Most antidepressant drugs cause weight gain. While dieting can help reduce the amount of weight gained while taking such antidepressants, some weight gain is unlikely to be preventable.

Summary

Most antidepressant drugs cause weight gain. Dieting may help lower the amount of weight gained while taking antidepressants. Despite dieting, some weight gain is unlikely to be preventable.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Most antidepressant drugs will cause some unpreventable weight gain.

A
A physician should not prescribe any antidepressant drug for a patient if that patient is overweight.

This is unsupported because the stimulus gives us no information to answer the value statement of whether physicians should or should not prescribe antidepressants in a given circumstance.

B
People who are trying to lose weight should not ask their doctors for an antidepressant drug.

This is unsupported because the stimulus cannot help us answer the value statement of whether patients should value weight loss over however they benefit from an antidepressant drug.

C
At least some patients taking antidepressant drugs gain weight as a result of taking them.

This is strongly supported because we know that most antidepressant drugs will cause at least some unpreventable weight gain.

D
The weight gain experienced by patients taking antidepressant drugs should be attributed to lack of dieting.

This is anti-supported because the stimulus states that weight gain will occur regardless of dieting.

E
All patients taking antidepressant drugs should diet to maintain their weight.

This is unsupported because while we know that most antidepressant drugs can cause some weight gain, we don’t know that all patients on any antidepressant drugs will have weight gain. Further, we don’t know that dieting would be of any help.


18 comments

Joanna: The only way for a company to be successful, after emerging from bankruptcy, is to produce the same goods or services that it did before going bankrupt. It is futile for such a company to try to learn a whole new business.

Ruth: Wrong. The Kelton Company was a major mining operation that went into bankruptcy. On emerging from bankruptcy, Kelton turned its mines into landfills and is presently a highly successful waste-management concern.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to Joanna’s claim that the only way for a company to succeed after bankruptcy is to return to producing the same goods and services, Ruth concludes that this claim is incorrect. As evidence, Ruth points out that the Kelton Company, once a mining operation, operates a successful waste-management concern following bankruptcy.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Ruth counters the position held by Joanna. She does this by presenting a counterexample that contradicts Joanna’s claim. If the Kelton Company operates a successful business model different from its original business model, then it can’t be true that the only way for a company to be successful after bankruptcy is to return to their original business model.

A
She presents a counterexample to a claim.
The counterexample Ruth presents is the Kelton Company.
B
She offers an alternative explanation for a phenomenon.
Ruth does not offer an alternative explanation. She only addresses Joanna’s claims directly.
C
She supports a claim by offering a developed and relevant analogy.
Ruth’s response presents a counterexample, not an analogy.
D
She undermines a claim by showing that it rests on an ambiguity.
Ruth does not point out any ambiguity.
E
She establishes a conclusion by excluding the only plausible alternative to that conclusion.
Ruth does not exclude any alternative explanations.

8 comments

The consumer price index is a measure that detects monthly changes in the retail prices of goods and services. The payment of some government retirement benefits is based on the consumer price index so that those benefits reflect the change in the cost of living as the index changes. However, the consumer price index does not consider technological innovations that may drastically reduce the cost of producing some goods. Therefore, the value of government benefits is sometimes greater than is warranted by the true change in costs.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the value of government benefits is sometimes greater than is warranted by the true change in costs because consumer price index doesn't account for technological advances that may significantly lower production costs.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author concludes that government benefits can sometimes be too high because the consumer price index (CPI) doesn't consider technological advances that may reduce production costs. However, he also explains that the CPI tracks changes in retail prices.

Even if production costs go down, we don't know whether this will impact retail prices. Also, the CPI still measures retail price changes, which reflects the cost of living, so production cost changes are irrelevant.

A
fails to consider the possibility that there are years in which there is no change in the consumer price index
This doesn’t explain why the argument is vulnerable to criticism. Even if there are years when there’s no change in the CPI, the author still jumps to the conclusion that government benefits are sometimes too high because they don’t account for production costs.
B
fails to make explicit which goods and services are included in the consumer price index
The author doesn’t list every single good and service that’s included in the CPI, but this isn’t a flaw in his argument. We know that the CPI detects monthly changes in the retail prices of goods and services overall.
C
presumes, without providing warrant, that retirement benefits are not generally used to purchase unusual goods
This doesn’t explain why the argument is vulnerable to criticism. Even if some people use retirement benefits to purchase unusual goods and other people don’t, the CPI is still used to account for overall changes in the average cost of living.
D
uncritically draws an inference from what has been true in the past to what will be true in the future
The author doesn't draw an inference from what has been true in the past, nor does he make a conclusion about what will be true in the future. He concludes that government benefits are sometimes too high based on a claim about technology lowering production costs.
E
makes an irrelevant shift from discussing retail prices to discussing production costs
The author talks about the CPI, which measures changes in retail prices. He then draws a conclusion based on technology that may lower production costs. But we have no idea whether it would impact retail prices, and the CPI accounts for changes in retail prices anyway.

42 comments