Summarize Argument
The toxicologist concludes that the use of dioxin should be completely banned. The support for this recommendation is that research has shown that dioxin causes cancer in rats.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is used to support the toxicologist’s recommendation that dioxin be completely banned.
A
It is presented as the hazard that the researcher is concerned with preventing.
The hazard that the researcher is concerned with preventing is cancer in humans, not cancer in rats.
B
It is presented as a benefit of not acting on the recommendation in the conclusion.
The claim in the question stem is used as support for the recommendation in the conclusion, not as a benefit of not acting on the recommendation in the conclusion.
C
It is presented as evidence for the claim that similar research will never be done on humans.
The argument does not provide evidence for the claim that similar research will never be done on humans.
D
It is presented as a finding that motivates the course of action advocated in the conclusion.
The research mentioned in the question stem is used to support the recommendation in the conclusion to ban dioxin.
E
It is presented as evidence for the claim that similar research has never been done on humans.
The argument does not provide evidence for the claim that similar research has never been done on humans.
Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that a university education should emphasize the liberal arts over job-specific technical training. This is because the liberal arts teach reasoning skills that allow one to be more intellectually flexible and thus do a wider variety of jobs.
Notable Assumptions
The columnist assumes that technical training doesn’t also teach reasoning skills that help one be a more adaptable worker. If this were the case, then a liberal arts education would offer no clear benefit over job-specific technical training. The columnist also assumes that universities should strive to make adaptable workers rather than to equip students with job-specific skills. This means the columnist either believes such skills aren’t important or are less important than developing reasoning.
A
It is better for people to have good educations than good jobs.
The columnist never claims technical educations aren’t good educations.
B
Many people with narrow technical training manage to find jobs.
The columnist likely agrees. However, this doesn’t remotely strengthen her claim that universities should emphasize a liberal arts education.
C
Having a series of different jobs is more interesting than having only one job.
The columnist never claims people should or will have many different jobs. Reasoning skills simply allow people to adapt to a variety of jobs.
D
Having a general understanding of life is more important than possessing practical skills.
We have no idea if a liberal arts education leads to a “general understanding of life.”
E
Technical training does not help students acquire reasoning skills.
When students receive a technical training, they don’t learn the reasoning skills that come with a liberal arts education. This defends against a potential weakener: that technical training also teaches reasoning skills.
Summarize Argument
The agricultural economist claims a worldwide grain shortage is likely. Why is it likely? Increases in grain production have nearly ceased. Additional increases would be difficult because most available farmland is being used at its maximum. While production is stagnant, demand is increasing because of continuous population growth.
Identify Argument Part
The stimulus text refers to a sub-conclusion. The claim that further increases would be difficult is supported with the evidence that farmland is already being used at near-maximum. This stimulus text gives evidence for the conclusion that a grain shortage is likely - thereby giving and receiving support within the argument.
A
It is one of the two conclusions drawn by the agricultural economist, neither of which is used to provide support for the other.
The stimulus text does support the ultimate conclusion. Difficulty increasing grain production is a reason to believe there will likely be a grain shortage.
B
It is a description of a phenomenon, a causal explanation of which is the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion does not explain why it is difficult to increase grain production. The phenomenon is instead used as support for the conclusion.
C
It is the only premise offered in support of the argument’s main conclusion.
While it does support the conclusion, the stimulus text is not the only premise. Increased demand for grain and previous cessation of grain production increases also support the conclusion.
D
It is a prediction for which the agricultural economist’s first claim is offered as the primary justification.
The first claim is not used to support that increased production will be difficult. The first claim is a separate idea about what has happened in the past.
E
It is an intermediate conclusion that is presented as evidence for the argument’s main conclusion.
This accurately addresses how this statement both gives and receives support in the argument. The claim supports the conclusion that a grain shortage is likely, and the already near-maximal efficiency supports the claim.
Summarize Argument
The diplomat concludes that arms control agreements will preserve peace. She supports this by saying that every major war in the last 200 years was preceded by a rapid increase in weapons acquisition by the countries involved.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The diplomat argues that arms control agreements will stop major wars. She assumes that a war won't happen unless there’s rapid increase in weapon acquisition, just because every major war in the last 200 years followed this pattern. But past events don't guarantee future outcomes.
A
The argument infers, merely from the claim that events of one type have for a long time consistently preceded events of a second type, that an event of the second type will not occur unless an event of the first type occurs.
She infers, merely from the claim that increases in weapon acquisition have consistently preceded major wars, that major wars will not occur unless increases in weapon acquisition occur. But just because things happened this way in the past doesn’t mean they will in the future.
B
The argument reasons that, simply because weapons are used in war, a rapid, dramatic increase in the acquisition of weapons will always lead to war.
The diplomat never claims that we can’t have increases in weapons acquisition without subsequent wars. She claims that we can’t have wars without preceding increases in weapons acquisition.
C
The argument draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the conclusion is a restatement of a premise. The diplomat doesn’t make this mistake; her premise and conclusion are distinct.
D
The argument fails to consider that a short, sharp increase in the acquisition of weapons by a nation may be a response to the increased armament of neighboring nations.
The diplomat doesn’t mention this, but it isn’t a flaw in her argument. She’s arguing that arms control agreements will stop wars. Whether increases in weapon acquisition are a response to the armament of other nations is irrelevant because those increases may still precede wars.
E
The argument fails to consider that some of the minor wars that have occurred in the last 200 years may have been preceded by rapid increases in the acquisition of weapons by the nations that subsequently became participants in those wars.
The diplomat doesn’t mention minor wars but, if anything, (E) would strengthen her argument. She’s focused on the connection between major wars and weapons acquisition, but if minor wars are also preceded by weapons acquisition, this further supports her argument.