Editorial: Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising persuades people that they need certain consumer goods when they merely desire them. However, this accusation rests on a fuzzy distinction, that between wants and needs. In life, it is often impossible to determine whether something is merely desirable or whether it is essential to one’s happiness.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Critics complain that advertising tricks people into confusing wants with needs, but this complaint relies on making the difficult distinction between wants and needs. In reality, it can be nearly impossible to determine whether something is merely a want or a genuine need.

Identify Conclusion
Critics' complaints about advertising require making a distinction between wants and needs, which is almost impossible.

A
The claim that advertising persuades people that they need things that they merely want rests on a fuzzy distinction.
This is a good summary of the editorial’s argument. The editorial contends that the claim made by critics of consumerism—that advertising tricks people into confusing wants with needs—“rests on a fuzzy distinction” because wants and needs are almost impossible to distinguish.
B
Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising attempts to blur people’s ability to distinguish between wants and needs.
This sentence provides context for the stimulus. It introduces the position that advertising causes confusion between wants and needs, setting the stage for the editorial’s counterargument that distinguishing between wants and needs is not as clear-cut as critics suggest.
C
There is nothing wrong with advertising that tries to persuade people that they need certain consumer goods.
The editorial does not make this argument because the editorial does not judge advertising itself. Instead, the editorial critiques the reasoning of consumerism’s critics, particularly the critics’ assumption that it is possible to distinguish between wants and needs clearly.
D
Many critics of consumerism fail to realize that certain things are essential to human happiness.
This is not a flaw in the critics’ reasoning that the editorial addresses. The editorial challenges the assumption that it is possible to clearly distinguish between wants and needs, not whether critics recognize the existence of needs or things “essential to human happiness.”
E
Critics of consumerism often use fuzzy distinctions to support their claims.
The stimulus only offers one example of critics using fuzzy distinctions, so we cannot conclude that critics “often” do this. Since the stimulus doesn’t fully support this claim, it cannot be the main conclusion.

1 comment

Science journalist: Europa, a moon of Jupiter, is covered with ice. Data recently transmitted by a spacecraft strongly suggest that there are oceans of liquid water deep under the ice. Life as we know it could evolve only in the presence of liquid water. Hence, it is likely that at least primitive life has evolved on Europa.

Summarize Argument
The science journalist concludes that life has likely evolved on Europa, a moon of Jupiter. This is based on the claim that there is probably liquid water on Europa, and liquid water is necessary for life to evolve.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The science journalist confuses necessary and sufficient conditions, a cookie-cutter flaw. If liquid water is present on Europa, that would fulfill a necessary condition for life to evolve. However, liquid water might not be sufficient for life to evolve. Other factors might also be necessary, like the right temperature or geological conditions.

A
takes for granted that if a condition would be necessary for the evolution of life as we know it, then such life could not have evolved anywhere that this condition does not hold
This is an accurate description of the meaning of a “necessary condition,” and doesn’t constitute a flaw in the argument.
B
fails to address adequately the possibility that there are conditions necessary for the evolution of life in addition to the presence of liquid water
The argument takes the likely presence of one necessary condition (water) as making it likely that life has evolved on Europa. This overlooks the possibility that other factors are also necessary, and water, while necessary for life, is not sufficient.
C
takes for granted that life is likely to be present on Europa if, but only if, life evolved on Europa
The journalist is only talking about the likelihood of life evolving on Europa, not claiming that this is the only way for life to be present on Europa (for example, life could have migrated from somewhere else).
D
overlooks the possibility that there could be unfamiliar forms of life that have evolved without the presence of liquid water
The journalist isn’t claiming that the evolution of some unknown form of life on Europa would be impossible without water, only that water is necessary for “life as we know it.”
E
takes for granted that no conditions on Europa other than the supposed presence of liquid water could have accounted for the data transmitted by the spacecraft
The journalist isn’t claiming that liquid water is definitely present on Europa, only that it is the most likely explanation for the transmitted data.

39 comments

Gigantic passenger planes currently being developed will have enough space to hold shops and lounges in addition to passenger seating. However, the additional space will more likely be used for more passenger seating. The number of passengers flying the air-traffic system is expected to triple within 20 years, and it will be impossible for airports to accommodate enough normal-sized jet planes to carry that many passengers.

Summarize Argument
It is more likely that the extra space on gigantic planes will be used for more passenger seating than shops and lounges. This is because the number of passengers flying is expected to dramatically increase, and normal-sized planes alone would not be able to accommodate all those passengers. Therefore, the extra space on gigantic planes must be utilized to carry passengers.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s hypothesis about what the extra space will be used for: “the additional space will more likely be used for more passenger seating.”

A
Gigantic planes currently being developed will have enough space in them to hold shops and lounges as well as passenger seating.
This is context that sets up the argument about what that extra space will actually be used for.
B
The additional space in the gigantic planes currently being developed is more likely to be filled with passenger seating than with shops and lounges.
This accurately rephrases the conclusion. The conclusion is that it is more likely that the additional space on gigantic planes will be used for passenger seating. More likely than what? The shops and lounges mentioned in the context.
C
The number of passengers flying the air-traffic system is expected to triple within 20 years.
This is support for why the extra space on gigantic planes will likely be used for passenger seating. There will be lots more passengers that need seats.
D
In 20 years, it will be impossible for airports to accommodate enough normal-sized planes to carry the number of passengers that are expected to be flying then.
This is support for why gigantic planes will likely use the extra space for seating. Regular planes alone can’t carry the passenger load because there isn’t enough space for all the planes that would be needed. Therefore, gigantic planes need to carry the extra passengers.
E
In 20 years, most airline passengers will be flying in gigantic passenger planes.
This is not contained in the stimulus. The argument is about what the space on gigantic planes will be used for, not where most passengers will be flying. We have no idea what the proportions will be.

3 comments

Economist: If the belief were to become widespread that losing one’s job is not a sign of personal shortcomings but instead an effect of impersonal social forces (which is surely correct), there would be growth in the societal demand for more government control of the economy to protect individuals from these forces, just as the government now protects them from military invasion. Such extensive government control of the economy would lead to an economic disaster, however.

Summary

The stimulus gives us a causal chain. If the belief that getting fired is a product of social forces becomes widespread, that will increase demands for more extensive government control of the economy. If the government begins to control the economy more extensively, that will lead to economic disaster. We’re also told that the belief that getting fired is a product of social forces is accurate.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Some accurate beliefs that become widespread might lead to negative consequences.

A
Increased knowledge of the causes of job loss could lead to economic disaster.

Strongly supported. We’re told that the belief social forces are responsible for job losses is correct. We also know that this belief, if widespread, can lead to economic disaster. So, if more people start to hold this correct belief, that might lead to economic disaster.

B
An individual’s belief in his or her own abilities is the only reliable protection against impersonal social forces.

Unsupported. We don’t know what can reliably protect against social forces. If anything, this is antisupported, because we know job losses aren’t caused by personal shortcomings. This suggests even if people didn’t have those shortcomings, that wouldn’t prevent job loss.

C
Governments should never interfere with economic forces.

Unsupported. Although extensive government control can lead to economic disaster, that doesn’t suggest other, less extensive, kinds of government involvement with the economy would be harmful.

D
Societal demand for government control of the economy is growing.

Unsupported. The stimulus says this will happen if the belief mentioned becomes widespread. But we don’t know if the belief is becoming more widespread.

E
In general, people should feel no more responsible for economic disasters than for military invasions.

Unsupported. Military invasions are mentioned as something that the government protects us against. But there’s no comparison made between military invasions and economic disasters concerning the responsibility people should feel.


9 comments