Summary
Drug companies often send gifts to physicians when marketing their products. Most physicians believe that their choices when prescribing drugs are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts. However, most physicians also believe most other physicians’ prescription choices are influenced by such gifts.
Notable Valid Inferences
Some physicians incorrectly believe either that their choices are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts or that most other physicians’ choices are influenced by such gifts.
A
Physicians who do not accept gifts from drug companies are less likely to prescribe unnecessary drugs than those who do accept such gifts.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about the likelihood of physicians prescribing unnecessary drugs to make this comparison.
B
Most physicians believe that drug companies should adopt new guidelines that regulate their practices in sending gifts to physicians.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about what most physicians believe in regards to drug companies’ guidelines.
C
Some physicians are mistaken either about the degree to which they are influenced by gifts from drug companies or about the degree to which such gifts influence other physicians.
Must be true. If most physicians believe both that they are not influenced by gifts and that most other physicians are influenced by gifts, then there must be some overlap between the groups and some physicians must hold a mistaken belief.
D
Some physicians who admit that their own choices when prescribing drugs are influenced by drug companies’ gifts believe that other physicians’ prescription choices are influenced to a greater degree by such gifts.
Could be false. The stimulus is restricted to physicians that believe their own choices are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about physicians who admit their choices are influenced by these gifts.
E
All physicians who admit that their own choices when prescribing drugs are influenced by drug companies’ gifts believe that most other physicians’ prescription choices are also influenced by such gifts.
Could be false. The stimulus is restricted to physicians that believe their own choices are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about physicians who admit their choices are influenced by these gifts.
Summary
Sharon heard her favorite author criticize a political candidate that she had supported for years. As a result, Sharon’s opinion of the author declined, while her opinion of the candidate remained the same.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Someone who hears an opinion that counters a long-held belief will doubt the source rather than question their held belief.
A
Artists who speak out on political matters will have influence only among their most dedicated fans.
There is no support for whether an artist’s most dedicated fans will be influenced. The stimulus just says that Sharon was not influenced.
B
A political statement from an artist should be considered only if the artist has established a reputation for being an honest and knowledgeable observer of politics.
There is no justification given for when an artist should give a political statement.
C
Artists should limit their public political statements to issues that are somehow related to the arts.
There is no support for when an artist should or should not give a political statement.
D
Someone who hears testimony that contradicts a long-standing opinion will generally entertain doubts about the source of the testimony rather than the correctness of the opinion.
Sharon’s longstanding support for a political candidate outweighs the opinion of her favorite author. As a result, Sharon’s opinion of the author declines (doubts the testimony of the source) instead of challenging her own beliefs.
E
People are far less likely to renounce an allegiance that they have had for many years than to renounce an allegiance that is new to them.
There is no information about how long Sharon supported her favorite author, so this comparative statement cannot be made.
Summarize Argument
In a study, volunteers were evenly divided into five groups. Each group tasted Sparkle Cola and one of five competing colas, with each group tasting a different one of the competing colas. Most people in the study said they preferred Sparkle compared to the other cola they tasted. The author concludes from this that Sparkle got a more favorable response from people in the study than any of the competing colas tested.
Identify and Describe Flaw
We know most consumers picked Sparkle as tasting better. But this doesn’t mean for every competing cola, most picked Sparkle. For example, perhaps one cola was picked by everyone who tasted it, but the other 4 competing colas lost out to Sparkle. The claim that “most” consumers preferred Sparkle applies to the overall study, not each individual matchup between Sparkle and a competing cola.
A
It overlooks the possibility that a generalization true of the entire group of volunteers was not true of each of the five smaller groups.
“Most” of the volunteers preferred Sparkle is a generalization true of the entire group of volunteers. But it’s not necessarily true of each of the five smaller groups. So one of the groups might have preferred their competing cola over Sparkle.
B
It takes for granted that most of the volunteers would buy Sparkle Cola rather than one of the other colas tasted, at least in situations where Sparkle Cola is not much more expensive.
The conclusion only concerns whether Sparkle elicited a more favorable response during the taste tests in the study. The conclusion doesn’t concern whether people would buy Sparkle.
C
It overlooks the possibility that some cola not tested in the study would have elicited a more favorable response than Sparkle Cola.
The conclusion only concerns the comparison between Sparkle and “the competing colas tested.” It doesn’t assert anything about colas that were not tested in the study.
D
It overlooks the possibility that many people may prefer Sparkle Cola to competing colas for reasons such as the packaging or price of Sparkle Cola, rather than its taste.
The argument only concerns the response of Sparkle Cola vs. the competing colas based on the taste tests in the study. Whether people might prefer Sparkle for reasons besides taste was not part of the study and isn’t part of the conclusion.
E
It is based on a study that does not elicit consumers’ responses to any beverages other than colas.
The conclusion is concerned only with colas. So the fact the study didn’t investigate non-colas is irrelevant.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if Earth’s atmosphere becomes significantly warmer, heavy downpours are likely to become more frequent. This is supported by a causal chain. A warm atmosphere leads to faster evaporation, which leads to rain clouds forming more quickly. A warm atmosphere also leads to more moisture in the atmosphere, which makes clouds larger. The larger, more quickly forming rain clouds result in heavier downpours. This is how heavy downpours are more likely if the atmosphere gets warmer.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is offered as support for the conclusion. It’s part of the causal chain that shows how a warmer atmosphere can lead to more frequent heavy downpours.
A
It is the only conclusion in the argument.
The referenced text is not a conclusion. It’s a premise offered to support the conclusion.
B
It is the conclusion of the argument as a whole but is not the only explicitly stated conclusion in the argument.
The referenced text is not a conclusion. It’s a premise offered to support the conclusion.
C
It is a statement that the argument is intended to support but is not the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
The referenced text is not supported by any other statement. It’s a premise offered to support the conclusion.
D
It is used to support the only conclusion in the argument.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. It is part of the causal chain that is offered to support the conclusion in the first sentence.
E
It provides a causal explanation of the phenomenon described by the conclusion of the argument as a whole, but it is not intended to provide support for that conclusion.
The referenced text does provide support for the conclusion.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people who hold insurance politics with other companies besides Popelka can save hundreds of dollars by switching to Popelka. This is based on the fact that a survey of new Popelka policyholders reported savings of, on average, $250 per year as a result of switching to Popelka.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the new Popelka policyholders (the ones who had switched from other insurance companies) are representative of people who hold insurance policies with other companies. This overlooks the possibility that the ones who switched to Popelka are the ones who had the opportunity to save money by switching. The people who haven’t switched yet might be people who can’t save by switching.
A
It overlooks the possibility that at least some of the new Popelka Auto Insurance policyholders surveyed reported that they saved little or no money when they switched their auto insurance coverage to Popelka.
The survey reports savings “on average.” An average recognizes the possibility of outliers. So some people might not have saved money by switching; this doesn’t change the fact that new policyholders on average did save $250 per year.
B
It takes for granted that the new Popelka Auto Insurance policyholders pay no less for their auto insurance, on average, than do people who have held Popelka Auto Insurance policies for a longer period of time.
The argument doesn’t compare how much new policyholders pay with how much longer, non-new policyholders pay.
C
It fails to address adequately the possibility that switching to another insurance company would enable many auto insurance policyholders to save even more money than they would save by switching to Popelka.
The conclusion isn’t that switching to Popelka will help people save the most compared to switching to other companies. The conclusion is only that switching to Popelka will help people save money. Whether switches to other companies save more has no impact on the argument.
D
It takes for granted that few if any of the Popelka Auto Insurance policyholders surveyed underestimated how much they saved when they switched their auto insurance coverage to Popelka.
The argument’s reasoning isn’t based on the estimates of policyholders before they made the switch. Maybe everyone underestimated how much they’d save and found that they ended up saving more than expected; this wouldn’t undermine the argument.
E
It fails to address adequately the possibility that people capable of saving hundreds of dollars by switching their auto insurance coverage to Popelka are disproportionately represented among the new Popelka auto insurance policyholders.
This possibility shows that the savings achieved by the new Popelka policyholders might not be achievable by most people who are with other companies. The survey’s results are based on a sample that can save more, on average, than other people would save by switching.
Summarize Argument
Anthropologists overrate the usefulness of field studies because they underestimate how much their presence influences the community they’re studying.
Identify Conclusion
Anthropologists overrate the usefulness of field studies: “the usefulness of field studies tends to be overrated by anthropologists.”
A
Anthropologists tend to overestimate the value of field studies.
This rephrases the conclusion.
B
In a field study, the researcher lives within the community being studied.
This is context. It explains what a field study is, which is a key concept in the overall argument.
C
Field studies have been a central feature of anthropological research for a long time.
This is context. It provides background on what a field study is.
D
Most anthropologists know that when they live within a community being studied, the community is affected at least somewhat.
This is context. It provides background for the premise that anthropologists underestimate how much they affect the community they are studying.
E
Most anthropologists underestimate how much of an effect the researcher’s presence has on a community being studied.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that the usefulness of field studies is overrated by anthropologists.