Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The client argues that the catering company’s owners should reconsider their decision to raise their rates and not pursue a rate increase. This is because the catering company’s goal is to offer low-cost catering, and raising their rates will compromise this goal.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the client’s belief that the owners of the catering company should reconsider their decision to raise their rates and not pursue a rate increase: “They should reconsider that decision and not raise their rates.”
A
The owners of the catering company decided to raise their rates.
This is context. It is the position the client is arguing against.
B
The catering company needs to increase its rates to accommodate its expanding client base.
This is context. It explains why the catering company believes its rate increase is necessary.
C
The catering company’s rates should not be raised.
This rephrases the conclusion.
D
The catering company’s mission is to provide low-cost gourmet catering.
This is context. It provides background for why raising its rates would compromise the catering company’s mission.
E
The catering company’s mission will be jeopardized if its rates are increased.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that the catering company’s owners should not raise their rates.
Summarize Argument
The author’s implicit conclusion is that Sherwood is not an opponent of higher taxes. This is based on the fact that over the last 10 years, Sherwood has served on the city council, and the council has consistently increased taxes every year.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that Sherwood isn’t an opponent of higher taxes because the council she served on voted for more taxes. This overlooks the possibility that Sherwood is an opponent of higher taxes, voted against higher taxes, but was simply outvoted by others on the council who favored more taxes.
A
bases a crucial generalization on a very limited sample
The argument doesn’t generalize based on a sample. The author points to the council’s votes concerning taxes as evidence of Sherwood’s mindset. The claim that Sherwood isn’t opposed to higher taxes isn’t a generalization.
B
fails to consider the possibility that something that is unavoidable might nonetheless be undesirable
It’s not clear that anything was “unavoidable.” So the possibility (B) points out has no impact on the argument’s reasoning.
C
mistakes something that is sufficient to bring about a result for something that is necessary to bring about that result
The argument isn’t based on conditional reasoning, so there’s no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.
D
makes a personal attack on someone who holds a certain view rather than addressing the reasonableness of that view
(D) describes an argument in which the author comments on Sherwood’s background/character/motives as a way to counter Sherwood’s view. This doesn’t happen. The author doesn’t try to say that taxes are good/bad because of a personal attack on Sherwood.
E
takes for granted that a characteristic of a group as a whole is shared by an individual member of that group
The author assumes that a feature of a group (the city council favors higher taxes) is shared by an individual member of that group (Sherwood). This is flawed because Sherwood might be opposed to higher taxes even if the council as a whole, as shown through votes, isn’t.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
After analyzing recent traffic fatality statistics, why are auto safety experts worried about the increasing popularity of SUVs, even though SUVs are safer for their occupants in accidents than smaller vehicles?
Objective
The correct answer should provide some key information about the safety of the occupants of other vehicles that are in accidents with SUVs, rather than just the safety of the SUV occupants. This would explain why SUV popularity is worrisome, even though SUVs are safer for their occupants in an accident.
A
Vehicles with a reputation for being safer than others tend to be driven more carefully than other vehicles.
This doesn’t tell us about the safety of the other drivers who are in an accident with an SUV. It undermines the auto safety experts’ conclusion even further by saying that SUVs are not only safer for their occupants but are also driven more carefully than other vehicles.
B
Vehicles with a high average fuel consumption have fuel tanks with larger capacities.
We don’t know what tank capacity has to do with safety, and (B) tells us nothing about the safety of other occupants who are in an accident with an SUV. So it doesn’t do anything to explain why auto safety experts are worried about the increasing popularity of SUVs.
C
Recent statistics suggest that large vehicles such as SUVs tend to carry more passengers than smaller vehicles do.
This only tells us about the occupants of an SUV. We already know that SUV passengers are safer, so we need some information about the occupants of other cars to explain why SUV popularity is cause for concern.
D
Recent statistics suggest that the average number of fatalities in collisions between SUVs and smaller vehicles is higher than for other collisions.
This is the only answer that gives information about the safety of other occupants in accidents with SUVs. Because fatalities are higher in a collision between an SUV and a smaller vehicle than for other collisions, it is concerning that SUVs are getting more popular.
E
Recent statistics suggest that SUVs are as likely to be involved in collisions as smaller vehicles are.
This gives no information about the safety of occupants of smaller vehicles. Even if SUVs are just as likely to be in accidents, we know that SUV occupants are safer in accidents. So, (E) does not help to explain the auto safety experts’ concern.
Summarize Argument
The environment minister concludes that planting lots of trees will help her country fulfill their environmental commitments. This is because trees absorb carbon dioxide, and the country has committed to release the carbon dioxide emissions.
Notable Assumptions
The environment minister assumes that planting a large number of trees wouldn’t itself contribute more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the trees would absorb, perhaps in the form of transportation emissions. She also assumes the country in question has tracts of land suitable for planting trees.
A
Owners of large tracts of private land are usually unwilling to plant trees unless they are given a financial incentive for doing so.
Perhaps the government can give them that financial incentive. Besides, there might be government-owned land suitable for the tree-planting project.
B
Over the last ten years the proportion of land that is deforested annually has not increased as much as has the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The environment minister never said deforestation was the problem. She simply says planting trees is part of the solution.
C
When ground is disturbed in the course of planting trees, more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere by rotting organic matter in the soil than the new trees will absorb in ten years.
The environment minister overlooks the fact that there are other carbon dioxide-related effects of planting trees besides trees absorbing carbon dioxide. Merely planting trees releases a significant amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
D
Many climate researchers believe that global warming is such an urgent problem that carbon dioxide emissions should be substantially reduced in less than ten years.
The environment minister might agree. That doesn’t mean that a longer-term solution isn’t helpful, as well.
E
Gases other than carbon dioxide contribute to global warming, and trees do not absorb any of these other gases.
Perhaps the environment minister has other solutions for those gases. For carbon dioxide, the tree-planting project seems like a sound idea.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a baby’s babbling is a linguistic task. This is based on tests that show babbling babies open the right sides of their mouths wider than the left. Other studies show that when making nonlinguistic sounds, people generally open the left side of the mouth wider than the right.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author uses the studies to eliminate the nonlinguistic interpretation of babbling. Since babies’ mouths don’t open the left side wider than the right, the author thinks this is inconsistent with the nonlinguistic interpretation. That’s how the author reaches the conclusion that babbling is linguistic.
A
It describes an argument for a given conclusion and presents a counterargument to suggest that its conclusion is incorrect.
The author doesn’t counter a different argument. We never got an argument that babbling is nonlinguistic. So the author never countered such an argument.
B
It questions the adequacy of a generally accepted principle by providing evidence to undermine that principle, and offers a different principle in its place.
There is no “generally accepted principle.” The fact babies babble isn’t a principle. Nor is the idea that babbling is nonlinguistic. So the author doesn’t undermine any principle in order to reach the conclusion that babbling is linguistic.
C
It raises a question, describes a potential experimental test, and argues that the test is necessary to answer the question.
The author doesn’t describe a potential experimental test; he describes an actual test that was done and its results. The author also does not argue that we need a new test.
D
It describes an explanation for some facts, counters assertions that the explanation is unlikely to be correct, and concludes that it is correct after all.
There are no assertions that an explanation is unlikely to be correct. Nobody argued against the idea that babbling is a linguistic task. So the author didn’t counter assertions that this explanation is incorrect.
E
It presents two possible interpretations of a phenomenon and provides evidence in support of one interpretation and against the other.
The two possible interpretations are linguistic task or random sounds. The author presents studies suggesting babbling isn’t just random sounds (nonlinguistic vocalizations). This evidence supports the interpretation that babbling is linguistic.
The first statement of the passage tells us, translated:
NOT educated population --> economically and politically weak
Taking the contrapositive, we get:
NOT economically and politically weak --> educated population
The next statement tells us, translated:
educated population --> commit to public education
Connect the two statements up and we get:
NOT economically and politically weak --> educated population --> commit to public education
From this, we are able to validly draw the conclusion that:
NOT economically and politically weak --> commit to public education
But, of course, the invalid conclusion actually drawn is:
commit to public education --> NOT economically and politically weak
The general form of this invalid argument is as follows:
A --> B --> C
__________
C --> A
Answer choice (B) exhibits the same form.
The first statement tells us that, translated:
incapable of empathy --> not good candidates
Contraposed, it says:
good candidates --> capable of empathy
The second statement tells us that, translated:
capable of empathy --> manipulate
Connect the two statements up and we get:
good candidates --> capable of empathy --> manipulate
From this, we are able to validly draw the conclusion that:
good candidates --> manipulate
But, of course, the invalid conclusion actually drawn is:
manipulate --> good candidates
As you can see, this argument, like the one in the passage, also takes the invalid form of:
A --> B --> C
__________
C --> A
Summary
The author concludes that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. His support is another conditional claim: social integrity is necessary for individual freedom.
The author then makes an extra conditional claim: social integrity is also necessary for pursuing the good life. But note that pursuing the good life has no relationship to either individual freedom or the rule of law. So this claim doesn’t offer any “pathway” to the conclusion that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. Since there’s no way for this claim to support the conclusion, it’s not actually a premise and we can ignore it.
The author then makes an extra conditional claim: social integrity is also necessary for pursuing the good life. But note that pursuing the good life has no relationship to either individual freedom or the rule of law. So this claim doesn’t offer any “pathway” to the conclusion that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. Since there’s no way for this claim to support the conclusion, it’s not actually a premise and we can ignore it.
Missing Connection
The conclusion is that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom, but the only support is that social integrity is necessary for individual freedom. We could reach the conclusion if we knew that social integrity is in turn sufficient for the rule of law.
A
There can be no rule of law without social integrity.
If the sufficient and necessary conditions here were reversed, this would be a sufficient assumption. Instead, this says that the rule of law is sufficient for social integrity. So the rule of law still isn’t necessary for individual freedom.
B
There can be no social integrity without the rule of law.
This says the rule of law is necessary for social integrity. And the argument’s premise tells us that social integrity, in turn, is necessary for individual freedom. So the conclusion follows: the rule of law is ultimately necessary for individual freedom.
C
One cannot pursue the good life without the rule of law.
Pursuing the good life isn’t necessary for individual freedom. So no relationship between the good life and the rule of law can possibly lead to a conclusion about what is necessary for individual freedom.
D
Social integrity is possible only if individual freedom prevails.
This says individual freedom is necessary for social integrity. We still don’t know how the rule of law fits into the picture. Since there’s no mention of the rule of law in the argument’s support, any sufficient assumption must at least introduce the rule of law.
E
There can be no rule of law without individual freedom.
This says individual freedom is necessary for the rule of law, whereas the conclusion we’re trying to prove is the reverse: the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. (E) just scrambles the conditions in the conclusion—it doesn’t lead to that conclusion.