus an individual on an airplane. By drawing a distinction between these two locations, Eileen effectively points out the weakness of James’s argument.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not correct. Without the existence of a term being explained in the stimulus we cannot select an answer that suggests Eileen is providing some sort of definition.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not correct. If our correct answer were going to include an analogy, we would be able to identify two items being compared through analogy in Eileen’s part of the discussion.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not correct because of the term contradiction. Contradicting something means our argument provides directly contrary pieces of information. But Eileen does not contradict or say James is wrong – instead, Eileen explains how the base assumption James needs in the first place does not exist.
Answer Choice (E) If this were our correct answer choice, we would see some sort of reference to the motivation of James or others in smoking on airplanes versus in their own homes. Without this information we cannot select answer choice E.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The sales manager counters the production manager’s argument by…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker. Immediately we should note we have two speakers in our stimulus. That means we need to be on the lookout for two conclusions and two sets of explanations. The production manager begins by explaining there are safety risks associated with the business’s current products. Thus, the production manager concludes, the company should instead produce only the new safe version of their product.
The sales manager disagrees with this position. Using a hypothetical the second speaker explains that without money, they cannot produce a safer product. This leads to the sales manager’s ultimate conclusion that the safer product cannot be a market success without continuing production of the less safe product.
Our second speaker furthers their point by laying out a hypothetical with a negative outcome - a world where we follow the production manager’s recommendations but ultimately end up without being able to produce the safer product everyone desires.
Knowing our correct answer choice will discuss the sales manager’s use of a hypothetical and the potential negative consequences of the alternative, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that points out what the sales manager knows is an issue – the existence of the safer product depends on the success in the market of the less safe product.
Answer Choice (B) If our speaker were challenging the authority of someone, we would anticipate language questioning someone’s qualifications or experience. Without this information we can eliminate answer choice B from consideration.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice accuses our speaker of a conclusion far beyond what we can find in the sales manager’s argument. Instead of assuming that a product is safe because it is comparatively safer than another product, our speakers are concerned with the ability to produce the products at all.
Answer Choice (D) We do not see any sort of suggested change in standards by which the safety of these products is judged.
Answer Choice (E) There is nowhere in the discussion where we see the potential impact of technology arise as some sort of reasoning for the conclusion. Without this information, we can eliminate answer choice E.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument proceeds by…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker. The stimulus begins with a conclusion; garbage in the neighborhood will probably not be collected until Thursday. This conclusion is followed by the author’s explanation. Monday was a public holiday, which will delay the trash collection to Thursday.
By stating the requirements of the collection system, this stimulus brings up and then applies a series of standards to determine what day trash collection will likely occur on. Knowing our answer choice will discuss the rules of the collection system we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This is not what we are looking for. In order for our argument to be relying on “irrelevant evidence” we would need to see that information clearly in the stimulus. There is nothing directly irrelevant or unrelated to the discussion at hand in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (B) Rather than rule out all of the alternative possibilities, our stimulus has identified the one probable solution on the basis of the rules of the trash collection service. For this reason we can eliminate answer choice B.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly describes the speaker’s use of rules to a specific case.
Answer Choice (D) This is not descriptively accurate. This answer choice accuses the argument of generalizing on the basis of one such action. However, there is no particular instance used in the stimulus to draw another conclusion.
Answer Choice (E) Treating something as if it were “inevitable” means treating something as if it is without a doubt going to occur. Without this type of language in the stimulus, we can eliminate answer choice E.