Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Juan must have entered the logo-generation contest. The author supports this conclusion with the following:
One of the rules stated that everyone who entered the contest would receive a T-shirt with the company’s logo.
Juan has a T-shirt with the company’s logo.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses a sufficient condition with a necessary condition. Entrance into the contest is sufficient to get the T-shirt. But that doesn’t mean it’s necessary. Maybe some people could have gotten the T-shirt without entering the contest.
A
infers a causal relationship when the evidence only supports a correlation
The argument doesn’t conclude or assume a causal relationship. The argument’s based on application of a conditional rule.
B
takes a condition that is sufficient for a particular outcome as one that is necessary for that outcome
The contest rules tell us that entrance into the contest is sufficient for the outcome of getting a T-shirt with the logo. But that doesn’t imply entrance into the contest is necessary for the T-shirt. So the fact Juan has the T-shirt doesn’t prove that he entered the contest.
C
infers that every member of a group has a feature in common on the grounds that the group as a whole has that feature
The argument doesn’t commit a whole-to-part fallacy. The evidence concerns a rule of the contest and Juan. The conclusion is based on an attempt to apply that rule to Juan. The author doesn’t conclude or assume anything about every member of a group.
D
has a premise that presupposes the truth of the conclusion
(D) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion — that Juan entered the contest — is not restated in the premises.
E
constructs a generalization on the basis of a single instance
The argument doesn’t generalize based on a single instance. The argument tries to apply a conditional rule to Juan. The argument doesn’t conclude or assume anything about a broader group.
Summary
Global warming has caused a rise in global sea level. This rise results from melting glaciers and ice sheets, as well as the fact water volume increases when its temperature increases. This rise in global sea level is lower than it otherwise could have been, because over the years we have built reservoirs around the world that capture water that would otherwise reach the sea.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
It is possible to slow down the rate at which the sea level rises.
We can do things to change the impact of global warming on the sea level.
We can do things to change the impact of global warming on the sea level.
A
The exact magnitude of the rise in global sea level is in dispute.
Unsupported. The exact rise in sea level might be universally agreed on. We know nothing about the level of consensus or dispute regarding how much the sea level has risen.
B
Rises in global sea level that occurred before the world’s reservoirs were built are difficult to explain.
Unsupported. Rises in sea level before reservoirs were built could have been due to global warming. The stimulus doesn’t suggest we have a lack of understanding of any rise in sea level before reservoirs were built.
C
Little is known about the contribution of global warming to the rise in global sea level.
Unsupported. We know that the rise in sea level is not as great as it could have been. And we might know the exact amount of the rise that’s attributable to global warming. The stimulus doesn’t provide any evidence to the contrary.
D
The amount of water in the world’s reservoirs is about equal to the amount of water that results from the melting of glaciers and ice sheets.
Unsupported. We know reservoirs contain water that would have gone into the sea. We have no evidence concerning how the amount in the reservoirs compares to the amount that melts.
E
The amount of water that results from the melting of glaciers and ice sheets cannot be determined by looking at the rise in global sea level alone.
Supported. The rise in sea level is a product of melting glaciers, expanding water volume, and water being redirected to reservoirs. So, you can’t look at the rise in sea level alone and know how much each factor contributes (or took away, in the case of reservoirs) to the rise.
Conclusion: The government should not reduce taxes on textile imports.
Summary
The author concludes that the government should not reduce taxes on textile imports. This is based on the following rule:
If one or more of a government’s domestic industries would be significantly harmed by the added competition resulting from reduced import taxes, then a government should not reduce import taxes for that industry.
If one or more of a government’s domestic industries would be significantly harmed by the added competition resulting from reduced import taxes, then a government should not reduce import taxes for that industry.
Missing Connection
We have a rule that allows us to conclude the government shouldn’t reduce import taxes for textiles. To trigger this rule, we want to know that reduced import taxes for the textile industry would significantly harm the domestic textile industry.
A
Reducing taxes on textile imports would not financially benefit many consumers in the domestic economy.
(A) doesn’t establish that reducing import taxes for textiles would significantly harm the domestic textile industry. Failing to benefit consumers does not constitute significant harm to the domestic textile industry.
B
Reducing taxes on textile imports would financially benefit some consumers in the domestic economy but would not benefit the domestic textile industry.
(B) doesn’t establish that reducing import taxes for textiles would significantly harm the domestic textile industry. Failing to benefit the domestic textile industry does imply significant harm to the domestic textile industry. (Not helping does not imply hurting.)
C
The domestic textile industry faces significant competition in many of its export markets.
(C) doesn’t establish that reducing import taxes for textiles would significantly harm the domestic textile industry. The fact there’s “significant competition” does not guarantee significant harm. It’s possible, for example, that the domestic industry can withstand and beat out the competition.
D
The domestic textile industry and consumers in the domestic economy would benefit less from reductions in taxes on textile imports than they would from other measures.
The comparative level of benefit from tax reductions compared to other measures does not establish that reducing import taxes would significantly harm the domestic textile industry.
E
The added competition produced by any reduction of taxes on imports would significantly harm the domestic textile industry.
(E) establishes that reducing import taxes would significantly harm the domestic textile industry. Thus, according to the rule, the government should not reduce import taxes for textiles.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the foundation that reconstructed the Frauenkirche church decide not to rebuild the original organ when they otherwise took extraordinary care to return the church to its original form?
Objective
The right answer will describe a key difference in either the process of rebuilding the modern organ and the original organ, or else the end results of the same. That difference will shed light on either a benefit of the more modern organ or a drawback of the original organ which outweighed the foundation’s desire to remain true to the original church through the reconstruction.
A
An eighteenth-century baroque organ cannot adequately produce much of the organ music now played in church services and concerts.
This is a significant drawback of the eighteenth-century baroque organ that explains why the foundation opted for a newer model: the original organ would have been unable to adequately produce much of the music needed for modern church services and concerts!
B
The organ originally designed for the church had some features that modern organs lack.
This doesn’t matter to us, and we probably already assumed that an organ made 200 years ago was different from a modern one! We don’t know if the features on the original organ were good or bad, so we can’t determine if this is a benefit to, or drawback of, the original.
C
The donation for rebuilding the original eighteenth-century baroque organ was designated for that purpose alone.
This is the opposite of helpful. If the donation hadn’t been designated solely for rebuilding the organ, the foundation might’ve opted to build the cheaper, modern organ so they could use the excess funds for other work. This answer choice takes away that possible explanation.
D
By the time the church was destroyed in World War II, the eighteenth-century baroque organ had been modified several times.
This doesn’t matter. We don’t care about the history of the original organ, we just want to know why the foundation decided not to rebuild it in any of its forms, modified or not.
E
In the eighteenth century, the organ played an important role in church services at the Frauenkirche.
This doesn’t matter. We don’t care how important the original organ was in church services, we just want to know why the foundation decided not to rebuild it.
Summary
Cats fed canned food eat fewer ounces per day on average than cats fed dry food. Canned food has more calories per ounce than dry food. Feeding a cat canned food usually costs more per day than feeding a cat dry food.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Canned food costs more per ounce than dry food, such that the extra cost offsets the reduced amount of food that cats have to eat when fed canned food.
A
On average, cats fed canned cat food eat more calories per day than do cats fed dry cat food.
This is unsupported because despite the higher caloric content of canned food, cats eating canned food eat fewer ounces of food per day. These values may offset such that the calories per day for cats are the same regardless of which food they eat.
B
Typically, cats are fed either canned cat food or dry cat food, or both.
This is unsupported because there may exist a third type of food that the stimulus hasn’t mentioned.
C
How much it costs to feed a cat a given kind of food depends only on how many calories per ounce that food contains.
This is unsupported because the overall cost could also depend on the cost of the food per ounce.
D
On average, it costs no less to feed a cat that eats fewer ounces of food per day than it does to feed a cat that eats more ounces of food per day.
This is unsupported because it is possible that cats have overall different average amounts of calories that they eat regardless of food type. Eating fewer ounces of food per day isn’t necessarily confined to the cats that eat wet food.
E
Canned cat food typically costs more per ounce than does dry cat food.
This is strongly supported because even though cats eat less per day when fed canned food than fed dry food, the cost is higher for canned food each day. This means the higher cost is offsetting the reduced amount that cats eat of canned food.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that we should hire Hall Dining next year. This is based on the following:
Most of the students surveyed said they would prefer that the current food vendor be replaced by a different vendor.
The only alternative to the current vendor is Hall Dining.
All else equal, we should adhere to the preferences of the majority of students.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Although most students might want to replace the current food vendor, this doesn’t imply that most students want the current food vendor replaced with Hall Dining. It’s possible, for example, that many of those students want the vendor replaced with a different alternative besides Hall Dining.
A
overlooks the possibility that the students surveyed were unaware that only Hall Dining Services could be hired if the current vendor were not hired
This points out that the students might not prefer Hall Dining to the current vendor. If they thought other alternatives were available, they might have preferred other alternatives to the current vendor. But they might have preferred the current vendor over Hall Dining.
B
relies on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative
We have no reason to believe that the survey involved an unrepresentative sample of students.
C
overlooks the possibility that student preference is not the only factor to be considered when it comes to deciding which food vendor the university should hire
The author stated that preferences of most students should be adhered to, “all other things being equal.” This acknowledges that there can be other factors that are relevant. The argument is concerned with what we should do if those other factors are held equal.
D
overlooks the possibility that there is disagreement among students concerning the issue of food vendors
The author doesn’t overlook the possibility that there is disagreement among students concerning this issue. The author states that “most” students prefer replacing the current vendor. This acknowledges that there might be some students who disagree and prefer the current vendor.
E
argues that a certain action ought to be undertaken merely on the grounds that it would be popular
The recomm. to hire Hall Dining is not based “only” on the popularity of this decision. The author provides premises that aren’t related to popularity (such as the fact Hall Dining is the only alternative,) Also, the premises do not state that hiring Hall Dining would be popular.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that generally, only government-sponsored research investigates agricultural techniques that don’t use commercial products. This is based on the fact that private for-profit corporations don’t sponsor research that’s unlikely to lead to marketable products.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that agricultural techniques that don’t use commercial products are unlikely to lead to the creation of marketable products. The author also assumes that there’s no other source that could conduct research into agricultural techniques that don’t use commercial products besides private for-profit corporations and the government.
A
The government sponsors at least some investigations of agricultural techniques that are considered likely to solve agricultural problems and do not use commercial products.
This doesn’t help establish that only government-sponsored research investigates these techniques. (A) tells us that the government does at least some of this research, but we don’t know whether there could be other sources that also do this research.
B
For almost any agricultural problem, there is at least one agricultural technique that does not use commercial products but that would solve that agricultural problem.
This doesn’t help establish what kinds of entities research agricultural techniques and whether governments are the only ones who will research techniques that are unlikely to lead to marketable products.
C
Investigations of agricultural techniques are rarely sponsored by individuals or by any entity other than private for-profit corporations or the government.
This strengthens the argument by limiting the potential entities that conduct research to, in most cases, private for-profit corporations and the government. Since the premises already eliminate private corporations as a source of research, we’re left with the government.
D
Most if not all investigations of agricultural techniques that use commercial products are sponsored by private for-profit corporations.
The argument is concerned with research into techniques that don’t use commercial products. Which entities research the techniques that do use commercial products has no impact on the reasoning.
E
Most if not all government-sponsored agricultural research investigates agricultural techniques that do not use commercial products.
This doesn’t help show that research investigating agricultural techniques that don’t use commercial products is exclusively done by the government. (E) leaves open the possibility that non-government entities also do a lot of this research.
Summarize Argument
The pundit concludes that it’s a good thing to vote out national leaders every few years because reforms are usually undertaken early in an administration. If a government doesn’t make those reforms early on, they’ll be forced to either admit a mistake, deny a problem, or abrogate responsibility later on.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is about the value of voting out leaders: “It is good to have national leaders voted out of office after a few years.”
A
If national leaders who fail to solve problems are voted out of office after a few years, new leaders will be more motivated to solve problems.
This doesn’t appear in the pundit’s argument and therefore can’t be the main conclusion. We don’t know if new leaders will be more motivated to solve problems when national leaders are voted out.
B
National leaders who stay in power too long tend to deny responsibility for problems that they could have dealt with earlier.
This is a premise that the pundit uses to show why it’s good to vote national leaders out every few years. If the leaders simply deny responsibility for problems, they won’t solve them. This is why new leaders are a good thing.
C
National leaders are most likely to undertake reforms early in a new government.
This is a premise that the pundit uses to show why voting out national leaders is a good thing. Once a government has been around for a while and made their initial reforms, they have limited options for reforms down the road.
D
National leaders who immediately respond to problems upon taking office should be given enough time to succeed at solving them.
This doesn’t appear in the pundit’s argument and thus can’t be a main conclusion. The pundit isn’t arguing about how much time governments should be given, but rather what voters should do every few years.
E
National leaders should be removed from office every few years by the voting in of new leaders.
The pundit argues that it’s a good thing to vote out national leaders every year so that new ones can replace them and make the reforms an incumbent government is less likely to make. The pundit’s stance that “it is good” is equivalent here to “should,” since both are recommending a course of action.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that urushiol (the chemical that causes poison ivy and poison oak reactions) did not evolve as a chemical defense for these plants. This is based on the observation that, while some animals have a mild urushiol reaction, the reaction is not severe in any animals other than humans. Furthermore, wood rats use urushiol-producing plants for nest material.
Notable Assumptions
The author also assumes that the mild skin reactions caused by urushiol don’t deter animals. The author also assumes that urushiol could not have originally evolved as a chemical defense in the plants that produce it, even if it’s no longer effective.
A
Wood rats build their nests using dead, brittle branches, not live ones.
This is irrelevant, since it does not provide any additional information about the effects of urushiol and whether it likely evolved as a chemical defense. For one thing, we don’t know if live or dead branches have different urushiol content.
B
A number of different animals use poison oak and poison ivy as food sources.
This strengthens the hypothesis, since it affirms the author’s assumption that any mild reaction caused by urushiol doesn’t deter animals from using it.
C
It is common for plants to defend themselves by producing chemical substances.
This is irrelevant, since the argument only makes claims about urushiol based on observations specific to urushiol; whether chemical defenses are common in other plants doesn’t matter.
D
In approximately 85 percent of the human population, very small amounts of urushiol can cause a rash.
This is irrelevant, since the argument has already established that urushiol is harmful to humans. We primarily care about how it affects animals.
E
Poison oak and poison ivy grow particularly well in places where humans have altered natural forest ecosystems.
The growth of urushiol-producing plants in human-altered ecosystems is irrelevant to the hypothesis that urushiol did not evolve as a chemical defense in those plants.