This is a very standard NA question stem. If the argument depends on an assumption, the assumption is necessary.
So the plastic rings on a six-pack ensnare and suffocate animals. Yeah, I’ve definitely heard this and always try to cut these up before discarding. I don’t know if it actually helps, but can’t hurt. Anyway, what about it? Oh okay, new rings that will disintegrate after three days of sunlight. A few things about this sentence. First, is this going to work? I mean, it seems like these might get this much light just in shipping and handling before their job is done. This does not matter though. Despite any potential downside, this statement tells us that ALL beverage companies will soon be using these rings. That seems like a pretty big shift. Good. And once we complete the switch to the new rings, the threat plastic rings pose to wildlife will be eliminated. So this is the conclusion.
I can see a few possible problems here, but we don’t want to go hunting for anything specific. For NA questions, it is best to go into the answer choices with an open mind. Let them speak to you and consider the issues they suggest.
Answer Choice (A) Does this have to be true for the argument to work? No. What if some of them will disintegrate in only two days? Well that might be a problem as far as these rings efficacy as packaging, but our conclusion is only about eliminating threat to wildlife. If three days is good, two seems like it would be even better. So when we negate this, it seems to only make things better for our wildlife friends.
Answer Choice (B) We don’t care about this at all. What matters is that these companies are making the switch. End of story. This can bankrupt them for all we care.
Correct Answer Choice (C) So if this isn’t true, has the threat been eliminated? I would have to say it has not. Three days seems like fast disintegration time, but now that this answer directs my attention to it, the conclusion is quite strong. Our argument is claiming to eliminate the threat. Elimination is as absolute as it gets. But these things have up to three days to be out there before they fall apart. And that’s enough time to harm some wildlife. So now it seems the threat is not eliminated without this answer choice. The argument does, indeed, require this to be true. So this is our answer.
Answer Choice (D) Interesting suggestion, but this is not necessary. If we negate this, we’re only expanding the harms being caused by the old rings. But the conclusion is limited to eliminating the threat of suffocation—not all possible threats—so even if there are other threats, they are not relevant to our argument.
Answer Choice (E) Well I certainly hope not. Regardless, does this have to be true? No. We care about the threat of suffocation which remains a threat even if some animals are able to escape the rings. A threat need not be universally fatal to qualify as a threat. A 99% mortality rate would still be quite threatening.
Answers D and E may be tempting because they address the old rings. There is no reason to believe that the old rings will immediately disappear from the environment. They may continue posing a threat even after their use is discontinued in new packaging. So there is an additional necessary condition for this argument which concerns eliminating the risk posed by the old rings, but this answer does not express that assumption correctly. This alternative necessary assumption is a likely pre-phrase, and the possible existence of multiple necessary assumptions is why this strategy is not recommended for the question type. If you D or E based on a pre-phrase, ask yourself: Did you really scrutinize answer choice C to consider what it was suggesting? Or did you dismiss it because it didn’t match your expectation?
We should recognize this is a most strongly supported question, because the stem asks: Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
This is a five star question, and getting right is a real test of your ability to recognize the overall issue behind the details and make a key inference. The first sentence is a fairly straight forward conditional, though we should note that it only says that the article can be ruined, not that it will or must be ruined; badly worn needle → article can be ruined. Next we are told that the sewing machine operators in specifically traditional apparel factories monitor their needles and replace those that begin to wear out. We can infer that this practice would prevent at least one potential cause of clothing articles being ruined, but unfortunately we learn sewing operations are becoming increasingly automated, so the operators who monitor needles in traditional factories are being replaced, and it just isn’t efficient to hire people just for monitoring needles. The stimulus ends with a prediction that a new fancy device that detects needle wear is going to become standard equipment of specifically automated apparel factories.
Alright so sewing needles can wear out, and when they do it can ruin the product being sewn. Traditional factories dealt with this problem through human oversight, but since those operators are being replaced in automated factories and it isn’t efficient to hire people who just monitor needles, it seems like there could be a problem. Luckily, it is expected that a new device is going to become standard which uses sound to monitor needle wear, solving the problem. Let’s see what supported inference we get in the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) This answer is consistent with what we’ve been told, and even might seem to be supported by the prediction of the new device. The problem is that we are only told that the new device is expected to become standard, which means it isn’t certain that it will, while on the other hand we are told that in the traditional factories needles are monitored and replaced. This answer depends on making many assumptions, and is therefore not strongly supported by the information in the stimulus alone.
Answer Choice (B) What we’ve been told actually makes this less likely; human needle monitors aren’t a viable option for an automated factory because it is inefficient to hire people with the sole purpose of monitoring needles.
Answer Choice (C) All we know is that traditional factories don’t use automated equipment instead of human operators for sewing. It is entirely consistent with the stimulus that everything else in traditional apparel factories is automated. This answer requires that we assume a lot about traditional apparel factories that we just don’t know.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is the correct answer, but it is tricky to pick up on because it relies on making an inference implicit to the stimulus as a whole. The stimulus is all about the problem of needle wear potentially ruining clothing articles, and how humans or devices can be used to monitor needles. If it were true that needle wear occurred at a predictable rate, than it wouldn’t be so important to monitor the needles, since it could be predicted based on the needle’s usage when it would become badly worn. This is a case where maintaining a grasp on the bigger picture of the stimulus is crucial.
Answer Choice (E) This answer is somewhat supported by the fact that it is specifically an acoustic device that can detect needle wear. However, we can’t assume that detection via sound requires that the needles become increasingly loud. What if the noise worn needles make is quieter than good needles? What if it is the same volume but a different kind of noise? This answer wants you to jump on the detail that the devices are acoustic while missing the broader problem and why it supports D.
We should recognize that this is a strengthening question, as the question stem says: Which one of the following, if true, would most help to support the conclusion about the German new-car market?
The stimulus begins by telling us about a recent upsurge in demand for used cars in Germany. It continues by further specifying that this demand is coming from former East Germans who can’t afford to buy new cars and who didn’t have access to cars before the unification of East and West Germany. For real-world context, after World War II Germany was split into the allied-controlled democratic West Germany and Soviet-controlled communist East Germany, which weren’t reunited until the fall of the Berlin Wall. Because there is now more demand for used cars than there are used cars available, the price of used cars has also risen. The next sentence tells us that West Germans, because of this rise in used car value due to East German demand, will be selling their old cars. From all of this information, the author concludes that the new car market will improve as well. This is the conclusion we have been tasked with strengthening.
The first thing we should notice once we finish reading the stimulus is that our conclusion is about new cars while all the support is information about used cars. There is a gap in the argument; specifically, what we need is a reason for why (i) increased East German used car demand, (ii) higher used car prices, and (iii) West Germans selling their used cars, could improve the market for new cars. Let’s take a look at the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) While this answer choice does mention new cars, it doesn’t help us because it only does so in comparison to West German used car demand, which we know little about. Our conclusion is that the new car market will improve, it is a prediction about a future change. The relative size of one portion of the new car market to one portion of the used car market has no bearing on whether or not the German new car market as a whole will improve.
Answer Choice (B) This does nothing to support our prediction. For one, most European countries could not include Germany, in which case this answer would have zero impact on our prediction. And even if this answer explicitly says Germany was a part of this majority, this just gives a reason why buying a used car might be preferable to buying a new car, and no information suggesting there will be improvement in the new car market.
Answer Choice (C) Who cares? The average number of cars the majority of Germans own across their lifetime has little impact on whether the German new car market will overall improve after the changes in the used car market.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for. It bridges the gap between one of our premises, the one about an increasing number of West Germans selling their used cars, and our conclusion about the new car market. If West Germans generally buy a new car when they sell a used car, and an increasing number of them are going to be selling their used cars, it seems reasonable that the market for new cars will improve because their will be increased demand from these West Germans selling their old cars.
Answer Choice (E) We aren’t told if these North American cars are used or new, and this a preference of specifically East Germans who we know cannot afford new cars, so this information does nothing for our new car market prediction.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “The argument in the passage proceeds by…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
The speaker begins by telling us about a fossil discovery. We learn these fossils cast doubt on the theory that dinosaurs are more closely related to reptiles than non-reptile animals. We can identify our first sentence as the conclusion because of the support that follows. After making this claim about the doubt created, the author follows with a series of examples describing how dinosaurs are different from present day reptiles and similar to present day non-reptiles.
Knowing our stimulus lists off the reasons for the author’s main conclusion, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) We can eliminate this answer choice due to the language “erroneous information.” Our speaker bases their conclusion on reasons for their position rather than accusing the opposition of having bad information.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is incorrect due to the suggested ordering of events in our stimulus. This answer accuses the argument of establishing a general principle followed by a conclusion. Knowing our stimulus begins with a conclusion and follows with explanation, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) For this answer to be correct, our argument needs to make a conclusion about the premises. We can eliminate this option because our conclusion surrounds the relationships of dinosaurs (definitely not a modern-day subject) to other animals.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice goes beyond what our argument concludes. While this answer choice asserts the speaker draws a conclusion about all things with some quality belonging in a category. But our conclusion is specific to what we know about dinosaurs. We can eliminate this answer because it goes far beyond the content we can confirm from the stimulus.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for. This is the only answer choice that accurately describes how the author concludes how a past phenomena (dinosaurs) is related to one one rather than the other possible group.
From the question stem, “Which one of the following most accurately states the conclusion of the argument above?” we can tell that we are looking for the main conclusion or main point of the argument.
This argument opens with a question, so first we ask ourselves if it's rhetorical or not. In other words, is it just being used as a language tool to make a point, or will it be explicitly answered? Before breaking down the content and details of the first sentence, I’ll skim forward to see if I can glean a quick answer as to why the author included this question. The first few words of the following sentence tell me the answer is a contingent “no.” Contingent upon what? Well, let’s break down the content of the question first. The author is wondering if it’s cool for journalists to start their stories with this set phrase, “in a surprise development.” Immediately, the answer follows with “not if,” indicating to us that we have at least one situation in which the answer is no (journalists shouldn’t do that). That situation is if the “surprise development” is referring ONLY to the journalist's own surprise. Then, we are given a premise in support of that answer, which just lays out a principle we don’t want to violate in the “world” of this stimulus: that journalists shouldn’t insert themselves in their stories. We then read another “not if” or contingent no, that under the condition that the “surprise development” was some other individual’s than the journalist. Again, this is supported by a quick premise that any person’s surprise that was worth mentioning should have been explicitly attributed to them in the story.
Quick recap: we have a couple scenarios in which the answer to the first sentence is going to be no. I’m wondering if the author is setting this up to point to a final scenario in which the answer would be YES, or if the author will lay out more contingent “no’s” so as to exhaust all the possibilities and point to a final answer of NO. Maybe there is some other point to this as well, but we only have one sentence left to find out. The last sentence opens with “the one possibility remaining,” so we at least know that the author intends to exhaust all the possibilities and point us towards some final answer of yes or no. If many people were surprised by this development, there is no point in pointing out superfluously that the story comes as a surprise! In this scenario, he is also implying that journalists should not use this phrase.
So, the author has laid out three scenarios that are intended to cover the full range of possibilities and point us towards a final answer of no, journalists shouldn’t start stories with “in a surprise development.” Looks like this is a main conclusion question where we can’t point to a single sentence as the conclusion itself, but where each sentence acts as a premise that, altogether, truly couldn’t take the argument in a different direction than the one we are thinking. The author’s conclusion here is supported by each premise: in any scenario, the answer to the first sentence is no. Let’s find this in the ACs:
Answer Choice (A) Bottom line, this doesn’t match our prediction. Our prediction was based on evidence from the text, so we trust it. There is nothing in the text that points to some scenario where journalists should use that phrase, so I don’t even need to read past the comma to eliminate A.
Answer Choice (B) Again, this doesn’t line up with the prediction that the final answer is no. We are sure there are no scenarios in which to use this phrase appropriately, due to the author’s phrasing “the one possibility remaining” before laying out the third contingent no.
Answer Choice (C) Ah. Maybe true, and at first glance does seem to be supported due to that same phrasing we referenced in the line above. But, my first question is if that was the author’s main point in writing this argument?? If it were, why would the author phrase the opening question like they did? This is definitely an argument about whether or not journalists should do something, not an argument about when a certain phrase is used. Also, (C) doesn’t even mention journalists’ use of the phrase. Bye!
Answer Choice (D) As much as I agree with the “when introducing a story” part of this AC, I hate the rest. It goes too far! We don’t know if the author thinks journalists should use that phrase when summing up, just that it’s never appropriate to use when introducing a story.
Correct Answer Choice (E) Easy! Done. This is a rephrase of exactly what we predicted, that the answer to that initial question is an all-applicable no. Introducing stories this way is not good to do as a journalist. Uncomplicated and to the point.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: A flaw in the reasoning of the passage is that it…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The stimulus begins by telling us about a prison surgery program; people who behave well can receive free cosmetic surgery. Following this description, the speaker concludes that surgery has a powerful rehabilitative effect on the basis that the re-offender rate is lower for this group of inmates than the remainder in the prison population.
To conclude that something is powerful in causing an effect means that, in our case, inmates who receive cosmetic surgery through this program are more likely than before to avoid committing further crimes. This is where our author makes an assumption about the inmates involved in the study. Surely this group of inmates will already reoffend at a lower rate than the remainder of the population – these inmates were the most well behaved to begin with. Our argument is drawing a conclusion about the value of surgery on the basis of a group that was already going to have lower crime rates following release.
Knowing that our stimulus unjustly comes to its conclusion using a specific subset of the prison population, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Morality is briefly mentioned in our stimulus but it is not used to come to any conclusions about matters of fact.
Answer Choice (B) This is not what we are looking for. While the stimulus could be interpreted as casting moral issues aside, that is not the ultimate flaw. We know the correct answer choice will include the rate of re-offense in our group of inmates in some way.
Answer Choice (C) This is a factually correct answer, but this is ultimately not the flaw in our stimulus. Our problem with the argument relies on a comparison of two different groups rather than the use of the term controversial as claimed by this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) This is not descriptively accurate. We are not told this isn’t a moral issue - just that casting those issues aside, the rehabilitative effects are evident. Once again the answer choice presents a topic from our stimulus, but the issue of morality was a nod rather than the basis of our conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correctly answer choice is the only one that brings up the difference between the regular prison population and the inmates involved in this program.
A
It is a claim offered in support of the argument’s conclusion.
B
It is presented to raise a question that sheds doubt on the argument’s conclusion.
C
It is a claim that the argument is designed to call into question.
D
It describes an observed phenomenon for which the argument seeks an explanation.
E
It is presented as the main explanation of the origin of an observed phenomenon.