Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Opponents of the political party hypothesize that the 10% decrease in average family income was a result of government mismanagement. They give no support for this claim.
Notable Assumptions
Opponents of the political party assume that no other factor—a worldwide or regional economic downturn, for example—besides government mismanagement caused the 10% decrease in average family income.
A
There had been a rise in family income in 1996, after adjustments for inflation.
We don’t care what happened one year. We’re trying to weaken the connection between the 10% decrease and government mismanagement.
B
For noneconomic reasons, fewer families had multiple incomes at the end of the period than at the beginning.
Rather than being caused by the government’s economic mismanagement, the 10% decrease has a noneconomic cause.
C
During the period, international events beyond the control of the country’s government had a negative effect on family incomes in the country.
The government wasn’t responsible for the global events that caused the 10% decrease.
D
Younger wage earners usually earn less than older ones, and the average age of household wage earners fell during most years in the past several decades.
Demographic issues, rather than economic mismanagement, caused the 10% decrease.
E
The biggest decreases in family income resulted from policies enacted before the ruling party came to power in 1996.
The ruling party wasn’t responsible for the policies that caused the 10% decrease. Thus, they aren’t guilty of economic mismanagement that led to the 10% decrease.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that maté probably originated in Paraguay. This hypothesis is based on the observations that more varieties of maté are found in Paraguay than are found in any other country, and that maté is used more widely in Paraguay than in any other country.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that how many varieties of a drink there are and how widely used that drink is in a particular country are truly indicators of that drink originating in that country. The author also assumes that there isn’t compelling evidence that maté originated elsewhere (in other words, that would suggest an alternative hypothesis).
A
It is rare for there to be a great variety of types of a beverage in a place where the beverage has not been in use for a very long time.
This is irrelevant, because whether or not maté has been in use in Paraguay for a long time isn’t the same question as whether or not maté originated in Paraguay. This doesn’t help us with maté’s origin.
B
Many Paraguayans believe that maté became popular at a time when people from other areas of South America were first migrating to Paraguay.
This doesn’t strengthen because when maté became popular still doesn’t indicate anything about its origins. If we assume that the migration mentioned is related to maté’s popularity, this could even weaken by suggesting that maté was imported to Paraguay.
C
Many Paraguayans believe that the best maté is found in Paraguay.
This is totally irrelevant. What Paraguayans think about where the best maté can be found has no bearing on where maté originated.
D
There are few places outside of South America where maté is regularly consumed.
This doesn’t tell us anything specific to Paraguay, so doesn’t help us decide whether maté really did likely originate in Paraguay, or whether it originated in another South American country.
E
Typically, the longer a beverage has been in use in a particular place, the more widely that beverage is used there.
This strengthens by affirming the author’s assumption that the wider use of maté in Paraguay than in any other country suggests that maté has a longer history in Paraguay than elsewhere. That would definitely support the hypothesis that maté originated in Paraguay.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that semiplaning monohulls will probably be profitable. This is supported by an analogy to jet airplanes, which were profitable despite their increased cost to consumers, because the planes were faster and more reliable than other kinds of planes. Semiplaning monohulls, although more expensive than other ships, are faster. Thus, in the same way that jet airplanes were profitable, the author thinks semiplaning monohulls will be profitable, too.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is a concession that the author believes will not stop semiplaning monohulls from being profitable.
A
It serves as one of two analogies drawn between semiplaning monohulls and jet airplanes, which function together to support the argument’s main conclusion.
The point about increased expense of semiplaning monohulls doesn’t support the conclusion. It’s a concession. Despite the increased expense, semiplaning monohulls will still be profitable.
B
It draws an analogy between semiplaning monohulls and conventional ships that constitutes an objection to the argument’s main conclusion, one that is subsequently rejected by appeal to another analogy.
The argument doesn’t involve two separate analogies. There’s one analogy to jet airplanes.
C
It draws a distinction between characteristics of semiplaning monohulls and characteristics of conventional ships that independently provides support for the argument’s main conclusion.
The point about increased expense does not support the conclusion. It’s a concession. Despite the increase expense, semiplaning monohulls will still be profitable.
D
It constitutes a potential objection to the argument’s main conclusion, but is subsequently countered by an analogy drawn between ships and airplanes.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. Despite the increased expense, semiplaning monohulls will still be profitable, just as jet airplanes were profitable.
E
It draws a distinction between characteristics of semiplaning monohulls and characteristics of conventional ships that the argument’s main conclusion compares to a distinction between types of airplanes.
The main conclusion is that semiplaning monohulls will be profitable. Although the reasoning that supports the conclusion compares monohulls to jet airplanes, the conclusion itself does not make a comparison.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that manufacturers of children’s toys should not overstate the dangers of their toys. This is based on the principle that product-warning labels should overstate dangers only if doing so reduces injuries. But manufacturers of children’s toys overstate their products’ dangers only for the purpose of protecting themselves from lawsuits.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that if the purpose of overstating the dangers of children’s toys is to avoid lawsuits, then it cannot have the effect of reducing injuries. This overlooks the possibility that overstating the dangers could reduce injuries, even if the manufacturers’ purpose in overstating is about something else besides reducing injuries.
A
The argument confuses a necessary condition for reducing the number of injuries caused by a product with a sufficient condition.
The argument doesn’t present any necessary condition for reducing injuries. We only get a necessary condition for when product-warning labels should overstate dangers.
B
The argument overlooks the possibility that warnings that do not overstate the dangers that their products pose do not always reduce injuries.
The author concludes that manufacturers should not overstate the dangers. But this conclusion isn’t based on any assumption that not overstating will reduce injuries. So it wouldn’t affect the argument if not overstating dangers doesn’t reduce injuries.
C
The argument relies on a sample that is unlikely to be representative.
The argument isn’t based on a sample. A premise tells us what manufacturers of children’s toys do, and the conclusion concerns what those manufacturers should do.
D
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that if a warning overstates a danger, then the warning will fail to prevent injuries.
The author assumes that if the PURPOSE of overstating a danger isn’t to reduce injuries, then it can’t reduce injuries. But the author does not assume that every warning that overstates a danger won’t prevent injuries.
E
The argument relies on the unjustified assumption that an action has an effect only if it was performed in order to bring about that effect.
The author assumes that an action (overstating dangers) has an effect (reduces injuries) only if it was performed to bring about that effect. This is why the author thinks the purpose of avoiding lawsuits establishes that the manufacturers’ overstating dangers shouldn’t be done.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that an organism incapable of planned locomotion does not have a central nervous system. This is based on the fact that, in order to be capable of planned locomotion, an organism must have a central nervous system.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses a sufficient condition for having a central nervous system (capable of planned locomotion) with a necessary condition. This overlooks the possibility that organisms that can’t do planned locomotion can still have a central nervous system. (Note that this can also be described as confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.)
A
confuses a necessary condition for an organism’s possessing a capacity with a sufficient one
The confuses a necessary condition (having central nervous system) for an organism’s possessing a capacity (capable of planned locomotion) with a sufficient one. This overlooks the possibility that an animal can have a central nervous system without planned locomotion.
B
takes for granted that organisms capable of sending messages from their central nervous systems to their muscles are also capable of locomotion
There are no assumptions about sending messages “from their central nervous system.” Although the author does assume that organisms with a central nervous system are capable of planned locomotion, that doesn’t imply the author thinks the nervous system sends message to muscles.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that planned locomotion is the only biologically useful purpose for an organism’s forming an internal representation of its environment
The argument doesn’t make assumptions about what is “biologically useful.” The argument is based on a misinterpretation of the fact that a central nervous system is necessary for planned locomotion. What is biologically useful has no part on the reasoning.
D
takes for granted that adaptations that serve a biologically useful purpose originally came about for that purpose
The argument doesn’t make assumptions about what is “biologically useful” or the original purpose of a biologically useful adaptation. The argument is based on a misinterpretation of the fact that a central nervous system is necessary for planned locomotion.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that an internal representation of its environment can be formed by an organism with even a rudimentary nervous system
The argument doesn’t make any assumptions about a “rudimentary nervous system.” We don’t know whether any organism has a rudimentary nervous system. It’s not clear whether a central nervous system is rudimentary or not.
Summary
The author concludes that safety was not important to the buyers who relied on ads and promo materials. This is based on the fact that those buyers did not consult objective sources of vehicle safety info before making their purchases.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts that, for certain buyers, safety isn’t important to them. But the premise doesn’t establish what what kind of person does not consider safety important. All the premise establishes is that those buyers didn’t consult objective sources of safety info. Does failure to consult objective sources of safety info guarantee that one does not find safety important? No.
So we want to establish that if one doesn’t consult objective sources of safety info before a purchase, one does not find safety important. Or, in other words, if one finds safety important, one will consult objective sources of safety info before a purchase.
So we want to establish that if one doesn’t consult objective sources of safety info before a purchase, one does not find safety important. Or, in other words, if one finds safety important, one will consult objective sources of safety info before a purchase.
A
Someone who claims that safety was an important factor in a buying decision does not necessarily mean that safety was the most important factor.
The argument doesn’t concern what was the “most” important. We’re trying to establish that certain buyers did not find safety to be important at all.
B
Advertisements and promotional materials sometimes provide incomplete vehicle safety information.
(B) doesn’t establish what people who rely on ads and promo materials find important. The conclusion concerns something inside the buyers’ mind — do they consider safety important or not? An answer that merely describes what’s in ads and promo materials does not establish what the buyers value or think to be important.
C
Recent car buyers do not necessarily tell the truth when asked about the factors that contributed to their vehicle purchases.
(C) doesn’t establish that the buyers who rely on ads and promo materials don’t find safety important. Although some recent car buyers don’t necessarily tell the truth about purchase factors, that doesn’t guarantee that the people who rely on ads and promos are the ones who aren’t telling the truth, nor does it guarantee that the thing they aren’t telling the truth about is whether safety is important to them.
D
Most consumers are aware that advertisements and promotional materials are not objective sources of vehicle safety information.
Even if most consumers know that ads and promos aren’t objective, that doesn’t imply that the people who do rely on ads and promos have such awareness. Maybe they are part of the minority who don’t know that these materials aren’t objective. In any case, even if they were aware the materials aren’t objective, that wouldn’t guarantee that they don’t find safety important.
E
Anyone to whom safety is an important factor in purchasing a car will consult an objective source of vehicle safety information before buying.
We know from a premise that people who rely on ads/promos didn’t consult objective sources before buying. So, according to (E), they can’t be among the people who find safety an important factor. If they were among those people, then they would have consulted an objective source.