Summarize Argument
The taxi driver concludes he made the right decision to shut off his air conditioning while climbing a steep hill. Why? Because doing so prevented his fuel efficiency from decreasing significantly.
Notable Assumptions
The taxi driver assumes it was better to prevent bad fuel economy than to keep the air conditioning turned on. This means assuming the passengers’ discomfort and complaints are outweighed by the benefits of better fuel efficiency.
A
A taxi driver should not run a cab’s air conditioner if doing so would make it difficult to maintain a consistent speed.
This principle doesn’t apply. The taxi driver doesn’t say it would be difficult to run the air conditioner and maintain a consistent speed—in fact, he says it’s possible.
B
A taxi driver should run a cab’s air conditioner only if doing so does not cause fuel economy to drop below normal levels.
This principle justifies the taxi driver’s decision. It means a taxi driver shouldn’t run the air conditioning if it causes below-normal fuel economy, regardless of any complaints.
C
A taxi driver should try to balance concern for fuel economy with concern for passenger comfort.
Without instruction on how to weigh those concerns, this principle is insufficient to justify the taxi driver’s decision. It doesn’t say concerns about fuel economy should outweigh concerns about passenger comfort.
D
A taxi driver should always act in a way that is most likely to ensure customer satisfaction.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests the taxi driver should weigh passenger comfort, which clearly affects customer satisfaction, more heavily than fuel economy, which doesn’t.
E
A taxi driver’s turning off air-conditioning for a short period of time is acceptable only if passengers do not complain.
This weakens the taxi driver’s argument. Since the passengers complained, it implies his turning off the air conditioner was unacceptable.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do loons often attempt to take over an occupied lake when they could just settle in an unoccupied lake instead?
Objective
The right answer will describe either a benefit of settling in an occupied lake, despite the effort the returning loons must expend to oust another loon couple, or a drawback of settling in an unoccupied lake.
A
Most of the nearby vacant lakes have served as successful loon breeding territory in the past.
This is the opposite of what we need. If most of the nearby vacant lakes are already proven to be suitable breading territories, it would make sense for the loons to settle in those lakes rather than fighting over the occupied ones!
B
Contests for occupied breeding territory may be initiated either by male loons or by female loons.
This doesn’t matter. We want to know why these contests are taking place at all, not who starts them—why wouldn’t the loons just settle in a territory they wouldn’t have to compete over?
C
Loons that intrude on an occupied breeding territory are successful in ousting its residents about half the time.
This doesn’t help. It doesn’t matter how often the loons are successful in their attempted takeovers. We just want to know why they’re trying to take the occupied lakes in the first place.
D
Loons frequently determine that a lake is a suitable breeding territory by observing the presence of a breeding pair there.
This is the explanation we need! When loons see another breeding pair in a lake, they take that pair’s presence as evidence that the lake is a good place for breeding. Instead of taking their chances with an untested lake, they try to get the lake someone’s already vetted!
E
Lakes that are perfectly suitable for loon breeding have fish for food, a site for a nest, and a sheltered area to rear chicks.
This answer choice would be helpful if it told us that the unoccupied lakes lack some of these factors that make lakes suitable for breeding, but as it stands, “E” doesn’t give us any information that would help explain why loons don’t always settle in unoccupied lakes.
Summary
Engineers are challenged with designing a self-driving robotic car that avoids common traffic problems like crashes and congestion. Similarly, these problems affect fish traveling together in schools. Methods fish use to navigate ensure these problems are less common compared with that among cars on the road.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Hence, the methods fish use to navigate could help engineers design a self-driving robotic car that avoids common traffic problems.
A
constructing a self-driving robotic car requires expertise in fish biology
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not involve conditional reasoning. We don’t know if expertise in fish biology is a necessary condition for constructing self-driving robotic cars.
B
the best drivers use the same navigational principles that fish use in schools
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what methods the best drivers use. The stimulus addresses common traffic problems generally.
C
it is always advisable for engineers facing design challenges to look to the natural world for guidance in addressing those challenges
This answer is unsupported. To say that this is always advisable is too strong. We know from the stimulus that this may be one instance, but we don’t know if there are other circumstances where the natural world would guide engineers addressing challenges.
D
studying the principles fish use to navigate in schools could help engineers to design a self-driving robotic car that avoids common traffic problems
This answer is strongly supported. The stimulus employs reasoning by analogy. If schools of fish avoid problems by navigating using certain methods, it is possible these methods could possibly be useful to engineers when designing self-driving robotic cars.
E
a self-driving robotic car using the navigational principles that fish use in schools would be better than a human-driven car at avoiding crashes and congestion
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what frequency human-driven cars are involved in traffic problems compared with self-driving robotic cars.
Legal theorist: Only two types of theories of criminal sentencing can be acceptable—retributivist theories, which hold that the purpose of sentences is simply to punish, and rehabilitationist theories, which hold that a sentence is a means to reform the offender. A retributivist theory is not acceptable unless it conforms to the principle that the harshness of a punishment should be proportional to the seriousness of the offense. Retributivist theories that hold that criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses than for an initial offense violate this principle, since repeat offenses may be no more serious than the initial offense.
Summary
If a theory of criminal sentencing is acceptable, it must be (1) retributivist, OR (2) rehabilitationist.
If a retributivist theory is acceptable, then it MUST conform to the principle that harshness should be proportional to seriousness.
Retributivist theories that hold criminals should get longer sentences for repeat offenses do NOT conform to the principle that harshnes should be proportional to seriousness.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
Retributivist theories that hold criminals should get longer sentences for repeat offenses are NOT acceptable (because they violate the principle of proportionality).
A
No rehabilitationist theory holds that punishing an offender is an acceptable means to reform that offender.
The stimulus doesn’t tell us about what any rehabilitationist theory holds. We know that rehab. theories might be acceptable, but we don’t know anything about the specific content of rehab. theories.
B
Reforming a repeat offender sometimes requires giving that offender longer sentences for the repeat offenses than for the initial offense.
The stimulus doesn’t tell us what is required to reform a repeat offender. We know rehab. theories want to reform the offender. But we don’t know what’s required to reform an offender.
C
Any rehabilitationist theory that holds that criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses than for an initial offense is an acceptable theory.
The stimulus tells us what’s necessary for being an acceptable theory — it must be rehab. or retributivist. But we don’t know what is sufficient to make something acceptable.
D
All theories of criminal sentencing that conform to the principle that the harshness of a punishment should be proportional to the seriousness of the offense are acceptable.
The stimulus tells us what’s necessary for being an acceptable theory — it must be rehab. or retributivist. But we don’t know what is sufficient to make something acceptable.
E
A theory of criminal sentencing that holds that criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses than for an initial offense is acceptable only if it is a rehabilitationist theory.
Must be true, because we know that retributivist theories that hold criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses are unacceptable. So if a theory that holds criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses could possibly be acceptable, then it must be a rehab. theory.
define: internalize
Psychology - make (attitudes or behavior) part of one's nature by learning or unconscious assimilation.
acquire knowledge of (the rules of a language).
define: retain
keep in one's memory.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there must be some food served at Jason’s Restaurant that contains products grown with chemical pesticides. This is based on the fact that the restaurant gets its produce from Kelly’s Grocery, and workers at the grocery were observed unloading produce from a truck belonging to Megafarm, which uses chemical pesticides on all its crops.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that Jason’s Restaurant isn’t purchasing from Kelly’s Grocery any produce that doesn’t have chemical pesticides. (Although Kellly’s Grocery purchases produce from MegaFarm, that doesn’t mean all of its produce comes from MegaFarm. Some produce could come from places that don’t use chemical pesticides.)
A
Jason does not know that Kelly’s Grocery buys produce from MegaFarm.
If anything, this strengthens the argument by suggesting Jason wouldn’t know to avoid MegaFarm’s produce.
B
Jason buys ingredients from several suppliers besides Kelly’s Grocery, and those suppliers sell only products that are grown without chemical pesticides.
The author never assumes that every ingredient Jason uses was grown with chemical pesticides. As long as the produce was grown with pesticides, the author’s argument can still make sense.
C
At Kelly’s Grocery, most of the produce items that are grown without chemical pesticides carry a label to indicate that fact.
This raises the possibility that Jason can avoid picking the produce that has chemical pesticides at Kelly’s Grocery. So, the mere fact that he shops at Kelly’s Grocery would not guarantee that he’s using produce grown with chemical pesticides.
D
None of the farms that supply produce to Kelly’s Grocery use any pesticide that has not been approved by the government as safe for use on food crops.
Whether a pesticide has been approved by the government has no impact on whether it is a chemical pesticide.
E
Most people who buy produce at Kelly’s Grocery would never knowingly buy produce grown with any chemical pesticides.
The author never assumes that Jason knowingly purchases produce that has chemical pesticides. Maybe Jason doesn’t know that what he’s buying was grown with chemical pesticides.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that politicians could persuade more voters if they made their opponents’ positions seem plausible and attractive before arguing against them. As a premise, the author explains that scholars successfully utilize this method to make their positions more persuasive to their colleagues.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of utilizing an analogy that isn’t analogous enough, in which the author assumes that because two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect. Specifically, the author of this stimulus assumes that because politicians and scholars both try to convince others of their views, the methods that work for scholars will work well for politicians, too.
A
fails to address the possibility that an approach that works with one kind of audience will not work with another
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of utilizing an analogy that isn’t analogous enough. The author assumes that because politicians and scholars both try to convince others of their views, the methods that work for scholars will work well for politicians, too.
B
fails to account for the difficulty of coming up with charitable formulations of positions to which one is opposed
This isn’t relevant to the argument. Whether or not it’s difficult to come up with charitable positions, the author’s argument is that politicians should do so.
C
focuses on the differences between two styles of argumentation even though those styles might be suited to similar audiences
The politicians’ and scholars’ audiences are quite different—one is trying to appeal to voters and the other is targeting professional scholars—so it doesn’t matter if the different argumentation styles might be suited to similar audiences.
D
takes for granted that both scholars and politicians have persuasion as their aim
The author tells us in the argument’s context and premise that politicians and scholars attempt to persuade voters and colleagues. This is a fact the author provides as part of the foundation for the argument, not a flaw in the argument structure itself.
E
presumes, without giving justification, that politicians formulate the positions of their opponents uncharitably even when they share those positions
The author doesn’t say that politicians always paint their opponents’ positions as implausible, just that they “typically” do. We don’t know if she makes this presumption. Even if she did, it would be irrelevant to the conclusion that politicians should adopt scholars’ methods.
Espinoza: The mayor will not get her road repair proposal passed because it is more important to her that taxes not increase.
Speaker 1 Summary
Durham concludes that the mayor will agree to a tax increase. This is because a tax increase is the only way the city council will agree to the mayor’s road repair proposal, and that proposal is the mayor’s top priority.
Speaker 2 Summary
Espinoza concludes that the mayor will not get the road repair proposal passed, because the mayor finds avoiding a tax increase more important than getting the proposal passed. Espinoza’s assumptions are that Espinoza will not agree to the tax increase and that such agreement is required in order to get the road repair proposal passed.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of agreement. The speakers agree that the mayor’s agreement to the tax increase is required in order to get the road repair proposal passed.
A
The mayor will agree to a tax increase.
This is a point of disagreement. Durham thinks the mayor will agree. Espinoza thinks the mayor won’t.
B
The only way that the city council will agree to pass the mayor’s road repair proposal is if she agrees to a tax increase.
This is a point of agreement. Durham directly states this. Espinoza assumes this. Espinoza believes the mayor won’t agree to the tax increase, and that this failure to agree implies that the road repair proposal won’t be passed.
C
The mayor’s road repair proposal is her top priority.
This is a point of disagreement. Durham thinks it is the mayor’s top priority. Espinoza thinks it isn’t.
D
The mayor will not get her road repair proposal passed.
Durham expresses no opinion about this. Durham believes the mayor will agree to the tax increase, which is a necessary condition for the council’s passage of the proposal. But Durham doesn’t indicate whether the proposal will or won’t pass.
E
It is more important to the mayor that taxes not increase than it is that her road repair proposal passes.
This is a point of disagreement. Durham thinks the road repair proposal is a higher priority. Espinoza thinks avoiding a tax increase is a higher priority.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The philosopher concludes that it’s untrue that most university students today have no interest in philosophical issues. Her premise is that university students who attend her talks are deeply interested in philosophical issues.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of basing a conclusion about a group on information from an unrepresentative sample. Students attending a philosopher’s talk are likely to be interested in philosophical issues! That doesn’t tell us much about the broader student body’s interest levels.
A
uses the term “interest” in two different ways when the argument requires that it be used consistently throughout
This is a cookie-cutter flaw, but it isn’t present in the philosopher’s argument. Here, the meaning of the term “interest” remains consistent throughout.
B
treats a group as representative of a larger group when there is reason to believe it is unrepresentative
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of basing a conclusion about a group on information from an unrepresentative sample. Students attending a philosopher’s talk are likely to be more interested in philosophical issues than are members of the broader student body!
C
appeals to the popularity of an academic field as evidence of the worth of that academic field
The philosopher’s argument doesn’t mention or depend on the worth of any academic field.
D
takes for granted that just because there is no evidence that interest in something is decreasing, it must be increasing
The philosopher doesn’t claim that interest in philosophical issues is increasing among university students.
E
takes for granted that it is good that university students have an interest in a certain subject just because the person making the argument has that interest
The philosopher doesn’t take for granted that university students have an interest in philosophical issues. She has observed this interest in the students who attend her talks.