This is a weakening question, we know because the question stem says: Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the author’s prediction?
This is a nice and short stimulus; some unexpected heavy rainfall has filled reservoirs and streams, and therefore the author predicts that it won’t be necessary to ration water this summer. The assumption underlying the argument is a conditional; if the reservoirs and streams are full, then water rationing won’t be necessary. The correct answer is going to undermine this hidden premise that the reservoirs and streams being full is enough for water rationing not to be needed. Like many weakening questions, there is a lot of ways to come at this argument, and therefore POE is the best way to approach the answer choices. Let’s take a look at them:
Answer Choice (A)This is a poor answer because it relies on inductive reasoning (what happened in the past will happen in the future), and the author specifies that the reservoirs and streams being filled by heavy rainfall is a recent and unexpected phenomenon. What happened in previous years is not relevant to the support for the prediction.
Answer Choice (B) This is a very weak answer. For one, it admits that only a small part of the city’s water supply comes from this underground supply; you would expect that it would have little effect on whether water rationing will be required. All this answer does is introduce another supply in addition to the full reservoirs we’ve been told about, which would strengthen the prediction that water rationing won’t be necessary.
Correct Answer Choice (C)This answer does exactly what we identified in the stimulus; it undermines the sufficiency of full reservoirs for a lack of water rationing. If the actual transportation of the water to individuals is the issue, then a surplus of water isn’t enough to prevent water shortages among customers, and therefore it is entirely possible water rationing will be necessary even if the water supply is full.
Answer Choice (D) This answer doesn’t help us because we don’t know much about the relation of temperature to water usage. If this instead said “long-range weather forecasts predicts an extremely hot summer, which may increase water usage” then it might be helpful. But as it is stated, D fails to weaken the prediction.
Answer Choice (E) This answer is similar to A in that it relies on the inductive assumption that what happens in most years will happen in future ones. Even if this answer guaranteed that there would be less rain in the summer, for all we know the full reservoirs could supply the city for another year without any rain.
This is a most strongly supported question, as it asks: The statements above provide the most support for which one of the following?
The stimulus begins by informing us that there is a correlation between the distance animals travel and the size of their groups, and their diets. This just means what an animal eats is consistently related to how far it travels and what kind of group it lives with. So maybe herd animals that travel long distances usually live off mostly grass or something; we don’t get any details, just that the relationship exists. Next we learn that diet itself correlates with the animals’ faces and teeth. And that’s it! With a short MSS stimulus like this, we should be thinking about what kind of inferences we can make with so little information. In this case, if there is a connection between traveling/group behavior and diet, and between diet and face/teeth, then maybe you can somewhat reliably predict how an animal travels/groups just based off what kind of face/teeth it has. Let’s take a look at the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) We’ve been told that diet and travel correlate, but not how. This answer requires a lot of assumptions about the actual details of the correlation.
Answer Choice (B) We’ve been told that diet correlates with face and teeth shape and size, but not the details of this correlation and certainly nothing about how overall size correlates with diet.
Answer Choice (C) This is a very specific detail. To infer it just off the two sentences we were given would require a ton of assumptions.
Answer Choice (D) What should really signal that this answer is wrong is “all that is needed”. That is a very strong claim to draw from our two sentences.
Correct Answer Choice (E) Compare the “all that is needed” of D to the mere “can” of this answer choice. Exactly as we predicted in our pre-phrase, this answer makes the relatively small inference that if diet correlates with teeth and face, and diet also correlates with how an animal travels, then there might be a correlation between teeth and face, and how an animal travels.
Here we have a strengthening question, as the stem asks: Which one of the following, if true, would most support the naturalists’ prediction?
The stimulus begins with an opinion of some scientists; they believe mice must depend on human civilization for their continued existence. They support this conclusion with the claim that the relationship between mice and humans has diminished their ability to survive in nature. The author quickly makes their position clear and states that the scientists opinion ignores significant facts. While this is the author’s conclusion, it’s important to remember that our job is to specifically support the naturalists’ prediction.
To support his dismissal of the scientists opinion, the author cites several facts. First, Mice have managed to be the most widely distributed mammal after humans, despite threats from predators and humans. Second, they reproduce rapidly. Third, and more important to their survival than rapid reproduction, Mice can adapt to lots of different environments. To further bolster his case, the author quotes a prediction made by naturalists that mice would continue to survive even if the environment became too extreme to support humans.
This question is a good example of why it is important to read a question stem carefully. In this stimulus we are given three positions from three different groups: (1) the scientists’ argument that mice depend on humans, (2) the author’s argument that they don’t, and (3) the naturalists prediction that mice can survive extreme environments. The position we want to strengthen only takes up one sentence of this long stimulus! If we didn’t read the question stem carefully, we might misjudge answer choices based on how they affect the author or the scientists’ conclusion. Always read the question stem carefully.
The correct answer is the one which most strengthens the prediction that if the environment became too extreme for human life, then mice would be able to adapt and survive. Let’s take a look at the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) We want to strengthen the prediction that mice will survive even if the environment is too extreme for human life. This, if anything, weakens that prediction by introducing a limiting factor on mouse survival. A is incorrect.
Answer Choice (B) The stimulus has already told us that mice reproduce rapidly, so this answer doesn’t add anything new as support. Even, worse it only tells us something about mice under optimum conditions. The prediction we want to strengthen concerns what would happen to mice in an extreme environment. It is safe to assume that an extreme environment is not optimum conditions. B is incorrect.
Answer Choice (C) This answer relies on conflating the ability of mice to adapt and survive if the environment becomes too extreme for humans with the ability to survive an environment without humans. This answer might seem appealing if you failed to read the question stem carefully and believe our job is to strengthen the author’s position. However, this information is irrelevant to the naturalist’s extreme environment prediction because nothing we are told indicates that pre-colonial America was an extreme environment. C is incorrect.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This answer gives us a case where mice did exactly what the naturalists predict they can do; they encountered an environment too extreme for human life, and were able to survive. Think of it as an experiment testing their hypothesis. An experiment whose results correspond to a general prediction will always, all else being equal, strengthen that prediction. D is correct.
Answer Choice (E) This information supports the scientists point about the dependence of mice on human civilization, but that isn’t what we’ve been asked to strengthen. For our naturalists prediction it adds no support. E is incorrect.
The argument begins with an explanation of the pharmacists' position; doctors should not sell medicine to patients due to the risk of over prescribing them. All seems well until we get to our speaker’s position. Rather than responding to the overprescription issue, the patient attacks the speaker and their motives for having that opinion. On the basis of those motives, our patient concludes that we can’t trust what the pharmacists are saying.
The answer to a method of reasoning question is going to exist in the evidence or explanation of our conclusion. One word we can use to summarize this stimulus would be “interests.” Using this prediction can help us effectively narrow down the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is incorrect because we are not actually refuting any of the pharmacists’ claims - we just cannot trust the opinion of that group entirely.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This answer choice lines up well with our prediction, confirming our speaker is attacking their opponent rather than the basis of their argument. This is our correct answer!
Answer Choice (C) Similar to answer choice A, we can eliminate this one based on the scope. Rather than refuting the argument they are faced with, our patient pursues a personal attack.
Answer Choice (D) We don’t have any information on what the general public thinks about all this. So, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) While our prediction regards a personal attack, this answer choice attacks the qualification of the pharmacist group. This is not what we are looking for.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “Millie uses which one of the following argumentative strategies in contesting Oscar’s position?”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker. Immediately we should note we have two speakers in our stimulus. That means we need to be on the lookout for two conclusions and two sets of explanations. Oscar begins by telling us they have been recently accused of plagiarism. Oscar concludes this accusation is unwarranted on the grounds that Myers gave Oscar private permission to use the passages Oscar is accused of plagiarizing.
That makes sense depending on your definition of plagiarism. Our second speaker, Millie, points out the assumption in Oscar’s argument about what it means to plagiarize a piece of writing. Millie concludes that Myers is unable to bestow permission for Oscar to plagiarize because plagiarism itself is a type of lie, and permission to lie does not change the fact that Oscar committed plagiarism.
Millie has undermined Oscar’s position in their response by pointing out Oscar’s conclusion only follows if one changes the meaning of plagiarism. If plagiarism simply means to use another’s writing without permission, then Oscar has not committed plagiarism. As pointed out by Millie, having permission from the author does not change the fact Oscar is using another person’s work for the purpose of misleading the audience.
Knowing our correct answer choice will point out Millie’s debate surrounding this definition, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly points out the reinterpretation of plagiarism created by the second speaker.
Answer Choice (B) This is not descriptively accurate. In order to invoke evidence to show that Oscar did quote this author we would need to be able to point to an exact line in Millie’s argument referring to the text itself.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice implies the disagreement between Oscar and Millie concerns if Oscar had permission to use the author’s writing. But our stimuli aren’t concerned with whether the author tried to give Oscar permission. Instead, our speakers are concerned with whether or not the author’s permission qualifies Oscar’s work as falling under the umbrella of plagiarism.
Answer Choice (D) In order for this answer choice to be correct, we would need to be able to identify some sort of “theory of rights” introduced in the stimulus. Without a description of that theory or an explanation as to how we know Oscar aligns with it, we can eliminate this answer choice from consideration.
Answer Choice (E) We are not debating the credibility of either speaker. Instead, we are debating the validity of whether an author can rightfully give another permission to use their work without it qualifying as plagiarism.