This is a Necessary Assumption question. This is a classic NA stem, and we know it’s NA because the question stem is asking for an assumption the argument depends on.
Proponents of organic farming claim something. What do they claim? Chemicals used in farming harm wildlife. Makes sense. What about it? Well, this next sentence looks like a counter-point. If we’re going to stop using chemical fertilizers and still produce the same amount of food, we’re going to have to farm more land than we currently farm. That makes sense: We don’t use chemicals for the fun of it. We use them because they dramatically increase yields. So if we stop using them, the same amount of land will produce less food. Therefore, we’ll have to farm more land to produce the same amount of food. The final line looks like the conclusion: Organic farming destroys wildlife habitat.
Well, this may seem like a somewhat reasonable argument. It may not be immediately clear to us why it isn’t valid. That’s okay though. The answer choices will feed us the prompt that will help us resolve this. We want to approach NA questions by keeping an open mind, considering what each AC suggests, and using POE to navigate through.
Answer Choice (A) This doesn’t have to be true, but it’s interesting how this is constructed. This may seem to contradict a premise, but it actually doesn’t. The first line doesn’t say that these chemicals harm wildlife. It says that organic farming proponents claim that they do. So this answer is telling us that the proponents’ claims are true. But they don’t have to be. Even if these chemicals are perfectly safe, their absence will still decrease yields and increase need for more land devoted to farming.
Answer Choice (B) This is similar to A. I’m not sure that the chemicals’ effects on wildlife, if any, actually matters. The conclusion is only addressing the effects of needing to use more land for organic farming. The chemicals don’t need to be harmful for these effects to follow from the greater land usage of organic farming. This diminishes the benefits of organic farming, but it doesn’t impact the downsides which our conclusion is solely concerned with.
Answer Choice (C) This is the same issue as A and B. Seeing a third answer choice in a row miss the point in the exact same way makes me a little cautious though. I’m not going to change course until I finish the remaining answer choices, but I am prepared to reevaluate the stimulus if this continues. The LSAT is not normally so kind as to allow us to eliminate three answer choices all for the same reason. We accept the kindness when offered, but beware test writers bearing gifts.
Answer Choice (D) This doesn’t have to be true, but it’s at least moving in a different direction from A, B, and C. And I can see why it might be attractive. If we plant different crops, maybe we can increase yields that way. By switching from a lower yield crop farmed non-organically to a higher yield crop farmed organically, maybe we can balance our yields that way without having to devote more land to farming. That makes sense and might be a possibility, but does this have to be true? No. They don’t have to be the same crop to result in lower yields. Different crops can still get us to the same result. This is an interesting suggestion, but it doesn’t check out.
Correct Answer Choice (E) Oh, this makes sense. I definitely was not going to predict this, but it totally works. I’ve been assuming that there can’t be any overlap in land use: It is used for farming or as habitat but not both. But there is nothing that says it can’t be both. If organic farming uses land in a way that preserves it as habitat, it can have multiple functions and serve as both farm land and wildlife habitat. In this scenario, greater land use would not necessarily result in the reduction of habitat. Many shade-grown coffee farming practices have this effect. The coffee plants are allowed to grow beneath and along side other trees which preserves habitat for birds.
This is a Necessary Assumption question. We know because the question stem is asking for an assumption the argument depends on.
The amaryllis plant goes dormant when its soil dries up. That seems like a handy trick and is probably an important adaptation. So, what about it? Oh. It looks like we’re jumping straight into a conclusion. If we’re keeping these as house plants and want them to really thrive, we should withhold water to mimic its natural habitat by creating a dry season for it. Well, I create dry seasons for my house plants sometimes, but they don’t particularly thrive from it. It might actually be nice to have a plant that has an evolutionary adaptation to negligent house plant owners.
This is a really common argument type. It’s the simplest argument structure there is: Premise, therefore, conclusion. A therefore B. It is never valid because there is absolutely nothing which links the premise to the conclusion. The premise and conclusion can be intuitively related, and these arguments can sometimes even seem reasonable on the surface. But a formal analysis shows us what a disaster this sort of argument always is. You can’t say “A therefore B” without establishing any relationship between A and B. Our answer will almost certainly be something that establishes some connection between our premise and conclusion.
So our premise is about the amaryllis’s natural habitat and our conclusion is about what we should do for our house plant amaryllis to thrive. We need something which links the plant’s well-being to its conditions in its natural habitat.
Answer Choice (A) No. We could not care less about what other plants do. The argument in the stimulus does not stray from the amaryllis.
Answer Choice (B) Well, first of all, this doesn’t sound true at all. Something that can handle a bit of drought sounds like an ideal house plant to me. But that doesn’t matter. It doesn’t have to be true. We don’t know if these plants are hard or easy to care for and we don’t care. Whether they’re harder or easier to keep than other plants has no bearing on our job in helping them thrive.
Answer Choice (C) No, though I can see why this might be attractive. If we’re trying to mimic its natural habitat, wouldn’t this be best? Well, yes. But are we trying to mimic its natural habitat? Not necessarily. We are trying to create conditions in which it will thrive. This answer requires the further assumption that its natural habitat is optimal for it to thrive. We do not know this. Life may find a way, but that doesn’t mean it’s thriving.
Answer Choice (D) Tricky. If it doesn’t thrive then it probably wasn’t dormant long enough. No, this doesn’t need to be true. There could be many other conditions required for this thing to do well, any one of which may explain why a plant might be struggling. Maybe it got too little or too much sun. We just don’t know. This does create some relationship between the premise and the conclusion, though, so it might be tempting.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This looks good, though the test writers do make some effort to disguise it since they never explicitly talk about thriving. But it’s there. It establishes that the plant’s dormancy benefits it beyond merely preventing it from dying. If its dormancy period only prevents death and there is no further benefit, then there is no reason to intentionally subject it to drought conditions. There’s a lot of room between not-dying and thriving. This answer provides us with something more than simply not dying. There is some benefit to dormancy other than just not dying. Now, we may help it thrive by withholding water because we are providing whatever this benefit might be. If this is not true, however, then drought provides no benefit whatsoever and, thus, cannot help us to thrive.
We know this question is a sufficient assumption question because the question stem asks which of the answer choices “enable the conclusion to be properly drawn?”
Sufficient assumption questions tend to be very formal. We’re looking for a rule that would validate the conclusion, specifically by bridging the premise and conclusion through the rule. Not only are we extrapolating the rule from our argument, but we’re plugging that rule back into the argument to make it valid. Our rule/prephrase will look like: if [premise], then [conclusion].
Our first sentence describes specific kinds of experiments and the observations from those experiments. The experiments were conducted with certain kinds of bacteria. They were placed around lots of nutrients and two things were observed: population grew (which makes sense, more nutrients = growth), and genetic mutation occurred at random. These observations are our premises.
The next sentence is the hypothesis/conclusion: based on these experiments, the author hypothesized that all genetic mutation is random. All? That’s a big jump from mutations in certain bacteria to all genetic mutations. “All genetic mutations” includes mutations that aren’t just bacteria, too. Our rule would look like: “If certain bacteria genetically mutate at random, then all genetic mutations are random.”
Remember, our paraphrase is meant to guide us through the answer choices. The answer choice may not mimic the paraphrase, but it should make the argument valid when we plug it back into the conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (A) We know for sure that the genetic mutation did happen in our experiment, and with the dichotomy in answer choice A, we either have to accept that all mutations are random, or none are. Since we already have some random genetic mutations in bacteria in our experiments, we have to accept that all genetic mutations across lifeforms are random; accepting the latter wouldn’t make any sense and isn’t possible. In other words, if we plug this back into our argument, the conclusion is valid.
Answer Choice (B) Just because bacteria used in the experiments are common, it doesn’t mean that random genetic mutation occurring in this instance will occur in all other instances as well.
Answer Choice (C) We can’t trigger the sufficient condition in this conditional. With the information in the stimulus, we only can say that certain bacteria go through genetic mutation. This is useless.
Answer Choice (D) If we plug this back into the premises, given what we know about the massive jump the argument makes between the premise and the conclusion, this answer choice does absolutely nothing. It’s additional information that has no positive or negative bearing on the argument.
Answer Choice (E) Knowing that these bacteria are found in nature isn’t enough; we need to know about genetic mutation across life forms, not just bacteria.
We know that this is a Sufficient Assumption question because we see “which one of the following principles, if valid, justified the…conclusion” in the question stem.
Sufficient assumption questions tend to be very formal. We’re looking for a rule that would validate the conclusion, specifically by bridging the premise and conclusion through the rule. Not only are we extrapolating the rule from our argument, but we’re plugging that rule back into the argument to make it valid. Our rule/prephrase will look like: if [premise], then [conclusion].
The first sentence gives us a lot of information on pedigree dogs: pedigree dogs (including working dogs, like a shepherd or hunting dog) conform to org standards. We also know that these organizations specify the physical appearance needed for dogs to belong to a breed. The stimulus then says that the orgs don’t have standards for specific genetic traits. The author cites, as an example, traits that would have enabled dogs to do the work they were developed to do (like sense of smell or direction). This all sounds like important contextual information.
In the third sentence, we see “since,” a premise indicator. The author says that because the breeder will only maintain the traits specified by the organizations (premise), certain traits (like herding) risk being lost (conclusion). This seems like a logical conclusion based on the premise we just read, but it may not be our main conclusion. Let’s read on.
In our last sentence, the author claims these pedigree organizations should set the standard for working ability in dogs developed for work. First thing, this is the main conclusion; the whole stimulus is oriented towards this one statement. However, is this a valid conclusion? Well, why should the organization set these standards? Are they necessary for, as an example, an Australian Shepard who isn’t going to herd sheep? This is the gap in our argument.
Remember, we’re bridging this gap by forcing a conditional statement with our premise and conclusion: If [premise], then [conclusion].
The first two sentences help guide the rest of the information in the stimulus, but it’s really the third sentence that acts as the minor premise and major premise/sub-conclusion: working traits that certain dogs were originally developed for are at risk of being lost. Our conclusion is that these organizations should set requirements for the working abilities of working dogs. Together: If working traits that working dogs were originally developed for are at risk of being lost, organizations should set requirements for those abilities in those dogs. The correct answer doesn’t need to be a conditional statement, but it needs to have the level of certainty and language of the conclusion (in our case, prescriptive).
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is wrong because it doesn’t address what our argument focuses on. This answer would come into play if setting standards for working traits risks the loss of other traits. Since we don’t know anything about what working traits could do to other traits, this is out.
Answer Choice (B) This is wrong because it’s only relevant to standards currently in effect; we’re talking about standards that are not and should be in effect.
Answer Choice (C) This is saying that organizations should make sure standards are respected; this isn’t relevant to our argument! We’re trying to argue for an additional category of traits to be included in the standard.
Answer Choice (D) Use the product/activity will eventually be put to? It’s not said that working dogs will be used for their working purposes, only that those traits need to be retained.
Correct Answer Choice (E) It uses information from the premises (ensure that products can serve the purposes for which they were originally developed, e.g. herding, hunting) and echoes the prescriptive language in our conclusion (organizations should attempt). Even though this isn’t a perfect repetition of our prephrase, remember that our prephrase is meant to help guide us to the correct answer choice by making sure we understand and can extrapolate relevant information from the argument.
This is a sufficient assumption (SA) question, and we know that because of the language in the stem: “Which one of the following principles… would justify…”
Sufficient assumption questions tend to be very formal. We’re looking for a rule that would validate the conclusion, specifically by bridging the premise and conclusion through the rule. Not only are we extrapolating the rule from our argument, but we’re plugging that rule back into the argument to make it “valid.” Our rule/prephrase will look like: if [premise], then [conclusion].
Our first sentence is a prescriptive claim, with a concession: even though smoking is legal, smoking should be banned on flights. The first question we ask is: “Is there a reason this should be the case?” The next sentence attempts to give us an explanation: smoking exposes people to unavoidable harm. Our first sentence is the conclusion, and the second is the explanation/premise.
SA questions often take this form: the conclusion is that something should be done, and our premises attempt to support and validate this prescriptive statement, but it misses the mark. Why? Because the argument makes illicit assumptions.
Back to this stimulus. We could say: “Sure… the harm is unavoidable, but why should we punish the smokers? Why don’t we just prevent non-smokers from flying?”
The good news is that, in trying to make these arguments valid, the solution is simple: bridge your premise and conclusion through a rule: If [premise], then [conclusion]. Our premise here is that “smoking exposes people on planes to unavoidable harm” and our conclusion is that “cigarettes should be banned on all flights.” Our rule will look something like this: “If smoking on planes causes unavoidable harm, then smoking should be banned on all flights.” This is forcing our conclusion to be true by putting the premise and conclusion in a conditional relationship. We’re also trying to make sure that we retain the language/level of certainty in the conclusion when we create our rule. With the rule (or principle, to take the language of the stem) established, the sufficient condition is triggered by the premise and our conclusion is valid. Also a note, the answer choice may not be as straightforward as our prephrase. They could give us the contrapositive of the conditional, or introduce the necessary condition first, so pay attention.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This one perfectly mimics our prephrase. It’s broad, but that doesn’t matter because its scope includes our argument: People should be prohibited from engaging in smoking (or, legal activity) when (or, in those situations in which) that activity will harm people. The order might be confusing to some people, after all, the conclusion is introduced first in the sentence. However, because “when” is a group one indicator, this is correct. If you have trouble understanding this, review conditional logic in the core curriculum.
Answer Choice (B) This is incorrect because of the direction of the conditional statement. The “should be banned” and everything after the group 2 indicator “only if” should be switched. With the language in B, we can’t trigger the conditional and this leaves our argument untouched.
Answer Choice (C) The first half of the answer is pretty good! But “legal activity should be modified?” That’s very ambiguous. Remember, in SA questions, we strive for 100% validity. What would modifying the legal activity of smoking look like? We can’t just assume modifying means banning it.
Answer Choice (D) Read this answer choice very carefully – it’s very wordy, but it’s essentially saying that people should be excluded from situations in which their activity harms others in those situations. With respect to our argument, that would mean smokers should be excluded from flying. This is incorrect because our conclusion claims that smoking should be banned, not smokers.
Answer Choice (E) This is similar to C in that the first half of the conditional is okay. But when we get to the necessary condition, the answer choice pivots. We’re trying to make smoking illegal in airplanes and our answer choice is saying that it should be legal in all situations. This actually weakens our argument.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning in Thomas’ argument is flawed because his argument…”
Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Although this question only requires us to understand what is happening in Thomas’s argument, we can use the second speaker as a means of confirming the flaw in question.
Our first speaker begins the discussion by telling us the club president had no right to disallow Jeffrey’s vote. The reasoning for this is that Jeffrey paid his dues, and only those who pay their dues are able to vote. On the basis of this Jeffrey concludes the club president acted in violation of club rules by disallowing Jeffrey’s vote.
Unfortunately, Thomas is making sufficient and necessary conditions here. We are told that P (paying dues) → G (makes a member in good standing). But as it stands there is no guarantee that simply because we are in good standing we are guaranteed the right to vote. Actually, it’s written by Thomas the other way around.
The stimulus affirms that if you are a V (voting member) → G (you are a member in good standing). But notice how there is no way to draw any sort of conclusion from the presence of being in “good standing” alone. Being in good standing does not guarantee you are able to vote – it simply means the possibility exists. Thus, we cannot confirm the validity of Thomas’s conclusion that the club president was objectively in the wrong. Because there is no guarantee that just because Jeffrey is in good standing, there is not some other requirement that makes him ineligible to vote.
Knowing we are looking for the answer choice that hits on this sufficient/necessary confusion, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that lays out the exact flaw of our stimulus in a descriptively correct manner. Simply because Jeffrey has a prerequisite to vote doesn’t mean he has a guaranteed right to vote.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively correct. If Thomas were attacking the character of the club president, our evidence would be far less based in conditional reasoning.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is descriptively inaccurate due to the scope it contains. Answer choice C says that under any circumstances (not just in the world of Jeffrey’s club and their voting issues) whenever a statement is not denied, it is true. This answer choice goes far beyond the scope established by Thomas’s conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is descriptively correct but ultimately irrelevant when it comes to finding our flaw. Whether or not the exact issue being voted on is specified does not point out the sufficient and necessary confusion present in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice brings our second speaker into the mix. But without a reference to Althea’s position in Thomas’s argument, we can eliminate this answer choice as descriptively incorrect.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The speaker begins with a good contender for the conclusion - that weapons production plans are equally wasteful as inflated government spending. We know this is our conclusion because the speaker follows with the support behind it. The government is building a weapons plant that violates 69 laws when it could build a safer one. Huh? What does the passing or not passing of laws have to do with taxpayer dollars? This is where we can spot the assumption being made by the speaker. A comparative conclusion about wasteful spending needs some sort of support that confirms a comparative about wasteful spensing. This argument is flawed because the evidence they give for the conclusion does not actually respond to the issues being presented in this debate.
Knowing our correct answer choice will point out the irrelevant evidence introduced by our speaker, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in our stimulus. The argument is flawed because the evidence is irrelevant. Not because the author fails to provide us with some sort of evidence. Whether or not the alternative production site is actually safer does not impact our argument - it adds detail to evidence we already know is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. In order for our argument to be conceding something we need to see our author agree with a point that does not appear to be completely consistent with their position. Additionally, we do not see evidence that serves to undermine the conclusion in the stimulus. Instead of seeing harmful evidence, we see evidence that really does nothing at all.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice is the only one that points out the irrelevance of the evidence used in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Suggesting the argument confuses a necessary condition for wasteful research spending means our stimulus presents some sort of requirement for this research. Without any sort of reference to a requirement we cannot call this a conditional reasoning flaw as is suggested by answer choice D.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is factually correct, but not the ultimate issue in our stimulus. Our issue is not really that they haven’t explained the comparison between these two institutions. Our problem is that they are supporting the comparison using information completely unrelated to the topic that they are trying to use to compare these groups.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “Which one of the following describes a reasoning error in the argument?” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The argument begins by telling us about a belief held by people who support the continued reading of Shakespeare. This group argues that appreciation for Shakespeare has always extended beyond the wealthy elites because the words were loved by uneducated people. This seems to be a fine argument, but our speaker disagrees. We are told the idea that uneducated people liked the works of Shakespeare is questionable because the books they were printed on were beyond the reach of people of ordinary means.
This is where we can see the assumption being made by the speaker. Our argument concludes that uneducated people are unlikely to appreciate Shakespeare because the print versions themselves are expensive. But a print copy is not the only way people may become familiar with Shakespeare’s plays. Maybe they were able to attend a show themselves. Knowing our speaker incorrectly concludes that obtaining a print version is the only way to become familiar with and appreciate the plays, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. This answer choice connects the popularity of the plays to the quality of the plays themselves. But our argument does not actually concern how good the plays are - instead, we are debating the groups that were able to access and appreciate them.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Although the basis of the conclusion does rest in evidence we could argue is economical, our stimulus does not come to an aesthetic conclusion about Shakespeare's works. This type of conclusion implies a discussion about the quality of the works as good or bad, which was the reason we could not select answer choice A.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Answer choice C accuses our stimulus of applying the standards of the 18th century in an anachronistically - or out of order way. Our stimulus focuses on the factual events known at one time rather than applying standards in an out of order fashion. For this reason, we can eliminate answer choice C.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice commits a similar error to the first two. This answer is not descriptively accurate because of its discussion of literary quality on the basis of print quality. Again, the stimulus does not actually tell us whether they think Shakespeare’s works were good or bad. Instead, we are entirely concerned with how individuals of uneducated classes obtained access to them.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice is the only option that points out the assumption made by our stimulus. If the author concludes a lack of access because of the expense of print books, they are assuming the people of these uneducated classes had no other means to access the content.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument above is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
This stimulus begins by telling us about a debated poet. S. R. Evans explains a principle of poetic criticism; only a true poet can recognize poetry creatively. Thinking in terms of our sufficient and necessary terms we can translate this relationship: true poet (TP) → recognize creatively (RC). The next line of our stimulus adds another piece to our chain. By stating that only true poets convey poetry creatively (PC), we can link these three variables together to form: PC → TP → RC. If you possess poetic creativity, you are a true poet who can also recognize the presence of poetic creativity.
After laying out these relationships the author presents us with their conclusion. On the basis of this logical chain S. R. Evans tells us that because none of those criticizing their work express poetic creativity (~PC) we can conclude that the critics are not true poets (~TP).
Identifying the sufficient and necessary relationships in this stimulus can help us identify what is wrong with the argument. When we have a chain of three variables the only valid form we can conclude is the contrapositive: ~RC → ~TP → ~PC. The fact that our author tells us we can confirm the critics meet the necessary condition at the end of that chain (~PC) does not mean we can draw any conclusions that lead us to the term earlier in the contrapositive (~TP). Knowing our correct answer will point out the conditional reasoning issue presented in the stimulus, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This correct answer choice is a tricky one. At first glance it does not seem to be accusing the stimulus of the conditional reasoning flaw we have identified. Saying presupposes what it sets out to conclude would lead many to immediately assume we have a traditional circular reasoning answer choice here. But that is not quite the case. This answer choice tells us the argument is circular on the basis of a conditional reasoning mistake. This answer choice is the only descriptively correct one that points out the author is using a necessary assumption to conclude the existence of a sufficient condition earlier in the logical chain.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in our stimulus. It is true that our stimulus assumes everyone falls neatly onto one side of these black-and-white issues. But whether or not the author considers the existence of someone who is kinda a true poet or can sorta identify poetic creativity is not the issue; without a reference to the necessary/sufficient mix-up, this cannot be our correct answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Whether or not we see an implicit claim about independence, this answer chooses to accuse the author of having no justification for such an implication. First of all - don’t we need support to be able to spot an implicit claim? This debate aside, it is not factually accurate to say we see a lack of justification for the author’s claims. The problem is that our author’s claims do not follow from the evidence presented.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is correct in telling us our stimulus makes an unjustified claim. But the issue is not forgetting about potential overlaps of two groups as is suggested by answer choice B. We know our correct answer is going to concern issues with conditional relationships rather than the need to recognize overlap between the groups.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. By saying our stimulus “inevitably leads to the conclusion that poets can never learn to improve…” This answer choice is suggesting the existence of an argument we do not see. The problem of inevitability or something being guaranteed to happen is not the issue we have. Instead, our author concludes on the basis of not having a necessary condition we can conclude we also do not have a sufficient condition.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument commits which one of the following errors of reasoning?” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
We are first told about information being shared at a secret meeting. The speaker informs us that the article that forced the minister’s resignation must have come from someone present at this secret meeting between the minister, the minister’s aid, and the leader of the opposition party. Thus far the stimulus makes sense. If the article must have gotten information from the secret meeting, it must have been someone from the secret meeting who leaked the information. But that reasonable conclusion is not what our argument comes to. Rather than concluding that it must have been some participant of the secret meeting, our stimulus accuses the minister's aide of leaking the information.
This would make complete sense if it were not for the presence of the opposition leader at this secret meeting. Both the leader of the opposing party and the minister’s aid were at the meeting. The aide sure seems a lot less likely than the leader of the opposing party to leak information that would hurt the minister.
This is where we can identify the assumption being made by the argument. While our stimulus could reasonably conclude that there were two potential suspects for the leak to the newspaper, the stimulus goes one step too far and concludes it must have been one of those people in particular. Knowing our correct answer choice will in some way point out the existence of another reasonable conclusion, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice is the only option that references the existence of an interpretation of the stimulus’s evidence that is just as reasonable as the one our stimulus comes to. It is not a guarantee that the minister’s aid leaked the information. It is just as (if not more) likely the opposing party member is the source of the leak.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. This answer defines the conclusion of our stimulus to center on proving that “the earlier thing cannot occur” without the later idea. Nowhere does our argument tell us someone is impossible or bound to not happen like this answer choice suggests. For that reason, we can eliminate answer choice B. Every part of our answer choice – including a description of the argument’s conclusion - must line up with the content we see in stimulus.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. While this answer choice discusses “the same outcome on a different occasion” we do not see any reference to these ideas in our stimulus. The existence of a different occasion would require our stimulus to point out some other instance in which a newspaper leak led to someone’s downfall as the result of a secret informant.
Answer Choice (D) In order for evidence to be irrelevant, the evidence has to be completely unrelated to the discussion presented. Our evidence is not irrelevant because it does respond to the argument. By highlighting the only possible sources for the newspaper leak that led to the minister’s downfall, our stimulus uses good evidence to come to an incorrect conclusion.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice incorrectly describes the content of our stimulus by stating our speaker argues the evidence was sufficient to bring about the result. Let’s remind ourselves of what sufficient means - that we have an event that guarantees the occurrence of some sort of necessary condition. Our argument is not saying that something is sufficient for the result. Instead of saying some factor is enough for a result, our argument has come to an incorrect assumption of what has to be the case.