Summarize Argument
The author concludes that teaching assistants should not be considered university employees. This is based on an intermediate conclusion that the sole purpose of having teaching assistants is to enable them to fund their education. The intermediate conclusion is based on the fact that if teaching assistants were not pursuing their degrees at university, or if they could otherwise already pay for their education, they wouldn’t have the teaching assistant jobs.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that TA’s inability to fund their education without having the TA position implies that the only purpose of the position is to help the TAs. (This overlooks that the university might have multiple purposes behind the TA position, one of which could be to use them as they would use employees.)
A
The administrator is cognizant of the extra costs involved in granting employee benefits to teaching assistants.
What the administrator is or is not aware of has no bearing on the administrator’s argument. You’d be making an ad hominem fallacy if you think that what she is personally aware of concerning costs should affect how we evaluate her argument.
B
The university employs adjunct instructors who receive compensation similar to that of its teaching assistants.
The fact there are other employees who receive similar compensation doesn’t suggest that the purpose of having TAs isn’t what the administrator claims. The argument’s reasoning isn’t based on how much TAs are paid compared to others.
C
The university has proposed that in the interest of economy, 10 percent of the faculty be replaced with teaching assistants.
This helps suggest that there’s more than one purpose to TAs. If the university is trying to replace faculty employees with TAs to save money, then at least part of the purpose of TAs is related to cost-savings. That means the “sole” purpose isn’t just to help the TAs.
D
Most teaching assistants earn stipends that exceed their cost of tuition.
Funding education can require more than just paying tuition. So the fact TAs earn more than tuition is consistent with the claim that the purpose of having TAs is to allow them to fund their education.
E
Teaching assistants work as much and as hard as do other university employees.
The argument concerns the purpose of having TAs and whether that purpose justifies treating them as employees. How hard the TAs might work isn’t relevant to the relationship between the TA’s purpose and their status as employees.
Application: The safety inspector should not approve the proposed new welding process, for it cannot be shown to increase safety at the factory.
Summary
The conclusion is that the factory’s safety inspector should not approve the proposed new welding process. This is based on the following:
In order for it to be appropriate to approve a new manufacturing process, it must (1) have been used safely for more than a year at another factory, OR (2) demonstrably increase safety at the factory at which the process will be implemented.
The new welding process can’t be shown to increase safety at the factory.
In order for it to be appropriate to approve a new manufacturing process, it must (1) have been used safely for more than a year at another factory, OR (2) demonstrably increase safety at the factory at which the process will be implemented.
The new welding process can’t be shown to increase safety at the factory.
Missing Connection
We know requirement (2) can’t be satisfied. But (1) might still be satisfied, in which case, it might be appropriate to approve the new welding process. To establish that the new welding process should NOT be approved, then, we want to establish that requirement (1) can’t be met, either. We want an answer that proves the new process has NOT been used safely for more than a year at another factory.
A
The factory at which the new welding process was first introduced has had several problems associated with the process.
This doesn’t establish that the new process hasn’t been used safely at another factory. First, we don’t know whether the “problems” in (A) are safety problems. Second, even if they are, the process could have been used safely at another factory besides the one at which the process was first introduced.
B
The proposed new welding process has not been used in any other factory.
(B) establishes that the new process has not been used safely for more than a year at another factory. After all, if it’s never been used in another factory, then it must be true that it hasn’t been used safely (or unsafely) at another factory.
C
Some of the manufacturing processes currently in use at the factory are not demonstrably safer than the new welding process.
How the new process compares to current processes has nothing to do with the policy that we’re trying to apply. (C) doesn’t establish that the new process hasn’t been used safely more than a year at another factory.
D
The safety inspector will not approve any new process that has not been used extensively elsewhere.
What the safety inspector will not approve has nothing to do with whether they SHOULD approve the new process. (D) doesn’t establish that the new process has not been used safely for more than a year at another factory.
E
The proposed new welding process has been used in only one other factory.
If that process has been used safely at that one factory, then it might be appropriate to approve the process. (E) does not establish that the new process has not been used safely for more than a year at another factory.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Critics argue that Sauk’s work doesn’t have aesthetic merit, because it uses certain symbolic motifs of an artist that Sauk followed, but to further a political ideal that that artist would disagree with. The author rejects the critics argument, because the critics haven’t shown that the use of the same symbolic motifs for a purpose that the artist would reject would decrease aesthetic merit of Sauk’s work.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author criticizes the critics’ argument by pointing out that the critics’ premise, even if it’s true, doesn’t provide any support to the critics’ conclusion. The fact Sauk uses the same symbolic motifs hasn’t been shown to affect the aesthetic merit of Sauk’s work.
A
the claims made in support of this conclusion are inaccurate
The claim made in support of the critics’ conclusion is that Sauk’s work uses symbolic motifs in service of politics that are different from those of the person Sauk imitated. The author doesn’t disagree with this claim. He disagrees that this claim is relevant to the conclusion.
B
Sauk’s work has aesthetic merit
The author’s argument doesn’t rely on the grounds that Sauk’s work has aesthetic merit. It relies on the grounds that it hasn’t been shown that imitating symbolic motifs that the original artist would disagree with decreases aesthetic merit of a work.
C
these critics are motivated by antipathy toward Sauk’s political ideas
The author never alleges that the critics are motivated by antipathy. Although he acknowlges that the critics would reject Sauk’s politics, that doesn’t mean this difference of political opinion motivates the critics in their argument.
D
the claims made in support of this conclusion have not been shown to be correct
The claim made in support of the critics’ conclusion is that Sauk’s work uses symbolic motifs in service of politics that are different from those of the person Sauk imitated. The author concedes that this is true (line beginning “Granting...”).
E
the claims made in support of this conclusion have not been shown to be relevant to it
The author believes the fact Sauk imitated an artist who would disagree with Sauk’s politics hasn’t been shown to decrease aesthetic merit. Thus, it hasn’t been shown to be relevant to the critic’s conclusion that Sauk’s work lacks aesthetic merit.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there must be good reason to think the defendant is not completely innocent. This is based on the author’s belief that the prosecutor would not have brought charges if the defendant were completely innocent.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the charging decision of the prosecutor constitutes evidence that the defendant isn’t completely innocent. This overlooks the possibility that the charging decision might indicate nothing about the defendant’s guilt. For example, perhaps the charging decision is based on mistaken or fraudulent evidence. Or maybe the decision is corrupt and merely used to threaten and harass the defendant. We simply have no idea whether the charging decision is indicative of guilt.
A
takes lack of evidence for a view as grounds for concluding that the view is false
The author’s premise is that the prosecutor brought charges. It’s not asserting a lack of evidence for the view that the defendant is innocent.
B
presupposes as evidence the conclusion that it is trying to establish
(B) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion isn’t presupposed as evidence. The conclusion is that the defendant is not completely innocent. The evidence is the fact that the prosecutor brought charges. These aren’t the same idea.
C
places undue reliance on the judgments of an authority figure
The author places undue reliance on the charging decision of the prosecutor. There’s no compelling reason to believe that the defendant is guilty simply because of the prosecutor’s judgment that the defendant is guilty. We have to evaluate the evidence.
D
confuses legal standards for guilt with moral standards for guilt
It’s not clear whether the author means innocent in a legal sense or a moral sense, but regardless, it doesn’t matter, because the author never shifts between the two ideas. The flaw isn’t based on the difference between legal/moral standards.
E
concludes that a judgment is suspicious merely on the grounds that it was reached quickly
The author doesn’t argue that the jury’s decision is suspicious because it was reached quickly.
Summarize Argument
The local news media show too much deference toward public figures, as demonstrated by the Clemens corruption scandal. Prior to the scandal, the local news media characterized Clemens as an honest politician. Additionally, reporters at the local newspaper failed to follow leads that may have exposed the scandal earlier.
Identify Conclusion
The local news media show too much deference toward public figures: “the local media show too much deference toward public figures.”
A
Clemens has long been portrayed as an honest politician by the local news media.
This is a premise. The media’s long-time characterization of Clemens as an honest politician demonstrates how the local news media show too much deference toward public figures.
B
The local news media were wrong to herald Clemens as an honest politician.
This is a premise. The local media’s incorrect characterization of Clemens as an honest politician demonstrates how the local news media show too much deference toward public figures.
C
The local news media show too much deference toward public figures.
This rephrases the conclusion.
D
Reporters from the local newspaper neglected to follow leads that might have exposed the scandal much earlier.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that the local media show too much deference toward public figures.
E
The local newspaper’s treatment of Clemens is indicative of its treatment of public figures in general.
The local newspaper’s treatment of Clemens is an example of how the local news media treats public figures. The other premises, however, discuss the local news media generally. The overall conclusion of the argument is about local news media, not the newspaper specifically.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the presentation to the accounting team was appropriate in leaving out “more detail” about profit projections. This is based on the fact that people’s attention tends to wander when they’re presented with “too much” detail.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the presentation should have included more detail, but not so much that it would be “too much.
A
takes for granted that the boss’s assessments of employee presentations are generally not accurate
The author doesn’t assume that the boss’s assessments are “generally” not accurate. The author takes issue with the boss’s specific claim about a particular presentation.
B
fails to distinguish between more of something and too much of it
The author fails to distinguish between more detail and too much detail. The presentation could have included more detail, even if too much detail is also undesirable.
C
fails to consider that an audience’s attention might wander for reasons other than being presented with too much detail
The author doesn’t assume that the only reason people’s attention might wander is too much detail. The author merely cites too much detail as one reason people’s attention might wander.
D
infers a generalization based only on a single case
The conclusion is not a generalization. It’s a claim about a specific presentation.
E
confuses two distinct meanings of the key term “detail”
The word “detail” does not take on two different meanings in this argument.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Scientists hypothesize that when a hornworm’s first meal is from a nightshade, its taste receptors become habituated to indioside D, and afterward anything without indioside D doesn’t taste good. This is based on the fact that newly hatched hornworms that first feed on nightshades don’t eat leaves from non-nightshades afterward, whereas newly hatched hornworms that first feed on non-nightshades are open to eating non-nightshades afterward.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there isn’t another explanation for the observed diet patterns of hornworms. For example, what if there’s some other chemical besides indioside D that might be the reason hornworms that eat nightshades prefer nightshades and don’t eat non-nightshades? Or what if the hornworms don’t necessarily care about the taste of nightshades, but become physically addicted to it, without regard to taste?
A
Tobacco hornworms that first fed on nightshade leaves show no preference for any one variety of nightshade plant over any other.
We’re concerned with the consumption of nightshades vs. non-nightshades. Preferences or the lack of preferences within the nightshades has no clear impact.
B
If taste receptors are removed from tobacco hornworms that first fed on nightshade leaves, those hornworms will subsequently feed on other leaves.
This corroborates the theory that taste receptors are part of the explanation for the observed diet patterns.
C
Tobacco hornworm eggs are most commonly laid on nightshade plants.
Where the eggs are laid has no clear impact. We’re concerned with the diet patterns of newly hatched nightshades and what explains the distaste for non-nightshades among the worms that first feed on nightshades.
D
Indioside D is not the only chemical that occurs only in nightshade plants.
This weakens the argument by suggesting there may be another chemical responsible for the worms’ preference for nightshades after first feeding on nightshades.
E
The taste receptors of the tobacco hornworm have physiological reactions to several naturally occurring chemicals.
This doesn’t help connect taste receptors to habituation to nightshades or to the chemical indioside D. We also don’t know the significance of a “physiological reaction.” Does that mean the worms can taste chemicals? We don’t know.
Home ownership is a sign of economic prosperity. This makes it somewhat surprising that across the various regions of Europe and North America, high levels of home ownership correspond with high levels of unemployment.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why is it that, even though home ownership is a sign of economic prosperity, high levels of home ownership correspond with high levels of unemployment across Europe and North America?
Objective
The correct answer will connect home ownership and unemployment in a way that explains why home ownership can lead to or cause unemployment, either by causing a homeowner to lose his job or by making that homeowner less able to acquire a new job.
A
Home ownership makes it more difficult to move to a place where jobs are more plentiful.
This explains the connection between home ownership and unemployment. If someone buys a home in a place with few available jobs, it is more difficult for him to move to a place with more available jobs and thus, it is more difficult for him to acquire a job.
B
Over the last few decades jobs have been moving from centralized areas to locations that are closer to homeowners.
This deepens the conflict by saying that jobs are more available to or convenient for homeowners. It does not provide an explanation for why home ownership and unemployment are connected.
C
The correspondence between high levels of home ownership and high levels of unemployment holds across countries with widely different social systems.
It may be the case that home ownership and unemployment are connected even across countries in Europe and North America with different social systems. But this does not provide an explanation for why home ownership and unemployment are connected in the first place.
D
People who own homes are more likely than those who rent to form support networks that help them to learn of local jobs.
Like (B), this deepens the conflict by saying that jobs are more available to or convenient for homeowners. It does not provide an explanation for why home ownership and unemployment are connected.
E
People are more likely to buy homes when they are feeling economically secure.
This provides a connection between home ownership and economic security, rather than between home ownership and unemployment. We cannot assume that unemployment gives one a feeling of economic security, so (E) does nothing to resolve the apparent conflict.
The size of the spleen is a good indicator of how healthy a bird is: sickly birds generally have significantly smaller spleens than healthy birds. Researchers found that, in general, birds that had been killed by predators had substantially smaller spleens than birds killed accidentally.
Summary
The size of a bird’s spleen is a good indicator of the bird’s health. Sick birds usually have much smaller spleens than healthy birds. Researchers found that birds killed by predators generally had much smaller spleens than those killed accidentally.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Healthier birds are less likely to be killed by predators and sickly birds are more likely to be killed by predators.
Predators may target weaker birds over healthier birds.
Accidental deaths in birds may be less related to healthiness than death by predation.
A
Predators are unable to kill healthy birds.
Unsupported. We know that birds killed by predators generally have smaller spleens, but we cannot conclude that predators are unable to kill healthy birds.
B
Most birds with smaller than average spleens are killed by predators.
Unsupported. Birds killed by predators generally have smaller spleens, but we cannot conclude that most birds with small spleens are killed by predators. Perhaps most birds die from some other cause but, of the few birds killed by predators, many have small spleens.
C
Predators can sense whether a bird is sick.
Unsupported. Predators tend to kill birds with smaller spleens, but this does not mean that predators can sense whether a bird is sick. Perhaps sick birds are simply slower than healthy ones and cannot escape predators. The stimulus doesn’t give us enough information on this.
D
Sickly birds are more likely than healthy birds to be killed by predators.
Strongly supported. Sickly birds usually have smaller spleens than healthy birds. And birds with smaller spleens are more likely to be killed by predators. So, sickly birds are more likely than healthy birds to be killed by predators.
E
Small spleen size is one of the main causes of sickness in birds.
Unsupported. Sick birds tend to have small spleens, but we cannot conclude that small spleens cause sickness in birds.