Application: Jarrett should not have criticized Ostertag’s essay in front of the class, since the defects in it were so obvious that pointing them out benefited no one.
A
Jarrett knew that the defects in the essay were so obvious that pointing them out would benefit no one.
B
Jarrett’s criticism of the essay would have been to Ostertag’s benefit only if Ostertag had been unaware of the defects in the essay at the time.
C
Jarrett knew that the criticism might antagonize Ostertag.
D
Jarrett hoped to gain prestige by criticizing Ostertag.
E
Jarrett did not expect the criticism to be to Ostertag’s benefit.
A
When choosing what kind of vehicle to drive, low-risk drivers often select a kind that they know to perform particularly well in crash tests.
B
Judged by the number of accidents per licensed vehicle, minivans are no safer than most other kinds of vehicles are.
C
Minivans tend to carry more passengers at any given time than do most other vehicles.
D
In general, the larger a vehicle is, the greater its ability to protect its occupants.
E
Minivans generally have worse braking and emergency handling capabilities than other vehicles of similar size.
Why?
Because the government’s policies have increased demand for fuel, and as a result of that increase demand, the price of gasoline has increased. (In other words, the government’s policies ultimately caused the price increase.)
The author must assume that if the government’s policies caused the increased price of gas, then the government is responsible for the increased price.
A
The government can bear responsibility for that which it indirectly causes.
B
The government is responsible for some unforeseen consequences of its policies.
C
Consumer demand for gasoline cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.
D
The government has an obligation to ensure that demand for fuel does not increase excessively.
E
If the government pursues policies that do not increase the demand for fuel, gasoline prices tend to remain stable.
The question stem reads: The flawed pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most closely parallel to that in the argument above? This is a Parallel Flaw question.
The author states," A species in which mutations frequently occur will develop new evolutionary adaptations in each generation." We can translate this into lawgic to read:
Mutations Frequently Occur -> Develop Evolutionary Adaptations
The author then states the premise and conclusion, "Since species survive dramatic environmental changes only if they develop new evolutionary adaptions (premise), a species in which mutations occur frequently occur will survive drastic environmental changes (conclusion)." Let's translate those into lawgic:
Premise:
Survive Dramatic Environmental Changes -> Develop Evolutionary Adaptations
Conclusion:
Mutations Frequently Occur -> Survive Dramatic Environmental Changes.
We can combine the argument to read:
P1: Mutations Frequently Occur -> Develop Evolutionary Adaptations
P2: Survive Dramatic Environmental Changes -> Develop Evolutionary Adaptations
____________________________________________________________________________
C: Mutations Frequently Occur -> Survive Dramatic Environmental Changes
We can see that the author confused the sufficient and necessary conditions of P2. Evolutionary adaptations are a requirement to survive dramatic environmental changes, but there might be additional requirements, such as having enough food. Let's take the general form of the argument:
A -> C
B -> C
____________
A -> B
By that line of reasoning, we could conclude that all apples (A) are peaches (B) because all apples (A) are fruit (C), and all peaches (B) are fruit (C).
When evaluating an answer choice, we need two sufficient conditions pointing to the same necessary condition. We also need a conclusion that says one of those sufficient conditions is sufficient for the other sufficient condition. Now that we know what we are looking for let's turn to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. The first premise says: properly built -> stones support each other. So the next premise needs "stones supporting each other" for the necessary condition. However, we get: sturdy -> properly built. So we can stop reading there.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. The first premise says: play before a different audience -> never get the same reaction. So the next premise needs to have "never get the same reaction" for the necessary condition. However, we get: play -> always has a different audience. Like (A), we can stop reading there.
Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we discussed. The first premise says: perfectly honest -> always tell the truth. So the next premise needs "always tell the truth" in the necessary condition. The next premise says: morally upright -> always tell the truth. Ok, so that checks out. The conclusion has to say: perfectly honest -> morally upright, which is exactly what (C) says. So (C) is the right answer.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect. The first premise says: garden productive -> soil well drained. So the next premise needs "soil well drained" in the necessary condition. However, we get: soil well drained -> good soil. So we can eliminate (D).
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. The forest premise says: diet healthful -> well balanced. So the next premise needs to have "well balanced" in the necessary condition. However, the next premise says: well-balanced -> includes fruit and vegetables. So we can eliminate (E).
A
an example of a theory that should not be taken seriously because it does not affect our perception of the world
B
an example of something that should not be considered a theory
C
an example of a theory that should not be taken seriously despite its affecting our perception of the world
D
an example of a theory that affects our perception of the world, and thus should be taken seriously
E
an example of a theory that should be taken seriously, even though it does not affect our perception of the world
A
It is an explicit premise of the argument.
B
It is an implicit assumption of the argument.
C
It is a statement of background information offered to help facilitate understanding the issue in the argument.
D
It is a statement that the argument claims is supported by the study.
E
It is an intermediate conclusion that is offered as direct support for the argument’s main conclusion.
In a study of patients who enrolled at a sleep clinic because of insomnia, those who inhaled the scent of peppermint before going to bed were more likely to have difficulty falling asleep than were patients who inhaled the scent of bitter orange. Since it is known that inhaling bitter orange does not help people fall asleep more easily, this study shows that inhaling the scent of peppermint makes insomnia worse.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that inhaling the scent of peppermint makes insomnia worse. She bases this on the observation that patients with insomnia who inhaled the scent of peppermint before bed were more likely to have difficulty falling asleep than patients who inhaled the scent of bitter orange, which doesn’t help people fall asleep more easily.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that inhaling peppermint directly causes difficulty in falling asleep, without considering alternative explanations and other factors.
She also assumes that the only difference between the two groups is the scent they were exposed to, without considering other possible differences that could influence the outcomes.
She also assumes that the study was conducted properly and that the study’s sample is representative of all insomnia sufferers.
A
Several studies have shown that inhaling the scent of peppermint tends to have a relaxing effect on people who do not suffer from insomnia.
The study and the author’s conclusion are only addressing the effects of inhaling the scent of peppermint on people who do suffer from insomnia. So the effects on people who do not suffer from insomnia is irrelevant.
B
The patients who inhaled the scent of bitter orange were, on average, suffering from milder cases of insomnia than were the patients who inhaled the scent of peppermint.
The author assumes that the only difference between the two groups is the scent they inhaled, but (B) shows that those who inhaled bitter orange already had milder insomnia than those who inhaled peppermint. This weakens the conclusion that peppermint worsens insomnia.
C
Because the scents of peppermint and bitter orange are each very distinctive, it was not possible to prevent the patients from knowing that they were undergoing some sort of study of the effects of inhaling various scents.
We don’t know that the patients’ knowledge of the study affected their ability to fall asleep, or why it would have affected one group’s ability but not the other’s. (C) also doesn’t address the author’s conclusion or assumptions.
D
Some of the patients who enrolled in the sleep clinic also had difficulty staying asleep once they fell asleep.
The study and conclusion are only about the effects of the scents on falling asleep. Whether patients stayed asleep is not relevant.
E
Several studies have revealed that in many cases inhaling certain pleasant scents can dramatically affect the degree to which a patient suffers from insomnia.
This could mean that inhaling certain pleasant scents can make insomnia worse or that it can make it better. We also don’t know what qualifies as a “pleasant scent” here. (E) is simply too vague to apply to the author’s conclusion about this specific study.