Here's what the NOT flawed version of the stimulus would look like.
(Premise) sound theories AND successful implementation --> lower inflation rate
(Premise) [not] lower inflation rate
___________
(Good conclusion) [not] sound theories AND successful implementation
(Good conclusion with the negation distributed via De Morgan's) not sound theories OR not successful implementation
(Bad conclusion in the stimulus) not sound theories
The argument is flawed because it could be that the theories were fine, just that we sucked at implementing them.
In its abstract form, the flawed argument looks like this:
N and W --> R
/R
___________
/N
(C) matches this form perfectly.
(E) is an attractive wrong answer choice. It's mostly wrong because its logical form does not match:
N --> W and R
/R
___________
/N'
The argument for (E) being better than (C) is that (E) matches the other "mistake" in the argument.
The stimulus argument assumes that "sound" theories = "not far off the mark" theories. True, it does. But, I don't think it's wrong to assume that a "sound" theory is one that's "not far off the mark". At least it's far more reasonable an assumption than what (E) has us assume: N = N' or "equipment worth the investment" = "equipment better than old".
(C) on the other hand, assumes that "succeed in selling" = "not fail to sell". Isn't that closer to "sound" theories = "not far off the mark" theories?
A
rejecting a tactic on the grounds that it constitutes an attack on the character of a person and has no substance in fact
B
rejecting a tactic on the grounds that the tactic makes it virtually impossible for the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question
C
conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an accusation that is less offensive than the alternatives
D
conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument that would help the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question
E
conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion
Company spokesperson: Household Products magazine claims that our Filterator X water filter does not remove chemical contaminants in significant amounts. This attack on the quality of our product is undermined by the experience of the millions of Filterator X owners who are satisfied with the product’s performance.
Summarize Argument
The company spokesperson concludes that the attack by Household Products magazine that Filterator X water filters do not remove significant amounts of chemical contaminants is inaccurate. He supports this by appealing to the experience of millions of people who own FIlterator X filters and are satisfied with their performance.
Notable Assumptions
The company spokesperson assumes that the fact that millions of customers are satisfied with their Filterator X filters means that the filters must be removing significant amounts of chemical contaminants from the water. This means that he also assumes that customers are able to tell whether their filters are removing chemical contaminants.
A
Household Products did not evaluate whether the Filterator X water filter significantly improved the taste of drinking water.
This doesn’t weaken the argument because it doesn’t deal with the question of whether or not the filters actually remove chemical contaminants from water. Customers may be satisfied because of improved taste, but this doesn’t tell us anything about the chemical contaminants.
B
Most Filterator X owners have no way to determine how effectively the product removes chemical contaminants from water.
This weakens the argument by showing that the company spokesperson’s assumption is false. Just because customers are satisfied doesn’t mean that the filters are removing chemical contaminants.
C
People whose household water contains chemical contaminants are more likely than other people to buy a Filterator X water filter.
The fact that Filterator X customers have very contaminated water doesn’t change the attack that the filters aren’t effectively removing those chemical contaminants. So this doesn’t weaken the spokesperson’s conclusion that the attack is unfounded.
D
Very few people who own a Filterator X read Household Products on a consistent basis.
Whether or not Filterator X customers read Household Products is irrelevant to the argument and doesn’t weaken the spokesperson’s conclusion that the magazine’s attack on the filters is false.
E
Household Products’ evaluations of Filterator X water filters have been consistently negative.
This doesn’t weaken the argument because it doesn’t address the assumption that customer satisfaction accurately reflects the filters’ effectiveness.
A
The argument uses evidence drawn from a sample that is unlikely to be representative of the general population.
B
The argument presumes the truth of the conclusion that it sets out to prove.
C
The argument rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself.
D
The argument fails to make a needed distinction between how people should have voted and how they actually voted.
E
The argument defends a claim solely on the grounds that most people believe it.
Carrie: Our motivations for our actions are not subject to our conscious control. Therefore, the only thing that can be required for an action to be morally good is that it fulfill a moral obligation.
A
No one can be morally required to do something that is impossible to do.
B
Some actions that are performed with the right motivations are not morally good.
C
All actions that fulfill moral obligations are performed in order to fulfill moral obligations.
D
An action performed with the wrong motivations cannot be morally good.
E
If a person’s motivations for acting are based on a sense of duty, then that person’s action is morally good.
A
A society would never willingly accept a system in which, in lieu of paper money, the government keeps track of every transaction electronically.
B
It is reasonable for people to distrust a government that has too much power.
C
New technology may soon make it possible for an economy to operate without paper money.
D
People are right to be unwilling to give the government the power it would need to operate an economy without paper money.
E
Even though it may be technologically feasible, no government will be able to operate an economy without the use of paper money.