This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question and we know this because of the question stem: “The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that…”
With a flaw question, we’re trying to identify reason(s) the conclusion wouldn’t follow the premises. In other words, we’re trying to extrapolate and explain why the stimulus is flawed, and why the premises don’t support the conclusion. Remember, there could be multiple flaws.
The first sentence goes into percentages. Whenever this happens, it’s always a good idea to pay close attention to what subset or group of individuals/items is being discussed. Here, we know the group is voice recording taken from small planes involved in relatively minor accidents. Great! What about this group? Over 75% of the recordings showed that the pilot whistled 15 minutes right before the accident. The rest of this percentage pie? Under 25% of the recordings when planes were involved in accidents did not record pilots whistling 15 minutes before the accident.
Two things should be going through our minds here: first, this sounds like a statement of facts, and is probably going to be a premise; second, this sounds like correlative language. If that’s the case, what can we draw from this statement? Only that these two instances are correlative! Remember that correlation does not imply causation.
The second sentence is very straightforward, probably a premise or context. At this point, it’s okay not to really understand what function it has in the argument; let’s put it aside and return to it.
Now we’re coming to our last sentence, and it starts with “therefore.” If I haven’t seen my conclusion and this starts with a conclusion indicator, I’m praying this is it. And it is! It’s a conditional conclusion, which means that we’re only concerned with instances where the pilot starts to whistle because that is when our sufficient condition is triggered. Okay, now on to the substance of the conclusion. Why should passengers take safety precautions when the pilot starts to whistle? Presumably, there would be a risk. What’s the risk here? According to this argument, and specifically the second sentence, the risks are the minor accidents that small airplanes are involved in.
The argument is making a jump from whistling to the accident but doesn’t explicitly relay what that relationship is. The part where I say “presumably, there would be a risk” is what the argument is assuming as causation. The argument is assuming that since accidents occur in over 75% of the voice-recorder tapes taken from small airplanes involved in relatively minor accidents where the pilot was recorded whistling 15 minutes prior, then it must be that whistling causes those accidents*.*
We know from the core curriculum that this line of reasoning is ridiculous. You cannot imply causation from correlation! There are a thousand different things that could have caused the accident independent of the pilot whistling. And there are many things we can point to that the argument overlooks. For example, what if most pilots whistle during flying—regardless of the size of the plane and the majority of them—and never get into accidents? What if pilots whistle all the time, but different things caused those accidents? The questions are endless. Now that we’ve identified a flaw, let’s get into the answer choices with our two steps: is this answer choice descriptively accurate? Is this the flaw?
Answer Choice (A) Accepting the reliability of the statistics given by the official is descriptively accurate, but this isn’t a flaw. Firstly, we have to accept the premises of this argument, which would mean that we have to accept the statistics. Second, the reliability of the statistic isn’t what makes our conclusion unsupported. This is out.
Answer Choice (B) Descriptively accurate, but not the flaw. This is trying to confuse you by bringing up statistics. This says in 25% of these accidents (where passengers did not hear the pilot whistle), the recommendation (take precautions once they hear whistling) wouldn’t help because they heard no whistling before the accident. So, what? The argument isn’t concerned about the safety of all passengers; it’s specifically talking about passengers who hear the pilot whistle.
Answer Choice (C) This is descriptively accurate, but again, it is not a flaw. Defining what small accidents are is not pertinent to the inadequacy of the support the premise gives the conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is saying that the argument is ignoring the percentage of all small airplanes, including the planes that do not get involved in accidents, in which the pilots whistle. What this answer is trying to say is that the argument is only looking at planes that do get involved in small accidents. What about planes that don’t get involved in those accidents – it could be that the argument is overlooking the much more likely scenario that whistling is something pilots do very often during flights, and the correlation between accidents and whistling is a total coincidence.
Answer Choice (E) This is descriptively accurate, but it’s not the flaw. This answer choice forces the argument to consider the proportion of planes that get into accidents; for example, out of 100 small planes, 25 will get into accidents. So, what? This isn’t relevant to the conclusion, nor is it what makes the conclusion unsupported.
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question and we know this because of the question stem: “A flaw in the…reasoning…”
With a flaw question, we’re trying to identify reason(s) the conclusion wouldn’t follow the premises. In other words, we’re trying to extrapolate and explain why the stimulus is flawed, and why the premises don’t support the conclusion. Remember, there could be multiple flaws.
The magazine article talks about a new proposal by The Environmental Commissioner and that there is going to be a nationwide debate on them. These new proposals are called “Fresh Thinking on the Environment.” The tone in the next sentence is important: clearly, the article doesn’t think “fresh thinking” can come from the commissioner and therefore the proposal deserves a closer inspection. So far, both of these sound like premises.
The next sentence gives credence to the second sentence we just read: these proposals by the Commissioner are almost identical to Tsarque Inc’s proposals which were issued three months ago.
Before we read the next sentence, what can we conclude from just this information? Well, even though the Commissioner may have believed that his proposals were “fresh thinking,” we can conclude that the title is misleading. We could also say that conversations arising from the debate on the Commissioner’s proposals could be applied to the Tsarque Inc’s proposals.
What does our conclusion say? Since Tsarque Inc’s pollution is an environmental nightmare (premise), the magazine thinks the debate on the Commissioner’s proposals can end here. Note that the argument is jumping from Trasque’s actions to the Commissioner’s proposal. It’s fair to draw similarities between the two proposals since we know they’re identical – remember, we have to accept the premises. The problem is jumping from Tsarque Inc’s actions to Tsarque Inc’s/the Commissioner’s the proposal.
This is the problematic assumption: Trasque’s polluting tendencies are reflected in their proposals (and therefore the Commissioner’s proposal). The magazine article is using the actions of the company against the proposals, even though the content of the proposals could have nothing to do with those actions. In other words, this argument has an “Ad Hominem” fallacy, meaning that an attack directed at the person/organization rather than the position they take in their proposal. The magazine article tried to dismiss the proposal in a roundabout way rather than addressing the content directly. Now that we’ve identified a flaw, let’s get into the answer choices with our two steps: is this answer choice descriptively accurate? Is this the flaw?
Answer Choice (A) This is not descriptively accurate. Two things can be similar without one influencing the other. But for argument’s sake, let’s say this is descriptively accurate – after all, the two people involved in the proposals are close friends. Is this the flaw? Is the reason the argument is flawed because it assumes these influenced one another? No! The argument wants to dismiss the commissioner’s proposals by attacking Trasque’s actions, whose proposals (which are the same as the Commissioner’s) may not have any similarities to their actions.
Answer Choice (B) This is not descriptively accurate - nowhere in the premises do we see distortion.
Correct Answer Choice (C) YES! This is perfectly describing what ad hominem fallacies are.
Answer Choice (D) Emotive? There is no controversial language here. The tone suggest the magazine does not like what is said in the proposals, but it’s not using controversial language. This fails the first step - it’s not descriptively accurate.
Answer Choice (E) This is not descriptively accurate. The argument appeals to Tsarque’s actions; the reference to the chief could have been put there to throw us off, but the argument simply does not appeal to the chief’s authority.
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question, more specifically, we need to figure out why the therapist’s response to the interviewer is flawed.
Let’s look at what the Interviewer is saying. In his first sentence, he is talking about the therapist’s claims, saying that biofeedback, diet changes, and better sleep habits succeed in curing insomnia. This is a causal claim. In the next sentence, he elaborates on another claim: with rigorous adherence to the proper treatment, any case of insomnia will be cured. Another causal claim. There is a tone clue here: “You go so far as to claim that…” That makes me think this author doesn’t buy the therapist’s claims. I’m thinking these are both premises, since they represent other people’s ideas.
In the next sentence, we see a “yet;” there is a shift. We were talking about the therapist’s claims, now we’re going to be talking about something that’s probably at odds with the earlier claims. Reading on, that’s exactly the case: our author says that some insomniac patients do not respond to treatment.
So far, all of these sentences look like premises. No sentence is providing support to another sentence. The interviewer is outlining the therapist’s claims and then stating a fact. Well, how can we figure out what the argument is saying without the conclusion??
The conclusion here is implicit. We have enough tonal clues and claims to assume what the author probably thinks. His implicit conclusion is: the therapist’s claim (with rigorous adherence to the proper treatment, any case of insomnia is curable) isn’t realistic. Why? Take a look at that last sentence: “…some patients suffering from insomnia do not respond to treatment.”
The therapist’s counter to this is a single, conditional line: when patient don’t respond to treatment, this just means that they are not rigorous in adhering to their treatment. There is no conclusion here; however, we can assume the implicit conclusion is denying the interviewer’s conclusion. Basically, the therapist’s conclusion would be “my claim still holds."
Why is this argument flawed? It’s circular reasoning: he’s repeating a claim the interviewer attributed to him: with rigorous adherence to proper treatment, insomnia is curable. He’s ignoring the evidence that the interviewer puts forth to discredit him and sneakily assuming a causal relationship that isn’t valid.
Two things:
First: when the interviewer says: “Patients suffering from insomnia do not respond to treatment,” he could have been talking about patients who did adhere to the proper treatment rigorously.
Knowing this allows us to understand the possibility of the next point:
Second: the therapist says that if the patients do not respond, it must be because they didn’t adhere rigorously to the treatment. He’s assuming causation when, as we mentioned above, it could be that patients did adhere to the treatment rigorously and there is another reason the treatment was not effective.
There are a couple of flaws here: first, the illicit causal relationship, and second, the circular reasoning. Let’s go into the answer choices, making sure we hit our two-step test: is this answer choice descriptively accurate? Is this the flaw?
Correct Answer Choice (A) Not only is this descriptively accurate, but it represents the issue of assuming causation and circular reasoning. The argument is ignoring evidence that could show that patients were following the treatment rigorously, and asserts his claims as if the disconfirming evidence would not affect the validity of his claims.
Answer Choice (B) This is not descriptively accurate – treatment is used with consistent meaning throughout the stimulus.
Answer Choice (C) This is descriptively accurate, but it is not a flaw. While there could be different causes for different cases of insomnia, this does not mean that the treatment for each needs to be different. This answer choice does not address the issue of why the argument is flawed.
Answer Choice (D) This is descriptively accurate. But it’s not a flaw. The issue at hand has to do with a repetition of beliefs that ignores evidence and implies causation illicitly. Statistical evidence is not a flaw because statistics are not relevant to the kind of flawed support the therapist’s argument contains.
Answer Choice (E) This is descriptively accurate, but it’s not the flaw. Remember, the therapist is only talking about patients who receive and don’t respond to treatment. Everything else is irrelevant to the argument.
This is a sufficient assumption (SA) question because the question stem says: “conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?”
Sufficient assumption questions tend to be very formal. We’re looking for a rule that would validate the conclusion, specifically by bridging the premise and conclusion through the rule. Not only are we extrapolating the rule from our argument, but we’re plugging that rule back into the argument to make it valid. Our rule/prephrase will look like: if [premise], then [conclusion].
Our first sentence looks like a straightforward premise: visits to the hospital by heroin users increased by 25% in the 1980s.
The next sentence provides a hypothesis/conclusion to the phenomenon: the use of heroin rose in the 80s. The argument wants us to believe that if visits to the hospital by heroin users increased, then use increased. Why should I believe that? There could be a ton of other reasons why this would not be true! Maybe the stigma around heroin use decreased, so people were more willing to go in for help but usage is the same. Maybe that year, they started lacing heroin with something that warranted a visit to the hospital but usage didn’t increase. The list goes on!
What we need here is a rule that discounts all of those possibilities, something like “if hospital visits by heroin users are increasing, the use of heroin is increasing.” Now, if we plug this rule back into the stimulus, in a world in which heroin users increasingly go to the hospital, it must also be true that the use of heroin is increasing. We sandwich the premise and conclusion together in a conditional rule, bridging them to help make our argument valid. (Note that we’re not saying one causes the other, we’re just establishing a relationship between the two).
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice doesn’t address our argument. We’re trying to show that with increasing hospital visits, the use of heroin increases. What does seeking medical care at specific stages of heroin use have to do with increased hospital visits during a fixed period of time? This answer choice doesn’t fit into the argument at all.
Answer Choice (B) This interacts with our argument by pointing out that some of the visits have been made by the same person. This could mean that the number of users and the amount of use is the same, just that some people come in more frequently, which weakens our argument.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This establishes the positive correlation between hospital visits by heroin users and the overall use of heroin.
Answer Choice (D) If new methods are less hazardous, this could explain why use has increased. However, if use is safer, why are hospital visits increasing in the first place? Remember, we need to validate our entire argument, not just the conclusion. This is out.
Answer Choice (E) This could interact with the premise portion of our argument if we assume that they increasingly began identifying themselves as heroin users when they come to the hospital in the 80s, but that’s a big stretch since we don’t know if this has always been the case or if it became a norm in the 80s. Even if we can assume this, it still doesn’t help validate our conclusion. In fact, it could weaken it: it’s not that use has increased, it’s that more people are open about their use of heroin.
We know this is a sufficient assumption question because the stem says the “ conclusion...would be properly drawn if which one…was assumed?”
Sufficient assumption questions tend to be very formal. We’re looking for a rule that would validate the conclusion, specifically by bridging the premise and conclusion through the rule. Not only are we extrapolating the rule from our argument, but we’re plugging that rule back into the argument to make it valid. Our rule/prephrase will look like: if [premise], then [conclusion].
The first sentence is describing the features of some languages as they compare to English, specifically with kinship systems, and then makes a conclusion: people of other languages who have different words for different family members (like Hindi speakers or Korean speakers) evidence “a more finely discriminated kinship system” than English speakers do. This argument sounds good. Is the main conclusion of the argument? Let’s read on.
The next sentence goes into another difference between languages: different languages vary in the number of words they have for colors.
Our last sentence starts with “therefore,” which is a conclusion indicator. Not only is this a comparative conclusion, but it’s a very long one. However, we can break it down. Let’s just pretend language X is the language that has fewer words for colors than English. The conclusion is saying that X speakers can’t visually distinguish between as many colors as English speakers can. Before we get into the analysis, is this our main conclusion? Yes! The first two sentences are almost at once context, at once an analogy. The main conclusion is this last sentence.
The analogy they’re making is understandable: uncles are called uncles in English; doesn’t matter if they’re on your mom’s or dad’s side. That’s why we can say speakers “evidence a more finely discriminated system…” The word evidence is important – it’s not like English speakers don’t recognize that “father’s brother” is different from “mother’s brother,” it’s just that other languages have actual words to represent these specific relationships.
With the color argument, it’s a little bit different. It's about our senses. Here, we’re saying X speakers, because of their limited vocabulary on colors, can’t distinguish between, say, royal blue and navy blue. That’s a wild conclusion! What if they can distinguish and describe it, but they just don’t have a word for it? This is the gap between the premise and the conclusion. To mend this gap, we have to connect the premise and conclusion by tying “words” and “the ability to distinguish” specifically relating to our senses. Something like: having different words to describe something (color) is directly related to our senses’ ability to distinguish between things (colors).
Answer Choice (A) How does this fit into the argument? This is going back to the analogy part of the stimulus and adding more information to it. It doesn’t help prove that words are needed to distinguish things.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This wording is convoluted, but if it’s broken down, it makes sense! Each language will have different words for every sensory quality they can distinguish. Here, “sensory quality” includes visualizing all of the different colors. Yes, it’s very broad, but that’s okay - this broadness enables the validity of our argument.
Answer Choice (C) This falls outside of our argument. We don’t really care about categories, we care about how we perceive things within those categories.
Answer Choice (D) This is so close, but the word “categories” here doesn’t apply for the same reason we cited in C. If I swapped it out for “words within categories,’ and then swapped “important” to “needed,” the answer would have been good.
Answer Choice (E) This potentially explains why they don’t have many words for colors. But that doesn’t matter; we’re more interested in the reason why they can’t perceive or distinguish between colors.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The argumentative strategy of the investigator quoted is to…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker.
The stimulus begins by providing us with a phenomenon. Disturbances in the desert are found that appear on footpaths that expand for long distances. The question requires us to describe the reasoning used by the quoted investigator. The investigator concludes the discovered paths could not have been incan roads because the roads would be of little use to the incas due to their adjacent placement and abrupt ending point.
Knowing that our correct answer will highlight how the investigator questions the value the roads would have served the Incas, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate because it brings up the idea of counterevidence. Our investigator does not depend on additional evidence to make their claim. Instead the investigator reinterprets the evidence we already have. For this reason we can eliminate answer choice A.
Answer Choice (B) Similarly to answer choice A, this is not descriptively accurate based on the answer choice’s summary of evidence. This answer choice suggests that the investigator provides new information to support their conclusion. Knowing our investigator questions the evidence we already have, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for. This is the only answer choice that points out the investigator’s questioning of current evidence. This answer choice correctly highlights how the investigator’s conclusion only goes so far as to say what the function of the pathways likely did not serve.
Answer Choice (D) In order for this answer choice to be correct our stimulus would have to refer to the methods used by various investigators to determine their conclusions. Without any reference to the methods used to compile this information we can eliminate answer choice D.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not correct because it claims that our stimulus reconciles two different perspectives. If this were correct we would expect our stimulus to discuss the joining or explanation of a conflict between two different theories. 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 by telling us the overall opinion - that organic foods should not be the only natural foods. The support for this is that plants will turn non-natural and natural molecules into compounds. The author says that because all compounds are part of nature, they are equally natural.
In connecting evidence about natural molecules to the label of natural foods, our argument is making an assumption. The speaker assumes that because something occurs naturally in nature, it must be able to be defined as a natural food. But we don’t know what the label “natural food” requires. It could require that all inputs into the growing process come naturally from the soil. Knowing that our speaker assumes that something in nature translates to the label of natural food, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for. Our stimulus is changing the use of the term “natural” to fit their opinion. Because this is the only answer choice referencing the changing of terminology, we know this is the correct answer.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice claims the conclusion of the stimulus focuses on what would be beneficial. But we know the conclusion concerns the restriction of the term natural foods to organic products. Because the conclusion of our stimulus doesn’t match the conclusion of this answer choice, we can eliminate it.
Answer Choice (C) If our argument were appealing to some sort of authority, we would expect a reference to some respected professional or publication that relates to the topic of natural foods. Without any of these references in the stimulus, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) Saying that our argument shows a necessary condition is not satisfied indicates the speaker uses conditional reasoning to come to their conclusion. Instead of showing the failure of something to occur our author gives the occurrence of plants in nature to widen the scope of the “natural food” definition. Because of this, we can eliminate the answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) Rather than reject evidence to support the conclusion, our stimulus introduces their own scientific backings to prove the validity of their position. In order for our stimulus to be reinterpreting something, we would have to have an original contrasting interpretation.
The question stem asks, “Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?” So, we know this must be a main conclusion question.
First off, we learn about this report that presents some sort of information. Right away I’m thinking that LR stimuli really are so predictable, as introducing the stimulus with a study or report is something we’ve seen before that can help lay out context or background information. After reading that first sentence, it looks like my prediction was right––the author is giving us the background info we need to understand the argument and its upcoming conclusion.
Pause before we move onto the next sentence, though, and let’s break the content down into its separate parts. The first sentence fragment before the comma tells us the subject matter of the report: someone wanted to explore the “likely effects” that current air pollution levels have on forest growth in North America. What two variables do we care about? just air pollution and forest growth. Where? only in North America, as far as we know now. Do we know anything else? Again, just that the study concluded something.
Now, let’s jump to the sentence fragment after the first comma (still in the first sentence). We have seen the word “since” used to indicate a premise, or a statement that leads us to our conclusion. Because we have already decided this first sentence is likely context, we need to remind ourselves that this might not be a premise leading to the author’s main conclusion, but just a stopping point on the way to getting there. Instead, this looks like its a premise for the study’s conclusion, which is likely to be different from the author’s conclusion as we have seen in other LR arguments. So, the study’s conclusion has this premise, which tells us that one reason to accept the conclusion is that nitrogen is a necessary nutrient for plant growth. Then, the study makes a conclusion about one effect of air pollution: air pollution actually deposits nitrogen on the soil (more context built into the conclusion) which (here’s the actual conclusion of the study) “probably benefits eastern forests.” To recap: All we know so far is contextual information about a study and its conclusion.
We jump right into the next sentence with “however.” That’s a cookie cutter! We’ve seen it elsewhere to indicate a shift or contrast, which can lead us to the argument of the stimulus. We keep reading and find out that another group is being introduced: European soil scientists. Before, we only knew about whoever conducted the initial study, which was on North American air pollution and forest growth. These European soil scientists, on the other hand, have concluded something new. We know now that yet another conclusion from a group distinct from the author is being presented. What we learn from this new group is that, for a specific sub-group of all forests, those saturated in sulfate and nitrate, nitrogen deposits may not be as helpful to trees as the first study led us to believe. This group actually tells us that when the ratio of nitrogen deposited to nitrogen absorbed is too high, trees begin to die. That sounds bad for the trees! Beyond that, though, how do we know if this is a premise or conclusion? Well, let’s see if it is the claim providing support or being supported. I can’t find any support for the claim in the same sentence, just a claim itself. So, it might be a premise, or a claim supporting another claim (the eventual conclusion). After reading this claim, though, I’m left wondering if this only applies to some forests. How do we know these findings apply to forest growth in North America?
The last sentence begins with another “Since!” Let’s see... does this sentence reference another individual or group’s position? As far as we can tell, no. So, it’s safe to assume this is where the author’s real position is going to come in. Plus, we’re running out of sentences. All of those clues prime me to read what follows the “since” as the author’s premise that connects the context to our main conclusion. The premise says that the European soil scientists’ finding is “likely to apply everywhere.” Not sure how or why this is true, but who cares. My end goal is not to attack this argument (although pointing out where it falls short might help us gain insight), but instead to understand its parts. So, what follows the premise is expected to be the author’s main conclusion here: that huge parts of eastern forests in North America have already and undoubtedly been affected negatively.
Let’s double check: does the rest of the stuff in the argument seem to be supporting this statement? Well, if I were to switch it around and try to use the idea that large areas of the eastern parts of North American forests have already and undoubtedly been affected negatively to support the findings of the first study, that wouldn’t make any sense at all. Now, we are certain that the claim from the second group’s findings was a premise that provided support for the main conclusion, because it didn’t have any support itself. And, well, if it were true, combined with the following premise that we can apply these findings to trees everywhere, we are much more likely to accept the conclusion.
The author took us on that journey through those seemingly different arguments to finally end up at their own conclusion, which applies findings from the second group to the geographic location that the first study was interested in. And the conclusion definitely can’t be what follows the “since” before the first comma in the last sentence, as that statement has no premise itself (remember… we didn’t know how or why it was true) and instead is used as support to arrive at the final conclusion.
Now, we know exactly what to look for in the answer choices: something that paraphrases or explicitly states the very last statement in the stimulus, that huge parts of eastern forests in North America have already and undoubtedly been affected negatively by air pollution and its nitrogen deposits.
Answer Choice (A) This is not stated or implied as any part of the argument, let alone the conclusion. First of all, the conclusion isn’t just an implication of the report cited, but instead an application of the findings of group 2 on the area the report cared about. And then beyond that, why would the author have ended their argument with a strong statement that there have already been negative effects on the forests in question if this was the author’s main conclusion? They wouldn’t have. We have no reason to think that eastern North American forests DO have that optimal ratio of nitrogen deposited and absorbed, we only have reason to think otherwise (due to the second group’s findings and the author’s premise).
Answer Choice (B) Same thing here, this isn’t stated as any part of the argument. We don’t know what the author would say about this hypothetical! That’s beyond the scope of the argument. Plus, this isn’t a Most Strongly Supported question. We just want to know what the author actually concluded, not if they might agree with this “would” statement about what things might be like if circumstances were a certain way.
Answer Choice (C) Again, not stated in the argument and seems inaccurate based on what we know. We know nothing at all about the type of analysis used by the European soil scientist group, but the author actually stated as their premise that the findings themselves are LIKELY to apply to all forests, so if anything we might use that evidence to assume the opposite of what this AC states.
Answer Choice (D) ONLY! Since when did we say this conclusion ONLY applied to the eastern forests? I’m always skeptical of strong words like ONLY, as we will need explicit evidence from the text to support anything this strong.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is a perfect rephrase of the author’s main point! The author’s conclusion is in contrast to the findings of the first report, and this AC posits the correct relationship between air pollution and trees in eastern forests: that nitrogen posits from the air pollution are more likely to have a negative effect on forest growth than a positive one!
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The author of the passage criticizes the editorial by…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker.
Our stimulus begins by telling us about the defense of the U.S. government published by an editorial. The editorial defends government restrictions on scientists by saying those receiving government funding cannot rightly detach themselves from the nation’s politics. This instance of the editorial’s publication is quite different from the one that is described next. The speaker tells us the same editorial has also criticized another government for doing the opposite - not allowing their scientists to detach themselves from politics. These contrasting examples lead to the conclusion of the stimulus which asserts the editorial should explain what the difference between these scenarios entails.
Knowing that our correct answer choice will highlight the use of contrasting examples to support a conclusion, we can jump into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) If our stimulus were disputing factual claims as asserted in the first answer choice, we would see some sort of opinion on whether or not the claims of the different editorial publications were correct. But our argument is not concerned with identifying which one is right; it is concerned with an explanation for the different opinions being published.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is the answer choice we are looking for! By pointing out the inconsistency between the publications, this answer choice lines up well with our prediction.
Answer Choice (C) Our stimulus focuses on an apparent inconsistency rather than on an exception. If our stimulus were using some sort of exception we would expect to hear information supporting the idea that this event rarely occurs or happens in contrast to the typical result.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice does not align with our stimulus. Rather than refuting something in the argument, our author points out that two ideas don’t make sense together. For this reason we can eliminate the answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) Similar to the answer choice above, this one suggests our speaker is drawing a conclusion about the factual accuracy of what is published in the editorials. But whether the information is correct, our stimulus ultimately aims to push the editorial for an explanation. Thus, we can get rid of this answer choice.