This is a MBT question, since the question stem specifies: The statements above logically commit the politician to which one of the following conclusions?
Our stimulus begins with the conditional indicator unless. If we translate this by negating one of the ideas and making it the sufficient condition, we should get something equivalent to: If our nation does not redistribute wealth, then we cannot alleviate economic injustice AND eventually there will be intolerable economic inequities. This dovetails nicely into the next sentence’s conditional, which tells us that intolerable economic inequities is enough for those who suffer from injustice to resort to violence. Having now given us this set of conditionals about the dire consequences of not redistributing wealth, the politician concludes with a rule; it is our nation’s responsibility to do whatever is necessary to alleviate conditions that lead to violent attempts at social reform.
It should be clear how this rule relates to what we are already told. Based on the preceding two sentences we know that not redistributing wealth means there will be intolerable economic inequities which will in turn necessarily lead to violent attempts at social reform. The lack of redistribution is therefore a condition which necessarily gives rise to violent attempts at social reform, triggering the politicians rule, and consequently it must be true that it is our nation’s responsibility to redistribute wealth.
Answer Choice (A) We haven’t been told anything about whether violent attempts at reform can be justified, we only know that they inevitably arise under certain conditions.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we should have noticed in our pre-phrasing. Whenever the stimulus of a MBT question contains a conditional rule, we should be thinking about whether the sufficient condition is triggered anywhere else in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (C) The stimulus tells us nothing about political expediency and whether it must be chosen over abstract moral principles.
Answer Choice (D) This is consistent with our politician’s statements, but only because they deal with specifically a case that will lead to intolerable social conditions, and mention nothing about what to do if they don’t. We can’t conclude from what the politician says that economic injustice isn’t a problem in other cases.
Answer Choice (E) This is a classic case of confusing necessity for sufficiency. Just because redistribution is required for economic justice does not mean it is enough for economic justice.
We’ve got a MBT question here, as the question stem asks: If the statements in the argument are all true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of them?
This stimulus is all about constitutions and what can make them liberal. It begins by denying the view that whether a constitution is written or unwritten inherently makes them more or less liberal. The big takeaway here should be that just knowing a constitution is written isn’t enough to know whether or not it is liberal. The next sentence further emphasizes this point with the conditional indicator until; a written constitution by itself is just a piece of paper, it only becomes meaningful when its content is (i) interpreted and (ii) applied. Put otherwise, if a written constitution hasn’t been interpreted and applied, then it isn’t a real constitution yet. These two sentences arguing against the importance of whether a constitution is written are followed up by a helpful definition of what a constitution is. A constitution isn’t the written or unwritten text, it is a sum of procedures which together legitimize and control the state’s use of power. Our final sentence begins with the conclusion indicator therefore, and from all this talk about what a constitution is and whether its being written matters, concludes that a written constitution is only liberal if it is (i) interpreted and (ii) applied in a liberal way.
This is a four star question, and it is easy to see why; unlike a lot of MBT true questions the underlying logic of the stimulus isn’t made super clear. The key to getting this question correct is recognizing the essential claims the stimulus makes about what makes something a constitution and what makes something a specifically liberal constitution. The key triggers are whether a constitution has been interpreted and applied, and whether this was in a liberal way. Let’s look at the answer choices and eliminate the ones that could be false:
Answer Choice (A) Since we’ve been told a written constitution is just a paper with words until it is put into action, it must be false that we could judge whether a written constitution is actually liberal just by reading it.
Correct Answer Choice (B) B is correct for the same reason that A is incorrect. It says the opposite of A, and tells us that a written constitution can’t be judged to be liberal by its written text alone, which is exactly what must be true given the definition of a constitution and the requirements to be liberal that the stimulus gives us. If a written constitution is just words on paper prior to being interpreted and applied, then we can’t know whether it is a liberal constitution without it being interpreted and applied.
Answer Choice (C) This answer makes a really broad claim that we have zero support for in the stimulus. All we’ve been told is that written constitutions are not inherently more liberal than unwritten ones because a constitution becomes real only through interpretation and application. We know nothing about whether or not there are advantages between the two kinds.
Answer Choice (D) We were only told that there is nothing inherently liberal about written constitutions, we cannot infer from that that there is something inherently liberal about unwritten constitutions.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is the most selected incorrect answer for this question. We are given the conditional statement that if a written constitution is liberal, then it is required that it be interpreted and applied in a liberal way. What this answer does which makes it incorrect is confuse the sufficient and necessary conditions of this statement, so that merely being interpreted in a liberal way is enough for a constitution to be liberal. If you chose this answer, it might be helpful to review conditional logic and specifically why we cannot conclude that jsut because the necessary condition is true that the sufficient condition is as well.
Here we have a MBT question, which we should recognize from the question stem: If the statements above are true, which one of the following must on the basis of them be true*?*
This question appears to be a lot more difficult than it really is; its difficulty lies in how dense with terminology the stimulus is. If we keep our cool, and focus on discerning the logical relations behind all this scientific jargon, we should have an easy time once we actually get to the answer choices. So don’t get lost in the noise, and make sure to anchor yourself in the conditionals and conjunctions as they show up.
Our first sentence tells us that these things called pyrrole molecules can combine to form polypyrroles. I don’t know about you, but I have never in my life heard of pyrrole molecules. Don’t let yourself be thrown off by this foreign language, what you should take away from this first sentence is that there are these things, pyrroles, and they can combine together. The next sentence continues with the weird language, bringing in this new thing, zeolites. As soon as we notice that the sentence begins with an if, we should look for a conditional relationship. The sentence gives us some information about polypyrrole combination when it is exposed to zeolite, and tells us there are two possible outcomes, conjoined by an OR that should jump at us. If we diagram this conditional, we should end up with something along the lines of: PP combination + Z → chains in Z or lumps on Z. So when we have these polypyrroles form near zeolite, they do so either in lumps on the zeolite, or chains within it. Interesting! The next sentence begins with the conditional indicator when, and we should once again use the logic to guide us through the language. It’s important to note in this conditional that the polypyrrole formation is the necessary condition, what triggers the rule. It’s not the case that polypyrrole formation is enough for the zeolite to change color, it is in fact required that if zeolite changes color from yellow to black, pyrrole formed either lumps on the zeolite or chains in it.
After all this explanation of polypyrrole formation and how it works around zeolites, we are given a phenomena; some yellow zeolite was submerged in pyrrole and turned black, without any pyrrole lumps forming. If we are pre-phrasing, we should recognize that we’ve been told pyrrole formation is required for zeolite to change from yellow to black, so it must have happened either in chains in the zeolite or in lumps on its surface. Since we are told there were no lumps, it must be true that the pyrrole formed chains in the zeolite. With this in mind, let’s look at the answer choices. As always on a MBT question, we should eliminate answers by considering whether it is possible for them to not be true given the information in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice must be false, as we are explicitly told the zeolite was free of pyrroles before being submerged. If you selected this, you should work on reading the stimulus more carefully.
Answer Choice (B) B also must be false as we are told that no lumps formed on the zeolites surface after it had been submerged. Once again, you should be able to eliminate this answer quickly if you carefully read the stimulus.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This answer says exactly what we inferred in our pre-phrasing. Given the information in the stimulus, it is the only possible explanation for how the zeolite changed from yellow to black. Therefore, it must be true.
Answer Choice (D) Another answer choice that must be false. The third conditional the stimulus gives us requires that polypyrroles form if a zeolite changes from yellow to black. Since the zeolite was free of pyrrole before it was submerged, and changed from yellow to black after being submerged, there must have been some polypyrrole formation when it was submerged.
Answer Choice (E) This is the only incorrect answer choice that is not necessarily false. However, it is still not the case that it must be true. We are given no support to infer with certainty what quantity of the pyrrole entered the zeolites inner chamber.
This is a must be true question, as it asks: If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of them?
This stimulus is full of conditionals with comparisons. The first sentence and the second half of the second sentence both begin with the conditional indicator “when”, which gives us three conditionals in addition to the “but if” beginning the second sentence. All three conditionals involve comparisons indicated by “than” or “as”. If we notice that the “fall more slowly” of the necessary condition of the first conditional is equivalent to the “fall less rapidly” of the second conditional, and that the “unable to lower prices” of the second conditional is equivalent to the “cannot lower prices” of the third, we should recognize that the three conditionals form a chain: slower adoption → slower falling costs → cannot lower prices → squeezed out. The contrapositive of this chain is: not squeezed out → can lower prices → not slower falling costs → not slower adoption. Since this is a must be true question with a chain of conditionals, we should be looking for answers which say something about a condition earlier in this chain or the contrapositive chain that guarantee a condition further down the chain. Let’s see if any answers take this form:
Answer Choice (A) We are told nothing about raising prices, only stuff about being unable to lower them.
Answer Choice (B) This answer is a classic case of confusing sufficiency for necessity. Just because foreign competitors (FCs) adopting technologies faster is sufficient to squeeze a country out of the global market, doesn’t mean that it is required for a country to be squeezed out of the market.
Answer Choice (C) This answer makes the same mistake as B, just with different parts of our chain of conditionals.
Answer Choice (D) The problem with this answer is that it gives us the negation of the first condition of our conditional chain, because “the same rate” is equivalent to “not slower”, but we can only use the negation in the contrapositive where it is the final necessary condition. Even if A→B is true, we can’t infer anything from B alone. In this case we certainly cannot infer that neither group will be squeezed out of the market. It is entirely consistent with what we are told in the stimulus that there are a million ways a manufacturer can be squeezed out of the market even when it has the same tech adoption rate as its FCs.
Correct Answer Choice (E) Our contrapositive chain comes in handy here. If we look at it, we’ll notice that if a manufacturer can lower prices as rapidly as their foreign competitor, then they must not have slower falling costs, which means that they must not be adopting tech at slower rate. If it is true that a manufacture can lower prices as rapidly as its FCs, then it is required that it is not adopting tech at a slower rate.
This is a strengthen question, and we know that because of the stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Our stimulus tells us that asbestos (which they also include a nice little description of) poses health risks only if it’s disturbed and released into the environment. The author says that since removing it from buildings would disturb it, the government should not require the removal of all asbestos. This argument, as it stands, makes sense. You wouldn’t want to remove asbestos is disturbing it would cause harm. Our instinct is to be alarmed that anyone would support the idea of leaving asbestos in our walls and just living it. This argument assumes that the alternative (removing and putting it somewhere else) is worse.
Answer Choice (A) Plugging this back into the argument does not help the argument. We’re pointing out that asbestos is not as dangerous as all these other things, but that doesn’t strengthen the idea that the government should not require its removal.
Answer Choice (B) This is a conditional statement: if workers do not wear protective gear, asbestos can pose a health threat. What about if they do wear protective gear? Would there still be a threat? We don’t know! In other for this to interact with the stimulus, we would need to know that the workers are not wearing protective gear at the very least.
Answer Choice (C) These relative statements are meaningless: how much more? And is the less dangerous kind of asbestos dangerous in general? At what level? It could be that one is very dangerous, and the other is extremely dangerous. We’ve already said that asbestos, when disturbed, is dangerous - this relative statement does not do anything to strengthen the argument.
Answer Choice (D) This could potentially weaken the stimulus. They’re saying that since the asbestos will eventually get disturbed, what’s the point of preventing its removal now? This answer choice is essentially saying this restriction is unnecessary.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice draws out a potential alternative proposal for removing asbestos and saying that it’s potentially dangerous: if we require that people remove all asbestos and then put it in a landfill (we can assume a landfill would be where opponents would want to dumb the asbestos), it’s still not safe.
This is a Resolve, Reconcile, and Explain Question. We know this because of the question stem: “...most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?”
RRE questions will require an explanation of a conflicting set of facts. Our correct answer choice, when plugged back into the stimulus, will resolve the discrepancy by explaining how two sides of the apparent conflicting issues actually make sense together. The correct answer will use both sides, though not necessarily explicitly, to explain the conflict. Often, the test will entice you to make naive assumptions about the conflict - don’t fall for it! Your approach should fall under the “this seems wrong because of xyz, but I can think of a few reasons it could work.”
Our first sentence presents us with what happens when you consume excess calories: you gain weight. This makes sense. Our next sentence says that alcoholic beverages have tons of calories. This (sadly) tracks.
Before we read on, with these two ideas in mind, what can we infer? That excess intake of alcoholic drinks could cause someone to gain weight. With this question, it’s possible to anticipate where the argument could go; they’re probably going to say something about how, contrary to these facts, people who drink a lot of alcohol don’t gain weight.
What does our next sentence say? Exactly this: people who drink 2-3 drinks, exceeding their intake, do not generally gain weight. The grammar here is a little complicated. If helpful, focus on the subject and then the predicate and then expand your scope from there. The subject is “people.” What kind of people? And so on.
Back to the argument. Can we think of reasons why people who drink 2-3 beverages a day do not gain weight? Perhaps these people exercise a lot. Perhaps these people have higher metabolisms. These are just two reasons - they are many, many more.
Okay - let’s go to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This may seem attractive, but it’s absolutely wrong. We’re directly rejecting the facts we’re given. The people who drink these excess calories do exceed their caloric intake - it’s in the last sentence. This is out.
Correct Answer Choice (B) It’s giving an overlooked possibility for how these people who drink 2-3 drinks are able to not gain weight. The excess calories are dissipated through heat, which means they’re not converted and stored as fat.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice focuses on people who do not drink but who eat high-calorie foods and still do not gain weight. How does this help resolve the fact that people who drink excess calories don’t gain weight?
Answer Choice (D) This is a restatement of the last sentence! It doesn’t add or explain anything.
Answer Choice (E) This is completely irrelevant to our issue: people who don’t eat excess calories don’t lose weight. Don’t lose weight? This doesn’t even interact with either of our sides.
This is a most strongly supported question, as the question stem asks: The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following conclusions?
Our stimulus begins with a description of rheumatoid arthritis, specifically the mechanism by which it occurs. Immune system misfunction leads to attacks on joint cells which causes the release of a hormone which in turn causes pain and swelling. So far all we have is a causal chain; immune misfunction > join cells attacked > hormone released > pain and swelling. The next sentence gives us a bit more information on this hormone; it is normally only triggered by injury and infection. Since we know the hormone causes pain and swelling, what we should infer from this is that injury or infection can also lead to the same pain and swelling as rheumatoid arthritis. Finally, we are told about a new medication that includes a protein that blocks the pain and swelling hormone. Let’s see what the correct answer infers from this:
Answer Choice A We are only told that the medication “contains” a hormone-inhibiting protein for a hormone that specifically causes pain and swelling; nothing in the stimulus mentions or suggests that it also repairs cells. This answer is consistent with the stimulus, but completely unsupported.
Answer Choice B This is consistent with what we know but not something any of the information we have been given would support. We are told nothing about how the medications benefits compares to any possible harmful side effects.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is where the inference we made from the second sentence comes in handy. We know that the hormone can be caused by injury and we know that it causes pain; if the medication stops this pain that would result from an injury, then we have reason to believe that at least some of the pain that results from a join injury wouldn’t occur because of the medication. C is the only answer that has any significant support in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (D) We have been told nothing about the mechanisms by which other immune system disorders cause pain. We are not entitled to make the assumption that they are similar enough to rheumatoid arthritis that the medication could be adapted, and therefore this answer has little support.
Answer Choice (E) Similar to D, we have been given no information about other joint diseases. Maybe they do all involve the same hormone.
This is a most strongly supported question, as the question stem asks: If the statements above are true, which one of the following is most strongly supported by them?
Our stimulus begins by telling us that in the last quarter century the introduction of labor-saving tech has greatly reduced the average amount of time required for a worker to produce a corresponding output. This change has the potential to reduce the number of hours workers spend working every work, and increasing the amount of time they have to themselves. Who doesn’t like the sound of that! Unfortunately, it seems the average amount of leisure time has increased at only half the rate that output has grown. What gives! Since this is a MSS question, we should treat all this information as a series of premises. The correct answer will be the conclusion which can follow from these premises with the least assumptions required. Let’s see what are options are like:
Answer Choice (A) This conclusion requires a lot of assumptions. More specifically, we have been told nothing about what workers are spending their money on. Even if they have more leisure time total, what if leisure activities have gotten much cheaper?
Answer Choice (B) We have only been told about what these technologies have done to worker output and leisure time, we know nothing about the amount of jobs they have created or replaced.
Answer Choice (C) Again, this just isn’t something we know much about. For this to follow from the information in the stimulus, we have to make a lot of assumptions.
Answer Choice (D) We’ve been told nothing about what was anticipated compared to the increase that actually occurred.
Correct Answer Choice (E) If the average hourly output has increased, and at double the rate at which average leisure time has increased, then it is highly likely that the average weekly output is higher than it was before the introduction of labor-saving technology. The weekly output is determined by the amount of hours worked in a week and the hourly output, and we know that hours worked per week has declined (leisure time) less than hourly output has increased.
We know this is a strengthening question because of the question stem: Which one of the following, if true, most supports the argument above?
The first thing the stimulus does is give us a correlation; there is a certain strain of bacteria that is found in the stomachs of specifically ulcer patients. Further strengthening this correlation, a researcher with no ulcer history accidently ingested the bacteria and developed an ulcer. Talk about a workplace hazard! From these two correlations the author draws the conclusion that the bacteria strain causes the ulcers. A fair hypothesis to make, but we have to remember that correlation only implies causation, it does not guarantee it.
This stimulus has a very common structure for weakening/strengthening causal hypothesis questions. Correlation, more correlation, hypothesis of causation. Our job is to strengthen the hypothesis that it is the bacteria that are causing the ulcers. An answer choice may do that by eliminating an alternative hypothesis, providing an experiment whose results agree with the hypothesis, or one of many other ways. Let’s see what we end up with in the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) Always stay anchored in the conclusion. The conclusion we want to support is about the causal relation between the bacteria and ulcers. This answer gives us a correlation between the bacteria and kidney disease. Interesting maybe, but definitely not relevant to our argument. A is incorrect.
Answer Choice (B) Good for the researcher, but not meaningful for us. Similar to A, this answer brings in other health issues to distract us. If we clearly understood the conclusion we are supposed to support, we should quickly see that this information isn’t helpful. B is incorrect.
Answer Choice (C) If this were a weakening question this answer choice might have promise, though the absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of an absence. This is a strengthening question however, so this answer is terrible. C is incorrect.
Answer Choice (D) We’re all happy for the researcher (though if the recognized expert is ingesting dangerous bacteria, I don’t want to see what the non-experts are up to!), but his credentials don’t have any bearing on the author’s argument. D is incorrect.
Correct Answer Choice (E) E strengthens our argument by providing an experiment. It might have thrown you off that the experiment didn’t show people with bacteria having the ulcers, but we’ve already been told that correlation exists. What this answer does is give us an experiment strengthening the correlation by showing that where the ulcers aren’t present neither are the bacteria. From what we were told in the stimulus, maybe most people had this bacteria and only some developed ulcers. This study casts doubt on that possibility, and by strengthening the correlation, strengthens our causal hypothesis. E is correct.