Summarize Argument
The author concludes that we should be skeptical when geneticists say that personality traits that aren’t thought to be genetically determined actually are genetically determined. The author supports this conclusion with the subsidiary conclusion that the geneticists are probably amplifying their own importance when they make such a claim. This sub-conclusion is supported by the fact that specialists tend to see their own specialties as important.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author attacks the motivation of the geneticists rather than the substance of their claim. The motivation of the geneticists in making their claim that certain traits are genetically determined has no bearing on the truth of that claim.
A
generalizes about all specialists on the basis of an unrepresentative sample
The conclusion is just about geneticists. So it doesn’t generalize about all specialists.
B
presumes that the traditional view must be the right view simply because it is what has been traditionally believed
The author’s conclusion is not based merely on the fact that a particular view has been the traditional belief. The conclusion is based on comments on the motivation of the geneticists.
C
draws a conclusion that is merely a restatement of one of its main premises
(C) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion — which asserts that we should be skeptical of a certain claim — is not restated in the premises, which concern the motivation of geneticists.
D
appeals to the authority of those unlikely to be well informed about the topic at issue
The author’s reasoning is not based on an appeal to authority. The author does not say that we should reject a belief because certain authorities reject it.
E
disputes a claim on the basis of a supposed motive for making the claim rather than by assessing the evidence relevant to the claim
The author disputes the geneticists’ claim based on the geneticists’ supposed motivation in making that claim (the desire to amplify their own importance). This is flawed because their motivation doesn’t relate to the truth of their claim.
Summary
The amygdala is a part of the brain that helps us experience fear. A disease called Urbach-Wiethe disease destroys the amygdala, and people with that disease don’t usually experience fear. However, some people, including people with the disease, experience fear when they breath in a lot of carbon dioxide.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The stimulus supports these inferences:
The amygdala is not necessary for every experience of fear.
Thus, there must be other parts of the brain that can also sense fear.
In particular, the amygdala is not necessary to experience fear caused by breathing in carbon dioxide.
The amygdala is not necessary for every experience of fear.
Thus, there must be other parts of the brain that can also sense fear.
In particular, the amygdala is not necessary to experience fear caused by breathing in carbon dioxide.
A
Extreme fear is not the only intense response that people can have to a breath that is high in carbon dioxide.
This is not supported. All we know about people’s response to taking a breath high in carbon dioxide is that it can cause extreme fear. Maybe it can cause other responses too, but we don’t know that.
B
Sensing fear is not the only function the amygdala can serve.
This is not supported. The stimulus just tells us that the amygdala is involved in sensing fear. We have no information about whether or not it does anything else.
C
Urbach-Wiethe disease is not the only disease that can destroy the amygdala.
This is not supported. Just because Urbach-Wiethe disease destroys the amygdala, that doesn’t imply that it’s the only disease which destroys the amygdala. To say so, we would need further information (which we don’t have).
D
The amygdala is not the only part of the brain that can be affected by Urbach-Wiethe disease.
This is not supported. We don’t know anything about Urbach-Wiethe disease except that it affects the amygdala. It’s possible that it affects other brain areas too, and equally possible that it doesn’t. We just don’t know.
E
The amygdala is not the only part of the brain that can be involved in sensing fear.
This is strongly supported. When people with Urbach-Wiethe disease experience fear from breathing carbon dioxide, their amygdala can’t be responsible, because it’s been destroyed. That must mean some other part of the brain senses that particular fear.
Summary
The clock evolved from more complex to more simple. The earliest clocks were the most complicated, because they were used mainly for predicting astronomical phenomena. As timekeeping functions became more important, and astronomical functions less important, clocks became more simple.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The level of clock complexity required for astronomical predictions is higher than that required for keeping time.
A
Present-day clocks are of no use in the prediction of astronomical phenomena.
Unsupported, because these clocks might have some use for astronomical predictions. We know that their primary purpose isn’t astronomical, but they might still be usable for some astronomical purposes.
B
The mechanisms used to predict astronomical phenomena in at least some clocks were more complicated than most more recent mechanisms used for this function.
Unsupported. We don’t know about mechanisms for predicting astronomical stuff outside of clocks. Non-clock mechanisms might be far more complicated than the mechanisms in clocks.
C
Clocks used only for keeping time do not differ appreciably in their mechanical complexity.
Unsupported, because there can still be differences in complexity among time-keeping clocks. On average, this category of clocks isn’t as complex as the clocks used to predict astronomical phenomena, but that doesn’t mean they all have the same complexity.
D
The mechanisms that the earliest clocks used to predict astronomical phenomena were more complicated than the mechanisms used for timekeeping functions in some more recent clocks.
Strongly supported, because we know that the earliest clocks were the most complex, because they were primarily used for astronomical predictions. More recent clocks are mainly used for time-keeping, which allows for less complex mechanisms.
E
Interest in predicting astronomical phenomena has declined steadily since the invention of the first mechanical clocks.
Unsupported, because people may simply be using other devices to satisfy their interest in astronomical predictions. Clocks are being used less for this purpose, but that doesn’t imply that overall interest in astronomical predictions is lower.