Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the chemist’s response to the physicist’s challenge?” 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 note we have two speakers in our stimulus. That means we need to be on the lookout for two potential conclusions and sets of explanations. Our first speaker, the physicist, tells us a claim about nuclear fusion is based on inaccurate calculations. While our speaker does not directly tell us the experiment is faulty as a result, the implication of the speaker’s challenge tells us they do not agree with the nuclear fusion claim on the basis of the evidence we have.
The chemist responds with the claim that the physicist’s argument is faulty. That’s not an unreasonable conclusion. If the chemist were to explain the reason why the numbers still lead to the claim we can see how the chemist can overcome the gap pointed out by our first speaker. But the chemist’s reasoning for their conclusion is not reasonable. Instead of responding to the physicist’s claim about the methods through which the claim received its evidence, the chemist accuses our first speaker of being jealous that the claim about nuclear fusion came from someone outside the field of physics.
While the chemist’s conclusion could be valid, the reasoning provided makes the chemist’s argument invalid. Knowing we are looking to identify an answer choice that emphasizes the motivations of the speaker rather than the evidence at hand, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Instead of restating a claim in synonymous terms, our second speaker ignores the explanation of our physicist and instead attacks their personal motivations.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in our stimulus. Whether or not we can establish that perfect accuracy is possible does not weigh on our discussion. Even if it were possible to have perfect measurements, who is to say we need perfect measurements to ensure accuracy? Whether or not this information occurs doesn’t overcome that it is not the issue we can predict in the evidence for our second speaker’s conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. In order for our argument to be confusing two different uses of one word we would have to see two instances of that word. Our chemist only references the word “solve” in one form. Thus, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for. This descriptively accurate answer choice is the only option that points out the chemist’s use of a personal attack rather than a response to the reasoning for the opinion being discussed.
Answer Choice (E) In order for this answer choice to be correct we need to be able to spot a contradiction - or two pieces of directly contrary information in the stimuli. Instead of a contradiction we see the chemist almost avoiding the rationale presented by the physicist.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “the relationship of Y’s response to X’s argument is that Y’s response…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
This question presents us with two speakers. Right away, we should recognize that there are two conclusions and two reasons behind them. In this case we are analyzing two speakers taking varying positions on the topic of animal research. Speaker X concludes that medical research should not be reduced given the reason that the tradeoff between human and animal welfare is inevitable in these trials. And obviously, according to X, we should prioritize the humans who would benefit from the suffering of the animals. Essentially telling us that the harm is worth the gains.
Speaker Y undermines this position by changing the rules of the game. What if we can still value human welfare, and experiment on animals, but simply in a way that won’t cause them harm? In doing so, our second speaker points out that the assumption underlying X’s argument does not hold. We can conclude we should not reduce the experiments if there is no other alternative to completing them. Y points out exactly that alternative.
Knowing the conclusions of each speaker and the support behind them, we can jump into answer choice elimination about the methods employed in Y’s response.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This answer choice correctly describes the structure of our entire argument by pointing out that argument A relies on an argument (that experimentation cannot exist without animal suffering) and points out that it does not apply to the constraints of the debate.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice does not correctly summarize the structure of the argument. By telling us that Y “disagrees with X about the weight to be given to animal suffering” the answer is asserting information we do not see in Y’s argument. The weight of animal suffering is not the issue here. Instead, we are concerned with whether the process of animal suffering is required or not to continue these research projects.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice does not line up with what we are looking for. By stating that the argument is explaining a “logical consequence” of X’s argument, the answer claims our second speaker is using the reasoning of speaker X against them. But Y is not using the opinions of X - instead, our second speaker points out what assumptions weaken the initial argument.
Answer Choice (D) We can eliminate this answer choice immediately upon seeing the word strengthen. If speaker Y were strengthening speaker X’s argument, we would see something that is attempting to fix the assumption. Our second speaker is attempting to weaken the initial argument by pointing out the assumption speaker X bases their position on does not actually exist.
Answer Choice (E) We can eliminate this answer choice once we see the phrase “supplies a premise.”
Presenting a premise would suggest speaker Y is giving us evidence to go along with the position of speaker X. But we don’t see a premise presented for speaker X’s argument. Instead we see an assumption that makes speaker X unreasonable.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Dr. Nash responds to Dr. Godfrey’s argument by doing which of the following?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
This question presents us with two speakers. Right away, we should recognize that there are two conclusions and two reasons behind them. Our first speaker, Dr. Godfrey, points out a correlation. We learn that high school students who are now working over 15 hours per week receive lower grades than their peers. Dr. Godfrey concludes that because these overlap that the first (working) must be causing the second (lower grades). While that is one possible interpretation of a correlation, we know that just because two things happen at the same time does not mean they happen because of each other.
Dr. Nash points out the interpretation Dr. Godfrey has forgotten is just as likely. It does not have to be the case that having a job causes low grades. It could just as easily be the case that students receiving low grades turn to after school jobs to begin building careers or their self esteem. Using structural analysis we can identify the first speaker incorrectly concludes A because B. Meanwhile, Dr. Nash points out it is just as likely we have B because A.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice does not match the structure of our argument. By telling us that the argument attempts to “downplay the seriousness of the problems,” the answer ascribes a position to Dr. Nash that cannot be supported. Dr. Nash makes no comment on how serious these problems are. They could be big, they could be small. The only information Dr. Nash responds with is the direction of causation the arrow could be pointing toward.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for. This answer choice correctly summarizes the structure of our entire argument by affirming that Dr. Nash points out a possible alternative outcome. This is the only answer choice that points out how Dr. Nash corrects Dr. Godfrey’s causation mistake.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice does not line up with the structure of the stimulus. This answer choice claims Dr. Nash has a problem with the accuracy of Dr. Godfrey’s evidence. But a conclusion built on this argument would reference the validity of the numbers in some way shape or form. We know that accuracy of the evidence isn’t the problem in our argument - it’s the interpretation of that evidence. Dr. Godfrey forgets about one way we could interpret the facts rather than questioning whether the facts were good to begin with.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice does not accurately summarize what is going on in our stimulus. This answer claims that the fault of the academic problems is what Dr. Nash is concerned about. But Dr. Nash does not come to the defense of the schools as this answer choice claims.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not what we are looking for. Our second speaker simply suggests the causal relationship simply in the opposite direction. This does not align with what answer choice (E) suggests, which is that there is no relationship between these variables at all.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?” 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 by telling us about the existence of correlation between chronic fatigue syndrome and low magnesium levels. We also learn that malabsorption of magnesium is associated with some types of fatigue. The author concludes on the basis of this information that raising the level of magnesium in the blood would serve as an effective cure for chronic fatigue syndrome sufferers.
The stimulus concludes a casual relationship on the basis of a subset of a correlation. Our argument lays out low magnesium levels in tandem with fatigue, but we do not know that magnesium will change anything for fatigue. It could be the case that there is a third underlying factor causing both fatigue and low magnesium levels in these sufferers. Or, potentially, that the relationship works in exactly the opposite direction - maybe fatigue causes low magnesium levels. In that case, increasing magnesium levels would do nothing to help our fatigue.
Knowing our conclusion assumes a causal relationship from a correlative one, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not our ultimate flaw. The stimulus does bring up the correlation between magnesium malabsorption and some types of fatigue. But our argument does not need to establish that all low magnesium levels are the result of malabsorption.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice points out a completely different but valid way to interpret the relationship between these variables. It could be that rather than magnesium levels causing fatigue, it very well could be the other way around.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the ultimate flaw with our stimulus. The fact that levels can fluctuate does not tell us they even fluctuate to a degree that would be significant.
Answer Choice (D) This answer is descriptively accurate but not the true issue in our argument. What the exact measurement for a normal level of magnesium is does not identify the misinterpretation of our correlation.
Answer Choice (E) While this answer choice is technically accurate, it is not the ultimate problem with our stimulus. Whether or not the author tells us the most effective way of raising magnesium levels does point out the incorrect interpretation of our correlation.
We know this is a main conclusion question due to the question stem, “The main point of the argument above is that…”
The stimulus opens by introducing a commonly held view, and then making a claim about it. We learn that it is often expressed that written constitutions (ones that exist on paper) are intrinsically “more liberal” than unwritten ones. Furthermore, the author is claiming this belief is false. Now it’s our job to figure out if this claim ends up supporting or being supported by any other claims in this argument. If it’s supported by the other claim or claims, then we’ve got our conclusion!
We learn some new information in the second sentence––a definition of written constitutions that tells us these are simply pieces of paper bearing words until the interpretation and application of those words actually happens. What is the relationship between this sentence and the previous one? Well, it wouldn’t make sense if the claim that written constitutions are no more liberal than unwritten ones was supposed to support the claim that written constitutions are effectively meaningless until applied. Instead, the second claim might support the first by explaining the lack of inherent difference between written and unwritten constitutions. Therefore, I’m going to go ahead say that the first claim could be our conclusion, and the second is a premise. Let’s keep reading to confirm this prediction.
The word “then” helps us understand that the claim in this third sentences builds off of the previous claim. Apparently, when one has the correct understanding of constitutions, one knows that they are effectively the combination of the actual procedures that exercise, and limit, the government’s power. Okay, so if this is our working definition of all constitutions within this stimulus, and we just learned that written constitutions are nothing more than words on a paper if they lack interpretation and application, it looks like those procedures are what actually adds meaning and value to a constitution. If I were to predict how the author might connect all of these sentences together, I might be thinking that these procedures, the ways the state truly exercises their power, are what gives constitutions liberal (or nonliberal) qualities. Let’s see!
Our prediction is confirmed! “Therefore” tells us that, based on the previous claims, we can understand that a liberal-mannered interpretation and application is absolutely necessary in order for even written constitutions to be deemed liberal ones. Now I can see how the author took us from point A to B to C here, which all lend support to our first sentence, or make it more likely to be true. Written constitutions aren’t much but words without interpretation and application, and a constitution is the sum of how these words are applied to expand and limit state power. So, it’s the liberal application and interpretation that makes a constitution liberal, not just the fact that its written rather than unwritten. Knowing all of this makes us much more likely to accept the claim in the first sentence, that written constitutions aren’t any more liberal than unwritten ones, just by merit of being written down. So, that first claim is supported by the rest, making it our conclusion! Let’s look for a rephrase of it in our AC’s.
Correct Answer Choice (A) Awesome. I can’t find anything wrong with this, as it ever so slightly rephrases the conclusion of the stimulus that we identified as the first sentence.
Answer Choice (B) It looks like this AC uses a lot of buzzwords from the stimulus with the aim of throwing us off, but we are two steps ahead of the test writers and we see right through this. Nowhere did the author claim that written constitutions by nature contradict themselves, not even as a premise.
Answer Choice (C) Again, we have no idea if this is even true after reading the stimulus. The author gave us no information that would help evaluate how likely these two types of constitutions are to be misinterpreted.
Answer Choice (D) Preservation of constitutions? Never mentioned, definitely not the conclusion. Next!
Answer Choice (E) None of these ACs, save A, are even close to our prediction nor do they line up with non-conclusion parts of the argument. We have no idea if there are any criteria for evaluating how a constitution is interpreted and applied, just that being written does not necessarily mean a constitution is liberal.
This question asks us to find the main conclusion or main point of the argument, which we know from the question stem, “The main point of the argument is to…”
We first learn about a claim from a group of people: those in favor of Shakespeare’s plays being read and performed today. All that we know about this group is that they are united by that common belief or goal, which is a claim in and of itself–that this should happen, Shakespeare should continue to be read and performed. So, let’s see if this ends up being a conclusion itself (a claim that is supported) or a premise (a claim that supports another claim). Well, we read on to find out that this group “maintains” some other claim, that appreciation for Shakespeare has always been found in circles beyond just the learned upper class in England. “And” tells us that a second claim is coming, which gives (slightly) new information that it is common knowledge that “comparatively uneducated people” have been familiar with and fond of Shakespeare’s work.
It looks like these claims together really drive home the point that fans of Shakespeare have never been confined to a certain group. And what claim are we connecting this back to, in order to decipher which claims are premises and which are conclusions? The one advanced by the pro-continued-reading-of-Shakespeare group, that, well, we should continue to have uninhibited access to Shakespeare’s works. In order to identify premises and conclusion, we must ask, which of these claims lends support to the other, or increases the likelihood of the other’s truth? It seems more likely for us to accept that Shakespeare should still be read and performed once we learn that support for Shakespeare’s works have always extended beyond a small circle. So, it looks like we have been presented with two premises, or claims that support another, and one conclusion (of the group, not necessarily the author) that is supported by those premises.
However, is that conclusion advanced by the group our main conclusion? We’ll have to gather more information to see if the author of this argument agrees or disagrees with that claim. The next two sentences point out a reason we might be less likely to accept the pro-Shakespeare group’s claim: when we look closely at versions of these plays from the 1700s, we see that the physical copies have “fine paper and good bindings,” which the author then goes as far as to assert that the only way these books could be in such good condition is that they were not anywhere close to “people of ordinary means.” In other words, if these books are in such pristine condition, then they must have been enjoyed by only the elite. Whoa. So many things I hate about this argument, but that’s not our job here! All that we need to do is identify the author’s conclusion. We already know that the author set up a sufficient-necessary relationship in that last sentence: the fact that the books look great is enough for us to determine that they couldn’t have fallen into the hands of peasants, so we’ve identified support right there! Following this author’s line of reasoning, the condition of the books advances the truth of the following claim, that the books, and therefore appreciation of Shakespeare’s plays, belonged only to the elite, at least in the early 1700s. I have no reason to believe this is not the author’s main conclusion, as it’s the note they ended on and directly contravenes the other group’s conclusion. Pretty standard for an LR question to open with an opposing point of view, present evidence against it, and come to a different conclusion! Let’s look for something like this in our AC’s…
Answer Choice (A) Was this the reason the author wrote that argument? Well, for one, we would be able to find a rephrase of it somewhere in the stimulus, which we can’t. The author never claimed that it was enough for someone to know Shakespeare’s plays in order to determine they were part of the educated elite.
Correct Answer Choice (B) Okay, now this sounds pretty familiar. Remember, our prediction was that the author presents an opposing argument and then a premise to show that appreciation of Shakespeare’s plays was a unique characteristic of non-ordinary (elite) people in the 1700s, which is a great rephrase of this AC!
Answer Choice (C) We never discussed a contrast between aspects of Shakespeare’s work that were appreciated in the past vs. today.
Answer Choice (D) Ah, this goes too far. Although this AC uses wording directly from the premise to the pro-Shakespeare group’s argument, the author never says that all of the people who have appreciated Shakespeare have been elites, instead, just that early 18th century readers could not have been of ordinary means.
Answer Choice (E) What? We have no reason to believe the educated elite are skeptical of the worth of Shakespeare’s plays; in fact, we think the opposite. This AC consists of buzzwords from the stimulus, but it jumbles them up in all the wrong ways.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “which of the following techniques of reasoning is employed in the argument?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Our speaker lays out a survey and the results surrounding it. We are told a survey asked respondents how old they felt. The respondent almost unanimously said that they felt 75% of their actual age. Our speaker claims that there is a problem with this result because of the undesirable effect of a hypothetical scenario; if we repeatedly asked the respondents this question they might continue to give the exact same answer. Thus, the author concludes, this undesirable outcome means the survey results are problematic.
Our author makes a conclusion about the survey results on the basis of a situation that is unlikely to happen. The survey probably is not going to repeatedly ask the same person the same question. Because even if they did, there is no telling that the respondents would change their askers! If someone asks me how old I feel and the answer is 23, the answer is not going to change just because someone bugs me with the same question repeatedly.
Knowing that this argument uses an unreasonable hypothetical to support their claim, we can jump into the answer choices.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This answer choice correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. By telling us that the argument references “hypothetical earlier responses of a single individual…” we can identify this to be the only answer choice hitting on the repetition assumed by the argument. Additionally, the answer choice echoes how the argument uses a comparison between one individual and a quality we can give to the results of a group of people.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice incorrectly describes the issue our author has with the survey. By telling us that the stimulus questions the results based on what would “have been the most reasonable thing for them to say,” this answer choice goes beyond the scope of the stimulus. In fact, the problem is that our argument does not consider the reasonable interpretations we can actually draw from the survey.
Answer Choice (C) We do not see an “overly sweeping” generalization in our argument as suggested by this answer choice. While the author does conclude something about all the survey results on the basis of one hypothetical, the problem is that the hypothetical chosen is unreasonable. Because of this, our prediction actually contradicts this answer choice. From the beginning, we can identify that the author’s “counterexample” is certainly poorly chosen rather than well chosen.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice does not line up with what we see in the structure of the argument. This answer tells us that a contradiction is used to prove that one of two statements is false. But we do not quite see a contradiction in our argument. Instead, we are told about an end result that would be silly or nonsensical rather than one that is in contradiction with another idea. Additionally, our argument strives to prove there is a problem in understanding the survey results rather than to prove the results are false.
Answer Choice (E) Our argument does not contain “manipulation of the questionnaires,” as suggested by this answer choice. On top of that, the survey results are being used to prove whether the results can be interesting rather than for the purpose of showing what the questionnaires were trying to accomplish. Furthermore, this is descriptively inaccurate based on the second premise which tells us we do not have completely unanimous results when it comes to the survey.
From the question stem, “Which one of the following most accurately states the conclusion of the argument above?” we can tell that we are looking for the main conclusion or main point of the argument.
This argument opens with a question, so first we ask ourselves if it's rhetorical or not. In other words, is it just being used as a language tool to make a point, or will it be explicitly answered? Before breaking down the content and details of the first sentence, I’ll skim forward to see if I can glean a quick answer as to why the author included this question. The first few words of the following sentence tell me the answer is a contingent “no.” Contingent upon what? Well, let’s break down the content of the question first. The author is wondering if it’s cool for journalists to start their stories with this set phrase, “in a surprise development.” Immediately, the answer follows with “not if,” indicating to us that we have at least one situation in which the answer is no (journalists shouldn’t do that). That situation is if the “surprise development” is referring ONLY to the journalist's own surprise. Then, we are given a premise in support of that answer, which just lays out a principle we don’t want to violate in the “world” of this stimulus: that journalists shouldn’t insert themselves in their stories. We then read another “not if” or contingent no, that under the condition that the “surprise development” was some other individual’s than the journalist. Again, this is supported by a quick premise that any person’s surprise that was worth mentioning should have been explicitly attributed to them in the story.
Quick recap: we have a couple scenarios in which the answer to the first sentence is going to be no. I’m wondering if the author is setting this up to point to a final scenario in which the answer would be YES, or if the author will lay out more contingent “no’s” so as to exhaust all the possibilities and point to a final answer of NO. Maybe there is some other point to this as well, but we only have one sentence left to find out. The last sentence opens with “the one possibility remaining,” so we at least know that the author intends to exhaust all the possibilities and point us towards some final answer of yes or no. If many people were surprised by this development, there is no point in pointing out superfluously that the story comes as a surprise! In this scenario, he is also implying that journalists should not use this phrase.
So, the author has laid out three scenarios that are intended to cover the full range of possibilities and point us towards a final answer of no, journalists shouldn’t start stories with “in a surprise development.” Looks like this is a main conclusion question where we can’t point to a single sentence as the conclusion itself, but where each sentence acts as a premise that, altogether, truly couldn’t take the argument in a different direction than the one we are thinking. The author’s conclusion here is supported by each premise: in any scenario, the answer to the first sentence is no. Let’s find this in the ACs:
Answer Choice (A) Bottom line, this doesn’t match our prediction. Our prediction was based on evidence from the text, so we trust it. There is nothing in the text that points to some scenario where journalists should use that phrase, so I don’t even need to read past the comma to eliminate A.
Answer Choice (B) Again, this doesn’t line up with the prediction that the final answer is no. We are sure there are no scenarios in which to use this phrase appropriately, due to the author’s phrasing “the one possibility remaining” before laying out the third contingent no.
Answer Choice (C) Ah. Maybe true, and at first glance does seem to be supported due to that same phrasing we referenced in the line above. But, my first question is if that was the author’s main point in writing this argument?? If it were, why would the author phrase the opening question like they did? This is definitely an argument about whether or not journalists should do something, not an argument about when a certain phrase is used. Also, (C) doesn’t even mention journalists’ use of the phrase. Bye!
Answer Choice (D) As much as I agree with the “when introducing a story” part of this AC, I hate the rest. It goes too far! We don’t know if the author thinks journalists should use that phrase when summing up, just that it’s never appropriate to use when introducing a story.
Correct Answer Choice (E) Easy! Done. This is a rephrase of exactly what we predicted, that the answer to that initial question is an all-applicable no. Introducing stories this way is not good to do as a journalist. Uncomplicated and to the point.
The question stem couldn’t be more straightforward: we are looking for the main conclusion of the argument, as it says, “The main conclusion of the argument is that…”
Looks like this argument opens with a question: should the government stop trying to determine toxic substances in our food? Is it rhetorical or not? In other words, is it just being used as a language tool to make a point, or will it be explicitly answered? Before breaking down the content and details of the first sentence, I’ll skim forward to see if I can glean a quick answer as to why the author included this question. The second sentence opens with “only if,” which indicates that we have some pretty specific requirements for the answer to that first sentence to be yes. Remember, only if indicates a necessary condition, so the author thinks it's absolutely necessary for the conditions that follow to be true if the answer to the question is to be yes. Also, it was a literal question meant to be answered right away. What did that first sentence ask? Well, the author wants to explore some ethical dilemma: whether it would be right for the government to give up trying to figure out what levels of toxicity should be allowed in food. They think the answer is yes only if it’s not too crazy to argue that the only (again, strong and limiting) permissible toxicity level is zero. Not sure what to make of this yet, but these first two sentences combined are fair game to be the conclusion.
“However” leads us into the following sentence, priming me to expect some sort of contrast that could be the conclusion itself or could lead to one. We end up learning new information that seems to contradict what we already posited. “Virtually all” foods apparently have toxic substances, yet cause no harm. Why? These foods do not meet a sufficient concentration of toxicity to cause harm. What do we make of all of this? Well, I’m pretty sure we haven’t gotten to the full conclusion just yet. We are on the way to forming an answer to the first sentence, as we now know that the necessary condition (there is absolutely zero toxicity) is probably denied. Adding this new information makes it much less likely that we can meet our necessary condition laid out in the second sentence. So far, this claim doesn’t have any support itself, but seems to be building on our previous knowledge. So, this is a premise that acts as a stepping stone on the way to the gist of our argument.
The final sentence opens with “furthermore,” which is a cookie cutter premise indicator we have seen to introduce new premises. We learn that we can never have full certainty that the concentration of any substance has been reduced to zero, and instead all we can know is that the concentration is unable to be detected by the methods we use now. Now we are presented with another claim, on top of the previous sentence, that seems to make that necessary condition much less likely to be reachable. That previous sentence led us to believe the necessary condition could be denied, and now we are very sure it just won’t be met. Wait, so, the argument ends here? Where’s the conclusion?
This might be a trickier question but it isn’t a trick: we already know what the author’s conclusion is. Everything presented in the argument points towards the fact that the necessary (absolutely required) condition for the government to be justified in giving up on this research cannot be met. Therefore, we have no reason to believe the government should abandon these efforts. What’s the alternative; what should the government do instead? Well, if it can’t be justified in giving up, it's gotta continue! In other words, the author’s answer to the initial question they posed is a hard NO, and the reasons are enumerated in the rest of the argument.
Let’s search for a rephrase of this in our AC’s:
Correct Answer Choice (A) That was quick! This is essentially rephrasing our prediction, that if the government won’t be justified in abandoning their efforts, they should continue those efforts. Not too crazy of a jump to make and if this is the author’s conclusion, everything they presented in the argument has a place or acts as a stepping stone.
Answer Choice (B) This is a copy-paste of the second half of that necessary condition presented as the answer to the first sentence. After our read of this argument, are we even inclined to think the author agrees with B? Not at all. Let alone could it ever be the main conclusion, as none of the other parts of the argument are offered as evidence for it.
Answer Choice (C) This looks like a rephrase of parts of sentence three, which we know was offered as the first premise leading to our conclusion that this necessary condition cannot be met and therefore governments should keep on keepin’ on. So, not the conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) Okay, could be true, and seems to be supported in the text as the last sentence told us that the collective “we” (or everyone) is unable to be sure a food has zero toxicity, so it’s reasonable to apply that statement to governments. But, it’s not the conclusion, because none of the other sentences support it as evidence, and why else would the author have included the rest of the argument? Plus, it goes too far. We don’t know about the future, we only know about the present in this stimulus.
Answer Choice (E) What?? Totally out of left field. Goes way too far and we have no evidence for this in the stimulus. The author never said it nor implied it, so it can’t be their main conclusion.