Hiro: I have no doubt that people lie on surveys of this type. The question is whether some people lie more than others. While the raw numbers surely underestimate what I’m trying to measure, the relative rates those numbers represent are probably close to being accurate.
Speaker 1 Summary
Now matter how you look at them, your survey results are misleading. Why? Because the numbers collected are serious underestimates, since people generally lie on surveys.
Speaker 2 Summary
The rates these numbers represent are probably close to being accurate. Despite the raw numbers surely being an underestimate, the question is whether some people lie more than others.
Objective
We need a statement Rita and Hiro disagree on. They disagree whether Hiro’s survey results are misleading. Rita thinks the results are misleading because the raw numbers are underestimates. Hiro does not think they are misleading because the rates that the raw numbers represent are probably close to accurate.
A
the survey results are misleading regardless of how they are interpreted
Rita and Hiro disagree on this statement. Rita agrees because she states the results are misleading no matter how you examine them. Hiro disagrees because when you examine the rates instead of the raw numbers, the results are close to accurate.
B
people tend to lie on certain kinds of surveys
Both speakers agree on this statement. Rita claims that the survey results are misleading because people lie on surveys. Hiro concedes this point.
C
a different type of measure than a survey would produce results that are less misleading
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Both speaker’s comments are limited to the results of Hiro’s survey specifically.
D
the raw numbers collected are serious underestimates
Both speakers agree on this statement. Rita claims that the survey results are misleading because the raw numbers are serious underestimates. Hiro concedes this point, but suggests to look at the rates instead of the raw numbers.
E
the number of people surveyed was adequate for the survey’s purpose
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. The raw number from the story could be misleading for reasons other than the total number of people surveyed.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The researchers hypothesize a person with the genetic defect is more likely to have a herniated disk. Why? Because 5 of 100 people with herniated disks had the defect, while 0 of 100 people without herniated disks had the defect.
Notable Assumptions
The researchers assume the correlation they found is explained by a causal relationship—that the genetic defect causes an increased likelihood of suffering a herniated disk. This means assuming no other causal relationship explains the phenomenon. It also means assuming their samples were representative of the general population.
A
The researchers also examined a group of 100 people who did not have the defective gene; 80 were found to have herniated disks in their backs.
If anything, this weakens the researchers’ argument. It suggests lacking the genetic defect—rather than having it—makes suffering a herniated disk more likely.
B
When the researchers examined a group of 100 people with the defective gene, they found that 2 of them had herniated disks in their backs.
If anything, this weakens the researchers’ argument. It implies having the genetic defect doesn’t make the likelihood of suffering a herniated disk all that high.
C
When the researchers examined the families of the 5 subjects who had the defective gene, they found that 30 family members also had the defective gene, and each of them suffered from herniated disks.
This implies a stronger correlation between the genetic defect and herniated disks. It’s more evidence that people with the defective gene tend to suffer herniated disks.
D
Another team of researchers examined a different group of 100 people who suffered from herniated disks, and they found that none of them had the defective gene.
This weakens the researchers’ argument. It suggests the findings were not replicable, raising the possibility the researchers’ study was anomalous or poorly designed.
E
When the researchers examined the family of one of the subjects who did not suffer from herniated disks, they found 30 family members who did not have the defective gene, and 20 of them suffered from herniated disks.
This weakens the researchers’ argument. It implies a different genetic or behavioral factor, other than the genetic defect in question, is likely responsible for the increased likelihood of herniated disks.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that aerobic exercise leads to decreased risk of lung disease. Her premises are:
(1) A 1970s survey wherein the more frequently people engaged in aerobic exercise, the lower their risk of lung disease tended to be.
(2) Subsequent surveys yielded the same finding.
(1) A 1970s survey wherein the more frequently people engaged in aerobic exercise, the lower their risk of lung disease tended to be.
(2) Subsequent surveys yielded the same finding.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a “correlation doesn’t imply causation” flaw, where the author sees a correlation and concludes that one thing causes the other without ruling out the two alternatives hypotheses:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—people at lower risk of lung disease might gravitate toward aerobic exercise. Maybe healthy lungs make aerobics more fun!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—maybe something else (maybe living somewhere with good air quality?) causes people to both do aerobic exercise and be at lower risk for lung disease.
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—people at lower risk of lung disease might gravitate toward aerobic exercise. Maybe healthy lungs make aerobics more fun!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—maybe something else (maybe living somewhere with good air quality?) causes people to both do aerobic exercise and be at lower risk for lung disease.
A
ignores anecdotal evidence and bases its conclusion entirely on scientific research
There’s no reference to any anecdotal evidence at all, let alone any that would contradict the results of the scientific research. Therefore, there’s no support for the claim that the author is ignoring any such evidence.
B
considers only surveys published in one particular medical journal
The stimulus doesn’t state that all the surveys the author considered were published in the same medical journal, so (B) could be factually inaccurate. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that it would be a problem to only consider surveys published in one medical journal.
C
concludes merely from the fact that two things are correlated that one causes the other
This describes the author’s cookie-cutter “correlation proves causation” flaw: based solely on a correlation (frequent aerobic exercise correlates with decreased lung disease risk), the author concludes a specific causation (aerobic exercise causes decreased lung disease risk).
D
presumes, without providing justification, that anyone who does not have lung disease is in good health
The stimulus does not presume that anyone who doesn’t have lung disease is in good health. Rather, it states that lowered risk of lung disease is one significant benefit to a person’s health—a statement that is true whether or not that person is healthy in other respects.
E
fails to consider that even infrequent aerobic exercise may have some beneficial effect on people’s health
The author does not fail to consider the potential benefits of infrequent aerobic exercise; in fact, the conclusion makes a blanket statement regarding the purported health effects of aerobic exercise, regardless of frequency.
Cynthia: If the transit authority tries that maneuver, the federal government will probably just let the authority go out of business. The transit authority cannot risk allowing that to happen.
Speaker 1 Summary
Enrique argues that the city's transit authority should continue operating without cutting services or increasing fares until it runs out of money. He believes that once the authority's funds are exhausted, the federal government will step in and provide the funding to save the transit authority.
Speaker 2 Summary
Cynthia disagrees with Enrique's strategy. She believes that if the transit authority allows its funds to run out without making any cuts or increasing fares, the federal government will likely let it go out of business. Cynthia suggests that the transit authority cannot risk this outcome.
Objective
Disagreement: Enrique and Cynthia disagree on whether the transit authority should continue to run without making any cuts or increasing fares.
A
the transit authority should continue operating without cutting service or increasing fares until it has exhausted its funds
Enrique agrees because he believes that the government will provide more funding once they run out of money. Cynthia disagrees because she thinks the government will just let the transit authority go out of business.
B
the federal government should provide additional funding to the transit authority
It is unclear whether Enrique or Cnythia support/oppose the government providing additional funding. At best, Enrique agrees with this, but Cynthia does not mention this at all. Their disagreement is over what the transit authority should do without government funding.
C
it would be better for the transit authority to cut services than it would be to raise fares
Neither Enrique nor Cynthia addresses whether cutting services would be better than raising fares. Enrique believes the transit authority should do neither, while Cynthia does not provide a position.
D
the federal government is willing to provide additional funding to the transit authority now
Neither Enrique nor Sylvia addresses whether the government is willing to provide funding now. Enrique says that the government has “so far” been able to provide funding, while Cynthia says nothing about it.
E
the transit authority can afford to operate for the next twelve months without cutting service even if it does not receive additional funding
Enrique likely agrees with this statement. He claims the transit authority will run out of money if it doesn’t raise fares or cut services. So, if it raises fares (which is implied in this AC), it *could* survive. However, Cynthia does not address what will happen in this case.
Rose: Let’s not see the movie Winter Fields. I caught a review of it in the local paper and it was the worst review I’ve read in years.
Chester: I don’t understand why that might make you not want to see the movie. And besides, nothing in that paper is particularly well written.
Summary
Rose: The local paper had one of the worst reviews of Winter Fields I’ve ever read. Therefore, we should not see that movie.
Chester: Nothing in that paper is well written. I don’t understand why that would make you not want to see the movie.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Chester thought Rose was referring to the review itself being poorly written, whereas Rose meant that the review gave the movie a bad rating.
A
see the movie
This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand what Rose meant by “let’s not see the movie.”
B
caught a review
This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand what Rose meant by “caught a review.” Chester understands that Rose read a particular review.
C
local paper
This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand what Rose meant by seeing a review in the local paper.
D
worst review
This answer is strongly supported. Chester thought Rose was referring to the review itself being poorly written, whereas Rose meant that the review gave the movie a bad rating.
E
in years
This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand that the review Rose read was the worst she had read in years.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Chu will probably defeat Lewis in the mayoral race. This is based on the fact that prodevelopment candidates have won the last six mayoral elections, and Chu, unlike Lewis, is a prodevelopment candidate.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the reasons that led to prodevelopment candidates winning in the past continue to apply to the race between Chu and Lewis. The author assumes that people won’t choose to support anti-development candidates in the upcoming election.
A
Lewis has extensive experience in national politics, but not in city politics.
This is a negative aspect of Lewis. This doesn’t help suggest that he will probably win over Chu.
B
Prodevelopment mayoral candidates in Bensburg generally attract more financial backing for their campaigns.
This might help explain why prodevelopment candidates have won. But this doesn’t suggest that the same reason won’t apply to this race.
C
Bensburg is facing serious new problems that most voters attribute to overdevelopment.
This suggests that voters might not be as attracted to prodevelopment candidates during this election as they had been during past election.
D
Lewis once worked as an aide to a prodevelopment mayor of Bensburg.
The premises tell us that Lewis favors placing limits on development. His past experience doesn’t change the fact that he is not a prodevelopment candidate.
E
Chu was not thought of as a prodevelopment politician before this election.
Regardless of what people knew of him before, the premises tell us that Chu is a prodevelopment candidate. (E) isn’t suggesting that voters don’t know Chu is prodevelopment.
Summarize Argument
Mesmosis videos issue an initial command to a subject’s subconscious to experience each subsequent instruction as if it had been repeated 1,000 times. Based on this, as well as the fact that directions to a subconscious must be repeated many times in order to be effective, the author concludes that subsequent instructions from the Mesmosis videos will be experienced as if they had been repeated 1,000 times.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the fact that directions to a subconscious must be repeated many times to be effective. We were not told that the initial instruction to experience subsequent instructions would be repeated many times. So there’s no basis to think that the initial instructions will be effective. That means there’s no basis to think that subsequent instructions will be perceived as if they had been repeated 1,000 times.
A
overlooks a requirement that it states for the effectiveness of directions to the subconscious
The overlooks the requirement that instructions must be repeated many times in order to be effective. If we don’t know the initial instruction is repeated many times, the author’s conclusion doesn’t follow.
B
takes for granted that the effectiveness of a direction to the subconscious is always directly proportional to the number of times the direction is repeated
The author never suggests a proportional relationship between repetition and effectiveness. Repetition is required in order for directions to be a effective, but that doesn’t mean the greater the repetition, the greater the effectiveness.
C
concludes that hypnosis is the most effective technique for altering behavior without considering evidence supporting other techniques
The author does not assume that hypnosis is the most effective technique for altering behavior. He asserts that hypnosis videos can work to change behavior, but never suggests that they are the most effective.
D
draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion
(D) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion asserts that subsequent instructions on Mesmosis videos are extremely effective. This does not restate any supporting claim. There’s no other claim asserting that subsequent instructions are extremely effective.
E
concludes that hypnosis videos will be effective simply because they have never been proven to be ineffective
The argument doesn’t rely on a claim that hypnosis videos have never been proven to be ineffective. The support for the conclusion concerns a description of the initial instruction and what is required for directions to a subconscious to be effective.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
There are higher default rates among mortgage borrowers with the highest credit scores than there are among other mortgage borrowers, even though higher credit scores typically correspond to lower risks of loan default.
Objective
The right answer will explain a key difference between mortgage borrowers with the highest credit scores and other borrowers. That difference must shed light on some factor that explains why the former group tend to have a harder time repaying their loans.
A
Mortgage lenders are much less likely to consider risk factors other than credit score when evaluating borrowers with the highest credit scores.
This is what we’re looking for! Mortgage lenders are much less likely to take the time to comprehensively evaluate borrowers with the highest credit scores, so they end up loaning to riskier people whose red flags would have disqualified them if the lender had looked closer.
B
Credit scores reported to mortgage lenders are based on collections of data that sometimes include errors or omit relevant information.
This doesn’t describe any difference between the highest-credit-score borrowers and the others. Because these inaccuracies presumably occur across the board, “B” doesn’t explain why a correlation that holds for most borrowers falls apart for those with the highest credit scores.
C
A potential borrower’s credit score is based in part on the potential borrower’s past history in paying off debts in full and on time.
Of course this is true! These factors play a huge role in a person’s credit score. But that’s true for every person at every credit score level, so nothing here explains why a correlation that holds for most borrowers falls apart for those with the highest credit scores.
D
For most consumers, a mortgage is a much larger loan than any other loan the consumer obtains.
Of course this is true! Houses are expensive. But this doesn’t point to a difference between highest-credit-score consumers and others, so nothing here explains why a correlation that holds for most borrowers falls apart for those with the highest credit scores.
E
Most potential borrowers have credit scores that are neither very low nor very high.
This seems quite plausible, but it doesn’t help us understand what’s happening for mortgage borrowers with the highest credit scores that’s different from what’s happening for other borrowers.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
The standards committee and the awards committee cannot both have a quorum.
A
If the general assembly does not begin at 6:00 P.M. today, then the awards committee has a quorum.
This could be false. If the general assembly does not begin at 6:00 PM, we know that the standards committee doesn’t have a quorum, but it could be the case that the awards committee doesn’t have a quorum either.
B
If the standards committee does not have a quorum, then the awards committee has a quorum.
This could be false. It is possible for neither committee to have a quorum.
C
If the general assembly begins at 6:00 P.M. today, then the standards committee has a quorum.
This could be false. We know that if the standards committee has a quorum, then the general assembly will begin at 6:00 PM. (C) reverses the sufficient and necessary conditions.
D
If the general assembly does not begin at 7:00 P.M. today, then the standards committee has a quorum.
This could be false. If the general assembly does not begin at 7:00 PM, we know that the awards committee doesn’t have a quorum, but it could be the case that the standards committee doesn’t have a quorum either.
E
If the standards committee has a quorum, then the awards committee does not have a quorum.
This must be true. As shown below, by chaining the conditional claims, we see that if the standards committee has a quorum, then the awards committee does not have a quorum.
