Summarize Argument
Some doctors argue that asthmagon should be banned for asthma patients. Their support is that 20% of asthma patients suffered serious side effects from asthmagon during studies.
Notable Assumptions
The doctors assume that asthmagon should be banned based on its side effects. This means that they believe the serious side effects outweigh any potential benefits that asthmagon affords asthma patients. The doctors also assume that asthmagon hasn’t changed as a drug since these studies were undertaken, and that the studies weren’t compromised by some external factor.
A
In Rhiago, where asthmagon had been the most widely prescribed of the beta-2 agonists, the number of asthma deaths increased between 1981 and 1987.
If asthma deaths increased in an area where asthmagon was prescribed, that suggests the drug isn’t working all that well. This certainly doesn’t weaken the claim that asthmagon should be banned.
B
Many of the patients under observation to whom asthmagon was administered had not previously taken a beta-2 agonist.
Regardless of what the patients had previously taken, asthmagon had serious side effects. That alone, at least for the doctors, is enough to ban it. This doesn’t weaken that claim.
C
Despite the growing concern about the drug, many physicians in Rhiago still prescribe asthmagon to asthma sufferers.
We don’t care what doctors do. We care about whether or not asthmagon should be banned because of its side effects.
D
Among the patients observed, only those who had very high cholesterol counts suffered side effects after taking asthmagon.
Asthmagon does cause side effects, but only for a certain subset of patients. It doesn’t follow to ban asthmagon for everyone, which is what the doctors are recommending.
E
Asthmagon increases the severity of asthma attacks in some people because the drug can cause damage to heart tissues.
This is yet another reason to ban asthmagon. We’re looking for an answer that weakens the doctors’ stance.
Relevant lessons: For, since, because | Conditional logic | Sufficient assumption questions
Relevant lessons: For, since, because | Conditional logic | Sufficient assumption questions
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Jones is the best qualified, because none of the other candidates has the same set of qualifications as Jones.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The conclusion is that Jones is the best qualified, but the support is merely that she has different qualifications from the other candidates. What makes her unique set of qualifications better than anyone else’s qualifications? The author doesn’t say, so his argument fails to provide evidence that supports the comparison made in the conclusion.
Moreover, the author notes that everyone has a unique set of qualifications. So the reason for choosing Jones—unique qualifications—equally applies to every other candidate. The argument singles out one member of a set based on a trait held by all members of that set.
A
uses flattery to win over those who hold an opposing position
No opposing position is identified. And although the author notes that Jones is the “best qualified,” nothing suggests that this is flattery—rather, this is simply the author’s conclusion about who the best candidate is.
B
refutes a distorted version of an opposing position
No opposing position is identified or refuted.
C
seeks to distinguish one member of a group on the basis of something that applies to all
The author tries to distinguish Jones as the best candidate on the basis of something—unique qualifications—that applies to all candidates. This is a flaw; if all candidates, like Jones, have unique qualifications, then we’re given no reason to choose Jones over anyone else.
D
supports a universal claim on the basis of a single example
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of overgeneralization. But the author doesn’t make a generalized or universal claim. His conclusion is a claim specifically about one candidate, and he supports that claim on the basis of a consideration of all candidates.
E
describes an individual in terms that appropriately refer only to the group as a whole
This is the cookie-cutter “whole to part” flaw, where a trait belonging to a group is inappropriately applied to a single member. The author doesn’t do this—he describes each candidate in terms of her qualifications, which is a trait that rightly applies to individuals.
Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that the number of species on Earth is probably not decreasing. He supports this by saying that the extinction rate this year will likely be similar to 1970, and that new species are probably emerging at the same rate as in past centuries.
Notable Assumptions
In order for the number of species on Earth not to decrease, the columnist must assume that the extinction rate today and in 1970 is equal to or lower than the rate at which new species are emerging. If extinction is happening faster than new species are emerging, the number of species is decreasing.
A
In 1970 fewer new species emerged than went extinct.
This weakens the columnist’s conclusion by proving his key assumption is false. If fewer new species emerged than went extinct in 1970, the number of species decreased. So, since extinction and speciation rates are likely the same today, the number of species is decreasing.
B
The regions of the world where new species tend to emerge at the highest rate are also where species tend to go extinct at the highest rate.
It doesn’t matter where these species are emerging and going extinct. (B) doesn’t show that the rate of extinction, regardless of where it is happening, is higher than the rate of speciation, so it doesn’t weaken the columnist’s argument.
C
The vast majority of the species that have ever existed are now extinct.
While most species that have ever existed are now extinct, new species are still emerging. (C) doesn't give us any reason to believe that new species aren't replacing those that go extinct, so it doesn’t weaken the conclusion that the overall number of species is not decreasing.
D
There is no more concern now about extinction of species than there was in 1970.
People’s concern about extinction is irrelevant to the columnist’s argument. He is only addressing the actual rates of extinction and speciation, regardless of whether people care about it.
E
Scientists are now better able to identify species facing serious risk of extinction than they were in 1970.
Scientists may be more aware of endangered animals now, but this doesn’t change the fact that "about as many species are likely to go extinct this year as... in 1970." (C) doesn’t address the difference between extinction and speciation rates, so it doesn’t weaken the argument.