Ethicist: This hospital’s ethics code states that hospital staff must not deceive patients about their medical treatment. But we know that Dr. Faris administered medication A to a patient and informed him that it would help him sleep. Medication A has no known sleep-inducing properties. So, Dr. Faris is clearly in violation of the ethics code, despite the fact that the patient’s sleep did improve after taking medication A.

Summarize Argument
An Ethicist argues that Dr. Faris violated the hospital’s ethics code, forbidding doctors from deceiving patients about their medical treatment. The Ethicist argues that Dr. Faris did this when he told a patient that medication A would help them sleep, despite the medication having no known sleep-inducing properties. Although the patient’s sleep improved, the Ethicist argues that the doctor’s statement violated the ethics code.

Notable Assumptions
The Ethicist assumes that Dr. Faris knows that medication A has no known sleep-inducing effects. Furthermore, he also assumes that medication A does not have any secondary effects that could induce sleep. For example, the medication could calm one’s mind, thereby making it easier to sleep despite it not having “sleep-inducing” properties.

A
Dr. Faris was aware that medication A had no known sleep-inducing properties.
If anything, this strengthens the argument because it reinforces the idea that Dr. Faris knowingly gave his patient something he did not believe would help them sleep.
B
A committee at the hospital is currently considering revisions to the hospital’s ethics code.
This is irrelevant to the current argument at play. Just because the ethics code *may* change, does not mean that Dr. Faris did/did not break the code of ethics.
C
Medication A is a pain reliever that can indirectly lead to sleep due to a reduction in the patient’s discomfort.
This is an alternative explanation for Dr. Faris’ statement about medication A helping the patient sleep. Although the medication may not have “sleep-inducing properties,” it could still help someone get rest if they are in pain.
D
Several other members of the hospital staff prescribed medication A to patients who had trouble sleeping.
This just gives more details about the people who work at the hospital. It does not impact the reasoning between Faris’ statement and the ethics code
E
Dr. Faris knew that the patient was not taking any other medications that have sleep-inducing properties.
It does not matter what else (if anything) the patient is taking. This does not address whether Dr. Faris’ statement about the medication was deceptive

Comment on this

Surprisingly, a new study has revealed that shortly after a heavy rainfall, pollution levels in Crystal Bay reach their highest levels. This occurs despite the fact that rainwater is almost totally pure and one would therefore expect that it would dilute the polluted seawater.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why are pollution levels in Crystal Bay highest shortly after a heavy rainfall, even though rainwater doesn’t contain pollution, so we would expect rainwater to dilute the polluted seawater?

Objective
The correct answer should tell us something about heavy rainfall that might lead to an overall increase in pollution, even if the water in rainwater doesn’t contain pollution.

A
Compared to the total amount of polluted seawater, the amount of rainwater that falls into Crystal Bay is negligible.
This would lead us to expect rainfall to leave pollution levels unchanged. But we’re trying to explain why there’s an increase in pollution levels after rainfall.
B
Most of the rainwater that eventually reaches Crystal Bay falls on pesticide-treated fields before being carried into the bay.
This suggests that, although the rainwater itself doesn’t contain pollution, it can carry or otherwise bring pollution (pesticides) into the bay. This can help explain why pollution levels increase shortly after heavy rainfall.
C
Most rainwater carried by clouds consists of water that has evaporated from oceans around the world.
We have no reason to think rainwater from evaporation is particularly pollution-heavy compared to other kinds of rainwater. And, we know that rainwater is “almost totally pure.” So, we’d still expect rainfall not to increase pollution levels.
D
The single leading cause of pollution in Crystal Bay is beachgoers’ leaving behind their trash and debris, which then blows into the bay.
There may be other, more significant sources of pollution, such as beachgoers’ trash. But we don’t have any reason to think beachgoing increases or the amount of trash left increases after heavy rainfall. So, we still wouldn’t expect pollution levels to be highest after rain.
E
Other nearby ocean areas experience a pattern of pollutant increase and decrease that is extremely similar to that of Crystal Bay.
Even if other areas experience higher pollution levels after rainfall, that doesn’t explain why this pattern occurs in Crystal Bay. We’re still left without any reason to think the pollution levels would increase after heavy rain.

4 comments

Domesticated animals, such as dogs, have come into existence by the breeding of only the individuals of a wild species that are sufficiently tame. For example, if when breeding wolves one breeds only those that display tameness when young, then after a number of generations the offspring will be a species of dog. Therefore, all animals can, in principle, be bred for domesticity.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author argues that in theory, all animals can be bred to be domesticated. This is based on the observation of wolves being selectively bred for their tameness. After several generations, wolves were tamed into dogs.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the same conditions that can cause wolves to be domesticated into dogs are applicable to *all* other animals. This assumes that there are no biological/behavior limitations that prevent certain species from becoming domesticated.

A
Domesticated animals cannot be turned into wild species by breeding only those animals that display some wild characteristics.
The argument is not concerned with turning domesticated animals into wild animals. But wild animals into domesticated ones.
B
In some animal species, wild members mate more frequently than tame members.
While this could make selective breeding more challenging, it does not imply that it is “impossible” to domesticate all kinds of animals.
C
In some animal species, no members ever display tameness.
This directly challenges a key assumption: that all animals have the capacity to be tamed and bred for domesticity. This completely undermines the reasoning and weakens the argument.
D
In some animal species, tame members are less fertile than wild members.
Although this could make the process of selective breeding more challenging, it does not undermine the argument’s reasoning.
E
In some domesticated animal species, some members are much more tame than other members.
This is pretty much implied in the stimulus. It does not impact the claim that all animals can be bred for domesticity.

Comment on this

A research psychologist used a personality test to classify high school students as “repressors”—people who repress upsetting thoughts and feelings from conscious awareness—or as “sensitizers”—those especially attuned to internal states who freely express distress. The researcher found that, compared to sensitizers, the repressors were less shy and anxious, could better tolerate frustration, and had superior social skills, higher grades, and a greater sense of self-esteem.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Compared to sensitizers, why are repressors less shy and anxious, better able to tolerate frustration, and have superior social skills, higher grades, and a greater sense of self-esteem?

Objective
This is an EXCEPT question. The four wrong answers will connect repression of upsetting thoughts and feelings with the features associated with repressors or connect expression of distress with the features associated with sensitizers.

A
Repressors are better able than sensitizers to focus on their work and to avoid distractions.
Better ability to focus on work and to avoid distractions could explain why repressors have higher grades than sensitizers.
B
Repressors are less apt than sensitizers to alienate people by expressing their emotions.
Less likelihood of alienating people through expression of emotions could explain why repressors have better social skills and a greater sense of self-esteem.
C
Parents and other caregivers tend to reward repressors more than they reward sensitizers for academic performance and social behavior deemed desirable.
Being more likely to be rewarded for academic performance and desirable social behavior could explain why repressors get better grades and have superior social skills.
D
Some psychologists have hypothesized that the desire to maintain social and academic success and self-esteem strengthens repressors’ tendency to repress upsetting thoughts and feelings.
Even if we accept this hypothesis, this reverses the direction of the relationship we want to explain. It helps establish that desire for success/self-esteem can intensify repressors’ repression. But how could repression lead to success/self-esteem?
E
Sensitizers tend to focus more than repressors do on the difficulties of succeeding in their projects rather than on factors that are likely to contribute to success.
Less focus on things that are likely to contribute to success might explain why sensitizers have worse grades, worse self-esteem, and less ability to tolerate frustration.

23 comments

A geologist recently claimed to have discovered in clay a previously unknown form of life: “nanobes,” one-tenth the size of the smallest known bacteria. However, it is unlikely that nanobes truly are living things. They are probably inanimate artifacts of the clay’s microscopic structure, because a nanobe is too small to contain a reproductive mechanism, a prerequisite for life.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that nanobes, a supposedly living organism found in clay, are actually nonliving inanimate artifacts of this clay’s structure. This is because a nanobe is too small to have a reproductive mechanism, which is required to be classified as a living thing.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that nanobes are too small to contain any form of reproductive mechanism.
The author also assumes that the clay can produce non-living artifacts like nanodes

A
No known form of bacteria is complicated enough in structure to engage in a sexual type of reproduction.
The argument is not focused on *sexual reproduction*. Any type of reproduction would suffice for nanodes to be classified as living.
B
Single-celled creatures can combine to form a multicelled structure and then reproduce before they disband into separate single cells again.
This undermines the argument by showing that small organisms without a clear reproduction mechanism can still nonetheless reproduce. This directly weakens the link between the premise and conclusion.
C
The material phenomena that some scientists claim are the fossilized remains of bacteria in meteorites from Mars are approximately the same size as nanobes.
This does not specify whether the nanodes are living or not. It leaves far too much up for assumption.
D
Previous definitions of life were based on research done with inferior microscopes no longer in use.
While this casts doubt on previous definitions of life, it does not seriously weaken the argument’s claim that nanodes are not living due to their inability to reproduce.
E
Animals such as cold-blooded lizards can be physiologically simpler, though still larger, than other animals.
This comparison is completely irrelevant to the argument’s reasoning. The argument is focused on whether nanodes are living due to their size limiting their capacity for a reproductive mechanism.

19 comments

Historians have found that significant intellectual advances generally occur in cities or countries that have a stable political system. But these same historians acknowledge that in ancient Athens, Plato and Aristotle made unparalleled intellectual progress during a period of great political and social unrest.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
What explains why ancient Athens experienced a lot of intellectual progress during a period of great political and social unrest, even though such progress typically occurs in cities or countries with a stable political system?

Objective
The correct answer should tell us something about ancient Athens that differentiates it from normal cities/countries in a way that could be helpful for intellectual progress even in times of political instability.

A
The political systems that have emerged since the time of Plato and Aristotle have in various ways been different from the political system in ancient Athens.
(A) just tells us that other political systems have been different from the one present in ancient Athens. But we have no reason to think there was anything about ancient Athens’ political system that allowed for intellectual progress in the absence of stability.
B
The citizens of ancient Athens generally held in high esteem people who were accomplished intellectually.
This doesn’t help differentiate ancient Athens from other cities/countries. Also, we have no reason to think that holding intellectually-accomplished people in high esteem would somehow allow for intellectual progress in times of instability.
C
Financial support for intellectual endeavors is typically unavailable in unstable political environments, but in ancient Athens such support was provided by wealthy citizens.
This shows how ancient Athens was different from the typical city/country in a way that helped intellectual progress. Intellectual activities had a source of money in Athens that, for others, wasn’t available in unstable times. This could have helped intellectual progress.
D
Significant intellectual advances sometimes, though not always, lead to stable political environments.
Even if intellectual advances lead to stability, how was ancient Athens able to achieve those intellectual advances when there was no stability? Learning what intellectual advances lead to doesn’t help explain how those advances could have come about in the first place.
E
Many thinkers besides Plato and Aristotle contributed to the intellectual achievements of ancient Athens.
We still don’t know why ancient Athens was able to make intellectual progress during a period of instability. The number of other famous philosophers and scientists has no bearing on what makes ancient Athens an exception to the general rule about the conditions for progress.

7 comments

Psychologist: We measured the “cognitive plasticity,” or the willingness to accept new ideas, of a group of people of both genders and of all ages. The first-born children in the study consistently exhibited less cognitive plasticity than did their siblings. It is reasonable to think that those who are open to new ideas will be adventurous in other ways. Hence, our study suggests that siblings of first-born children will tend to be more adventurous than will the first-borns.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The psychologist hypothesizes that siblings of first-born children are usually more adventurous than the first-born children themselves. He supports this by citing a study that found that siblings of first-born children were more open to new ideas than were first-born children. He also claims that people open to new ideas are likely to be more adventurous in other ways.

Notable Assumptions

The psychologist assumes that measuring cognitive plasticity is an accurate way to determine how adventurous someone is, without considering that adventurousness might also involve other qualities or factors not captured by the study.

A
Some of the great creative geniuses in history were first-born children.

Irrelevant— the psychologist’s hypothesis is about the general population, not about creative geniuses. Also, we don’t know how adventurousness relates to being a creative genius, so we can't determine if creative geniuses are more or less adventurous than others.

B
In most cases, the more younger siblings one has, the greater one’s cognitive plasticity.

Irrelevant—the psychologist compares the cognitive plasticity of siblings in the same family, finding that first-borns have less cognitive plasticity than their younger siblings. But (B) compares first-born children to other first-borns in different families.

C
Other studies have shown a correlation between cognitive plasticity and the willingness to take risks.

If cognitive plasticity correlates with risk-taking, it becomes more plausible that birth order correlates with adventurousness. This is because birth order now correlates with risk-taking, which causes one to be adventurous.

D
A study of business executives shows that several industry leaders have older siblings.

Irrelevant— like (A), a study on business executives can’t be used to draw inferences about the general population. Also, we don’t know how adventurousness relates to being a business executive, so we can't determine if business executives are more adventurous than others.

E
Most of the participants in the study had characterized themselves as more adaptable than other people.

Irrelevant— we don’t know how adaptability is connected to cognitive plasticity or adventurousness. But even if they are connected, it’s unclear how (E) would strengthen the argument.

This is a Strengthen question.

The psychologist starts by defining jargon. “Cognitive plasticity” is the willingness to accept new ideas. Then we’re told the results of a study which found that cognitive plasticity (negatively) correlates with birth order. That means that firstborn children tend to have lower cognitive plasticity than last-born children. Or in other words, later-born children are higher in cognitive plasticity.

The next premise is also a correlation but the psychologist simply declares it to be “reasonable.” For analyzing the argument, we’ll simply treat this second premise as true, because it's a premise. Cognitive plasticity is positively correlated with adventurousness.

So now with the two correlational premises we have a correlation chain. Birth order is correlated with cognitive plasticity which is correlated with adventurousness.

The psychologist concludes with a prediction. She says that birth order will be negatively correlated with adventurousness. That means that firstborn children will tend to be less adventurous than later-born children. Or in other words, later-born children will tend to be more adventurous than their eldest siblings.

As is typically the case with Weaken and Strengthen questions that utilize causation logic, it's hard to anticipate where the answers will go. This is why we default to the strategy of POE. The strategy works pretty well here.

Answer Choice (A) says some of the great creative geniuses in history were firstborn children. We can write this answer off simply for being unrepresentative. The correlations in the premises and conclusion are about people in general. (A) confines itself to great creative geniuses in history. We should be very hesitant to draw any inferences from those people because by definition they are unrepresentative of the general population. Additionally, even if we were to draw some inferences from this unrepresentative sample, it pushes in the wrong direction. Firstborn children are supposed to be less adventurous.

Answer Choice (B) says, in most cases, the more younger siblings one has, the greater one's cognitive plasticity. This is a comparative statement so let’s make sure we understand what is being compared. On the surface it sounds like it's contradicting the correlation above. But that's not true. The correlation above compared cognitive plasticity of siblings to each other. (B) compares the cognitive plasticity of firstborn children to other firstborn children. (B) is comparing people who are not each other's siblings. According to (B), the eldest of five siblings from one family will tend to be more plastic than the eldest of two siblings from another family. Now that we know what (B) is saying, we can eliminate (B) for being irrelevant. Imagine if (B) stated the opposite, that the eldest of five siblings is less plastic than the eldest of two siblings. So what?

Correct Answer Choice (C) says other studies have shown a correlation between cognitive plasticity and the willingness to take risks. This is helpful for the argument because it reveals another correlation (backed up by studies) which suggests a causal mechanism. Now that we know cognitive plasticity correlates with risk-taking, a plausible hypothesis arises which can explain why birth order might correlate with adventurousness. It's because birth order correlates with risk-taking and risk-taking is what causes one to be adventurous.

Answer Choice (D) says a study of business executives shows that several industry leaders have older siblings. This is similar to (A) in that we should be careful about drawing inferences about the population at large based on the sample here which reveals information about only several people. Several people who happen to be industry-leading business executives have older siblings. This should be entirely unsurprising. I'm sure it's also true (even though (D) doesn't say it) that several people who happen to be industry-leading business executives have younger siblings or are the middle child or are the only child. But whatever information is revealed about whether or not they have siblings or the birth order they inhabit, there are just too few of them for us to use this information in a reliable manner. Another issue is the questionable relationship between being a business executive and being adventurous. I'm not sure which way that assumption goes. Are you more likely to be a business leader if you're more adventurous? Perhaps that's true. But the need to make this assumption is also a weakness of this answer choice.

Answer Choice (E) says most participants in the study had characterized themselves as more adaptable than other people. We can eliminate this answer simply by recognizing that it’s not clear what the relationship is between being more adaptable and being adventurous on the one hand and birth order on the other.


18 comments

Researcher: In a recent study of elementary school computers, we found that all keyboards and most monitors were positioned higher than recommended for children. Consequently, children were seated in ways that encouraged craned necks, awkwardly placed wrists, and other unhealthy postures. Evidently, most elementary school computers are installed without consideration of their effect on posture, and thus put children at the same risk for repetitive stress injuries as office workers.

Summarize Argument
A Researcher argues that most elementary school computers are installed without consideration for the children’s postures, which puts them at the same risk for repetitive stress injuries as office workers. This is because a study revealed that much of the computer equipment in elementary schools is positioned in a way that encourages unhealthy postures.

Notable Assumptions
The Researcher assumes that children and adult office workers are equally prone to repetitive stress injuries (there could be a difference between children and adults).
The Researcher also assumes that because the keyboards and monitors are positioned in a way that “encourages” poor posture, that it actually results in bad posture.
The Researcher also assumes that the difference in time spent on the computer is negligible between elementary students and office workers.

A
The recommended height for computers is different for children than for adults.
This does not change the fact that the keyboards and monitors were positioned higher than recommended for “children.” This does not impact the argument’s reasoning
B
Children spend more time working with computers at home than at school.
While this raises questions about the amount of time students spend on school computers, it does not give any reason to seriously doubt the argument’s reasoning
C
The greater suppleness of children’s bodies makes them less susceptible than adults to repetitive stress injuries.
This directly calls out a key assumption in the argument: that the difference between children and adults is negligible. This undermines the argument by suggesting that, even with poor posture, children are less likely to experience the same risks as office workers.
D
Office workers’ keyboards and monitors are usually not at the recommended heights for healthy postures for adults.
This shows that office workers face poorly adjusted workspaces but does not weaken the underlying reasoning or argument. The argument is focused on children.
E
Office workers are more likely to report injuries than children are.
The rate at which children vs. adults *report* their injuries has no bearing on whether they actually face similar risks.

3 comments

On the plains where it lives, an individual zebra stands out because of its black-and-white stripes, which contrast with the green or brown of the surrounding vegetation. Yet zebras are a prey species, and the lions that hunt them can see stripes clearly. It seems surprising that zebras would survive with such vivid markings.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do zebras survive, even though one of their predators (lions) can see stripes clearly, and zebras have black-and-white stripes that contrast with the green/brown of surrounding vegetation?

Objective
The correct answer should suggest something about either zebras, lions, or the environment that could increase zebras’ survivability against lions.

A
Because the vegetation on the open plains changes from green to brown as the season changes from wet to dry, true camouflage coloring for a prey species would have to change according to the seasons.
This suggests zebras don’t have true camouflage. This doesn’t help explain why zebras can survive against lions. We still know zebras’ stripes stand out against the background.
B
Zebras are able to judge from the demeanor of lions they see in the vicinity whether or not those lions are preparing to hunt, and the zebras ignore the lions that are not.
This suggests zebras can identify which lions are preparing to hunt. But it doesn’t suggest zebras can escape from those lions or can somehow hide from those lions. We still know zebras’ stripes stand out against the background. How can they survive being preyed on by lions?
C
Lions that hunt zebras are themselves colored in a way that blends in with the brown color of dry vegetation, so that in the dry season, when prey is scarce, the lions can creep up on their prey to within a distance from which the lions have a favorable chance of succeeding in the hunt.
This tells us a feature of lions that makes them better at hunting. But if we’re trying to explain how zebras survive, we want an answer that makes lions worse at hunting zebras.
D
When lions hunt, the whole pride shares in the food obtained when a prey animal is successfully brought down by one of the hunting lions.
This tells us what lions do with food after killing prey. But we want to know why zebras don’t become dead prey in the first place.
E
When zebras run in a group, as they generally do in response to danger, the stripe markings make it difficult for a predator pursuing a single individual to discern its outline.
This tells us something about zebras’ stripes that can help them avoid being killed by predators. If the stripes can make it harder for a predator to see the outline of an individual zebra, that predator might have a more difficult time killing that zebra.

4 comments

Educator: Few problems faced in daily life can be solved most effectively, if at all, by applying knowledge from any single academic discipline in isolation. Thus, schools should not require students to take courses in individual academic disciplines but should instead require them to take interdisciplinary courses.

Summarize Argument
The educator concludes that schools should require students to take interdisciplinary courses, rather than courses in individual academic disciplines. He supports this by saying that few problems faced in daily life can be effectively solved by applying knowledge from any single academic discipline alone.

Notable Assumptions
The educator assumes that students can’t combine knowledge from different disciplines unless they learn to do so in an interdisciplinary course. In other words, he assumes that schools have to teach interdisciplinary courses in order for students to combine knowledge across disciplines. He also assumes that one of the goals of schools should be to teach students to effectively solve problems faced in daily life.

A
Problems faced in daily life usually can be solved effectively using only common sense.
This weakens the educator’s argument because, if students can effectively solve problems faced in daily life using only common sense, why does it matter whether schools teach interdisciplinary courses? Students can solve these problems either way.
B
Most teachers are able to teach courses in a single academic discipline more effectively than they can teach interdisciplinary courses.
This weakens the argument because it provides a consequence of switching to an interdisciplinary teaching model. If teachers are more effective in teaching single subjects, the quality of education may decline if the educator's suggestion is followed.
C
Students who take only courses in individual academic disciplines are rarely able to combine knowledge from those disciplines.
This strengthens the argument by addressing the assumption that students can’t combine knowledge from different disciplines unless they learn to do so in an interdisciplinary course. If that assumption is true, interdisciplinary teaching becomes much more necessary.
D
Most students who are required to take courses that cover only single disciplines can effectively solve many problems faced in daily life.
Irrelevant— the premise tells us that “few” problems can be solved using knowledge from any single academic discipline. It follows that some problems can be effectively solved this way, so (D) doesn’t affect the argument either way.
E
Most interdisciplinary courses are not designed specifically to teach students how to solve problems faced in daily life.
Irrelevant— just because courses aren't designed to teach students how to solve problems faced in daily life doesn’t mean that they won’t teach students to solve these problems.

This is a Strengthen question.

The educator's argument contains only one premise and one conclusion. The premise says that few problems faced in daily life can be solved most effectively, if at all, by applying knowledge from any single academic discipline in isolation. That means most problems faced in daily life cannot be most effectively solved by… [rest of sentence]. From that she concludes schools should not require students to take courses in individual academic disciplines but should instead require them to take interdisciplinary courses.

The argument contains a number of assumptions. One is the move from a descriptive premise to a prescriptive conclusion. The premise states what is the case. It is the case that most problems cannot be solved… The conclusion moves to a claim about what schools should do in response. That assumes that schools should try to help students solve the problems that they face in daily life.

Another assumption is that schools have to teach students interdisciplinary courses in order for students to combine knowledge from different disciplines. Is that true? If the schools don't teach an interdisciplinary course on, say, ethics and economics and instead teach those courses separately, does that mean the students can't combine knowledge from the two? That's not clear. But the argument assumes they can’t and concludes that it’s up to the schools to teach interdisciplinary courses.

Correct Answer Choice (C) recognizes this assumption and declares it to be so. It says that students who take only courses in individual disciplines are rarely able to combine knowledge from those disciplines. If that's the case, then the need for schools to teach interdisciplinary courses is much stronger.

Answer Choice (A) cuts against the first assumption we identified. It says that problems faced in daily life usually can be solved effectively using only common sense. If this is true, then who cares about whether schools teach disciplines in an isolated or interdisciplinary manner? If this is true, then the fact that applying knowledge from a single discipline in isolation usually does not amount to a solution doesn't seem like a problem at all, because students can just use their common sense.

Answer Choice (B) says most teachers are able to teach courses in a single academic discipline more effectively than they can teach interdisciplinary courses. This means that if the policy in the conclusion is implemented, then the quality of instruction will suffer as a result. Most teachers will become less effective than when they were in the past teaching single disciplines. This consideration certainly weighs against implementing the policy and the conclusion. So it doesn't strengthen the argument.

Answer Choice (D) says most students who are required to take courses that cover only single disciplines can effectively solve many problems facing daily life. This is not necessarily telling us anything new. The premise already made room for the information here. The premise said that few problems can be solved by applying knowledge from a single discipline in isolation. That already acknowledged the possibility that some problems can.

Answer Choice (E) says most interdisciplinary courses are not designed specifically to teach students how to solve problems faced in daily life. It's not clear if a course not being specifically designed to do a thing means that the course won't end up achieving that result anyway. But even if we assume that's true, meaning that because the courses are not designed specifically to teach students how to resolve problems in daily life, the courses therefore don't end up teaching students how to solve problems in daily life, then that's just the weakness of the policy in the conclusion. That doesn't strengthen the argument.


Comment on this