Summary
Whenever considering voting in an election, and there’s at least one issue important:
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but if disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → acceptable to vote for candidate X.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but do NOT disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → NOT acceptable to vote for candidate X.
In the upcoming election, there’s only 1 issue important. Kay agrees with Medina on that issue. Kay does not agree with Legrand or Norton on that issue.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but if disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → acceptable to vote for candidate X.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but do NOT disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → NOT acceptable to vote for candidate X.
In the upcoming election, there’s only 1 issue important. Kay agrees with Medina on that issue. Kay does not agree with Legrand or Norton on that issue.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
It is not acceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton. This is because she disagrees with them on an important issue, but she does not disagree with all other candidates on a greater # of important issues. (She agrees with Medina on the 1 important issue, and there are no other important issues. So if she disagrees with Legrand and Norton on that issue, there’s no way that she can disagree with all other candidates, including Medina, on a greater # of important issues.)
A
it is acceptable for Kay to vote for either Medina or Legrand, but it is unacceptable for her to vote for Norton
Anti-supported, because it is not acceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand. (See summary for explanation.)
B
the only unacceptable courses of action are for Kay to vote for Norton and for her to vote for Legrand
Supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton. (See summary for explanation.)
C
it is unacceptable for Kay to vote for any of the candidates
Not supported, because it’s possible that voting for Medina is acceptable. We have no reason to think it’s unacceptable to vote for Medina, because Kay agrees with Medina on the 1 important issue.
D
the only unacceptable course of action is for Kay to vote for Medina
Anti-supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton.
E
it is acceptable for Kay to vote for any of the candidates
Anti-supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that we should raise taxes. This is because the only way for homelessness to disappear is for the government to provide the homeless with housing. In order for the government to provide the homeless with housing, this requires increased taxation.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if something is necessary for making homelesness disapperar, it’s something we should do.
A
Only if a measure is required to solve a problem should it be adopted.
This tells us that a thing’s being required to solve a problem is necessary in order for it to be something we should adopt. But (A) doesn’t establish that we actually should do the thing. (A) would be correct if it had started with “If” rather than “Only if.”
B
Only if a measure is sufficient to solve a problem should it be adopted.
We are not told about a measure that’s sufficient to solve a problem. We know what’s required to solve homelessness — government building housing and taxation. But we don’t know these are sufficient. (B) also doesn’t help reach the conclusion that something should be adopted.
C
If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted.
This helps connect the premises to the conclusion. We know increased taxation is necessary to solve homelessness. Based on (C), we can then conclude that we should increase taxation.
D
If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, then it should be adopted.
We are not told about any measure that’s sufficient to solve the problem of homelessness. We know what’s required to solve it — government building housing and taxation. But we don’t know these are sufficient to solve homelessness.
E
If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, any steps necessitated by that measure should be adopted.
We are not told about any measure that’s sufficient to solve the problem of homelessness. We know what’s required to solve it — government building housing and taxation. But we don’t know these are sufficient to solve homelessness.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if human souls are immortal, then the bad will be punished. This is based on the fact that the existence of “moral order,” which is a state in which bad is always punished, depends on human soulds being immortal.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. The premise establishes that human souls being immortal is necessary in order for “moral order” (bad always punished) to exist. But this doesn’t imply that if human souls are immortal, that this would be sufficient for “moral order” to exist.
A
From the assertion that something is necessary to a moral order, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an element of the moral order to be realized.
The premise establishes that human souls’ immortality is necessary for moral order. But the author mistakenly thinks this is sufficient for an element of that mordal order to be true (the element of the bad always being punished).
B
The argument takes mere beliefs to be established facts.
The author does not assume or conclude that anything is an established fact. Although he describes what some cultures believe about moral order in the second sentence, he doesn’t suggest that these beliefs are true.
C
From the claim that the immortality of human souls implies that there is a moral order in the universe, the argument concludes that there being a moral order in the universe implies that human souls are immortal.
The author does not rely on a claim that immortality implies the existence of a moral order. Rather, the premise asserts that immortality is necessary for a moral order. Also, the conclusion does not assert that a moral order implies immortality.
D
The argument treats two fundamentally different conceptions of a moral order as essentially the same.
Although the author describes two conceptions of a moral order in the second sentence, the author does not treat these as the same. These play no role in supporting the conclusion. The conclusion is based on the first sentence, which describes what is necessary for a moral order.
E
The argument’s conclusion is presupposed in the definition it gives of a moral order.
The author does not use circular reasoning. The conclusion asserts that immortality is sufficient for an aspect of moral order. This idea is not assumed in the premise, which asserts instead that immortality is necessary for moral order.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The spokesperson concludes the opposition party’s plan to stimulate the economy envisions an illusory benefit. As evidence, the spokesperson states the province’s budget is required to be in balance. Either new taxes need to make up for the shortfall, or workers for the province will be dismissed. As a result, there will be no net increase in spending to stimulate the economy.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The spokesperson counters the position held by the opposing party. He does this by pointing out that an anticipated advantage of the opposing party’s plan would be offset by a disadvantage. Even if the province’s taxpayers are refunded $600 million, the need for a new tax to make up for the shortfall or the need to dismiss workers will negate the positive effects of the refunds.
A
reinterpreting a term that is central to an opposing argument
The spokesperson does not reinterpret any term.
B
arguing that a predicted advantage would be offset by an accompanying disadvantage
The predicted advantage is the advantage of the province’s taxpayers having $600 million to spend. The accompanying disadvantage is the need to either have a new tax make up for the shortfall or dismiss workers for the province.
C
casting doubt on the motives of opponents
The spokesperson does not address the motivations of the opposing party. The spokesperson addresses the opposing party’s claim directly.
D
drawing a distinction between different kinds of economic activity
The spokesperson does not address different kinds of economic activity.
E
seeking to show that the assumption that taxpayers would spend money that might be refunded to them is dubious
The spokesperson does not argue that the province’s taxpayers would not spend the money. In fact, the spokesperson concedes that taxpayers would have $600 million to spend.