Summarize Argument
Seeking a second medical opinion can be awkward for all parties involved. The patient might fear offending the first doctor, the first doctor could feel their professional pride is at stake, and the second doctor may find it uncomfortable to assess a colleague’s work.
Identify Conclusion
Getting a second medical opinion can be uncomfortable for the patient and both doctors involved.
A
Because of the awkwardness involved, it is best for patients not to seek second opinions unless it is absolutely necessary.
The stimulus does not make this argument. While the author concludes that seeking a second opinion can be awkward, she does not advise avoiding a second opinion unless necessary. In fact, the author recognizes that seeking a second opinion is advisable in certain situations.
B
In cases in which second opinions are necessary, the first physician often feels that his or her professional judgment is called into question.
This answer addresses the argument’s second premise, not its main conclusion. The stimulus explains that a second opinion can make the first doctor uncomfortable by suggesting they may have made a mistake, making the situation awkward for the first doctor.
C
The process of obtaining a second medical opinion can be awkward for those involved.
This is a good summary of the argument’s main conclusion. The phrase “this process” in the stimulus refers to getting a second medical opinion, which the stimulus concludes can be awkward for the patient and both doctors involved.
D
Physicians who are called upon to offer second opinions are always uncomfortable about evaluating the work of colleagues.
This answer addresses the argument’s third premise, not its main conclusion. The stimulus explains that the second doctor may feel uncomfortable evaluating a colleague’s work, making the second opinion process awkward for the second doctor.
E
In many cases in which medical patients seek second opinions, they are concerned about offending the first physician.
This answer paraphrases the argument’s first premise. The stimulus notes that patients fear offending the first doctor by seeking a second opinion, and the stimulus uses this claim to support its main conclusion that this process is awkward for both the patient and the doctors.
Summary
There are between 70 and 100 Florida panthers alive today.
In the 1970s, there were much fewer than 70-100 Florida panthers living.
If the Florida panther population is to be self-sustaining, it must grow to a minimum of 250 panthers.
The habitat where the Florida panthers currently live is not large enough to support any more panthers than it does today.
In the 1970s, there were much fewer than 70-100 Florida panthers living.
If the Florida panther population is to be self-sustaining, it must grow to a minimum of 250 panthers.
The habitat where the Florida panthers currently live is not large enough to support any more panthers than it does today.
Notable Valid Inferences
The Florida panther population cannot be self-sustaining in their current habitat.
In order for the Florida panther population to become self-sustaining, they would need to live in a larger habitat.
In order for the Florida panther population to become self-sustaining, they would need to live in a larger habitat.
A
Some part of the panthers’ current habitat is only of marginal quality.
Could be false. The stimulus gives us no information about the quality of the habitat; we only know about its size. It’s possible that the habitat is of excellent quality and would be the perfect place for the Florida panther population if only the area were larger!
B
If the population of Florida panthers ever exceeds 250, it will be self-sustaining.
Could be false. The stimulus tells us that it’s necessary for the Florida panther population to reach 250 in order for the population to be self-sustaining, but it doesn’t tell us that such population growth would be sufficient to ensure self-sustainment.
C
Unless Florida panthers acquire a larger habitat, their population will not be self-sustaining.
Must be true. In order for Florida panthers to be self-sustaining, their population must grow; in order for their population to grow, they must live in a larger habitat. Therefore, in order for Florida panthers to be self-sustaining, they must acquire a larger habitat!
D
The population of Florida panthers will never increase much beyond its current level.
Could be false. If the Florida panthers acquire a larger habitat, the stimulus gives us no reason to believe that their population couldn’t increase greatly!
E
Today, Florida panthers occupy a larger habitat than they did in the 1970s.
Could be false. The stimulus gives us no reason to believe that the Florida panthers occupied a different habitat in the 1970s than they do today.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The political scientist concludes that equality does not require bland uniformity, as many critics believe. She supports this by claiming that a society can achieve greater equality and enhance diversity by promoting complementary human interests.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The political scientist counters a position held by critics— that total equality would force everyone into a common mold. She does this by noting that the critics’ argument relies on the assumption that equality requires bland uniformity. She then attacks this assumption by arguing that, actually, a society can achieve greater equality and enhance diversity by promoting complementary human interests. By attacking their assumption, the political scientist undermines the critics’ argument and supports her own position.
A
undermining a view by showing that its general acceptance would lead to undesirable consequences
The political scientist does undermine a view, but she doesn’t do so by showing that its acceptance would lead to undesirable consequences. Instead, she undermines a view by attacking an assumption on which it relies.
B
rebutting an objection by attacking the assumption on which it is said to be based
The author claims that critics’ objection to total equality rests on the assumption that equality requires bland uniformity. She rebuts this objection by attacking the assumption, saying a society can achieve more equality and diversity by promoting complementary human interests.
C
attacking a view by claiming that those who propose it are motivated only by self-interest
The political scientist does attack the critics’ view, but she doesn’t make any claims about their character or suggest that they’re motivated by self-interest. Instead, she attacks an assumption on which their conclusion depends.
D
claiming that whatever is true of a group must be true of each of the members of the group
The political scientist simply doesn’t apply this method of reasoning. She doesn’t claim that something that is true of a group or set has to be true of each part of the set. Instead, she counters an argument by attacking one of its key assumptions.
E
undermining an apparent counterexample to a universal claim
The political scientist undermines a claim— that total equality forces everyone into a common mold. But she doesn’t undermine a counterexample to that claim.
Summarize Argument
The physician concludes that magnetic fields likely help alleviate some back pain. She bases this on a study where the group of patients who had magnets placed on their backs reported greater pain reduction than those that didn’t.
Notable Assumptions
Given that one group didn’t receive any treatment at all, the author must believe that the mere act of receiving treatment doesn’t cause pain relief. She therefore assumes that the magnets aren’t a placebo. She also assumes that the relief patients receive from the magnets isn’t offset by a spike in pain once the effects of the magnets wear off.
A
A patient’s merely knowing that a treatment has been applied can lead to improvement in his or her condition.
The magnets are a placebo. Had the other group had virtually anything vaguely “medicinal” applied to their backs, they too would’ve seen an improvement in their condition.
B
Most physicians believe that medication relieves chronic back pain more effectively than magnets do.
We don’t care about magnets compared to more effective medications. We only care about whether magnets are themselves effective in alleviating back pain.
C
No other experiments have been done showing that magnetic fields reduce pain in any area other than the back.
We only care about back pain.
D
Some of the scientists who helped design the experiment believed even before the experiment that magnetic fields relieve back pain, but they were not directly involved in conducting the experiment.
If those scientists weren’t involved in conducting the experiment, then they couldn’t have compromised the study.
E
There was wide variation in the specific causes of the chronic back pain suffered by the patients in the experiment.
We don’t care what caused the pain in the first place. We care how well, if at all, the magnets relieved it.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The argument concludes that discipline encourages misbehavior in dogs. This is supported by an observed correlation: dogs who are frequently disciplined misbehave more often than dogs who are rarely disciplined.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Based on a correlation between discipline and misbehavior, the argument concludes that discipline causes misbehavior. However, this overlooks an alternative explanation: the possibility that misbehavior causes discipline. If a dog misbehaves a lot, its owner might react by disciplining it more often than they would discipline a dog that rarely misbehaves.
A
dogs’ misbehavior is the cause of, rather than the result of, frequent discipline
The argument assumes a causal relationship between misbehavior and discipline where discipline causes misbehavior. But this overlooks a more plausible alternative: frequent misbehavior prompts—in other words, causes—frequent discipline.
B
dogs learn from past experience how their owners are likely to react to misbehavior
Whether or not dogs learn how their owners will react to misbehavior isn’t relevant to the argument. The argument is about causally explaining a correlation between discipline and misbehavior, not about the exact mechanism for that relationship.
C
discipline does not cause misbehavior on the part of animals other than dogs
The argument only considers dogs, so other animals aren’t relevant.
D
kennel club members tend to be more skilled at raising dogs than are other dog owners
The argument doesn’t make any claims about the skill of kennel club members in raising dogs relative to other dog owners.
E
kennel club members are more likely to use discipline than are other dog owners
It doesn’t matter to the argument whether kennel club members are more likely to use discipline, only that members who do use discipline often tend to have worse-behaved dogs.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why have there been so many recorded tornadoes since 1953 if the climate has not made them any more likely to form?
Objective
Any hypothesis resolving this discrepancy must state a reason for tornadoes to have tripled despite the constant climatic factors. It will explain why tornadoes since 1953 are much more likely to be seen or give a reason for the actual number of tornadoes to have tripled.
A
The factors affecting the creation of tornadoes were not well known to meteorologists before 1953.
This does not explain the increase in recorded tornadoes. Meteorologists know those factors have not changed since 1953, regardless of whether they understood those factors in 1953.
B
The intensity of the average tornado is greater now than it was in 1953.
This introduces a new mystery without resolving the discrepancy at hand. A greater average intensity does not explain a greater number of tornadoes.
C
The number of tornadoes recorded annually has increased only slightly in the last five years.
This offers no reason why the number of recorded tornadoes has tripled since 1953. It does not address the period between 1953 and five years ago.
D
The amount of property damage done by tornadoes has grown substantially since 1953.
This does not explain why more tornadoes have been recorded since 1953. It is not stated that more tornadoes have destroyed property, only that the total damage caused by those tornadoes has been greater.
E
Many more citizens are helping authorities detect tornadoes now than in 1953.
This explains why the number of tornadoes recorded has tripled since 1953. More people are looking for tornadoes, making them more likely to be spotted, even if their overall numbers have not changed.
Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that over time, almost any food will eventually be reported to be healthful. Why? Because both chocolate and olive oil have been considered unhealthy in the past, but were more recently reported to have health benefits.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument is flawed because it makes an overly broad generalization from limited evidence. Just two examples of foods eventually reported to be healthful—chocolate and olive oil—isn’t enough to show that almost any food will eventually be reported to be healthful.
A
relies on the truth of a claim by a source that is likely to be biased
The argument doesn’t rely on any sources that are likely to be biased. Even if the reports were biased, that wouldn’t impact the argument’s conclusion, which is about what will likely be reported.
B
applies a general rule to specific cases to which it does not pertain
The argument doesn’t apply a general rule to a specific case. Rather, it draws a general rule about almost all food based on the specific examples of chocolate and olive oil.
C
bases an overly broad generalization on just a few instances
The argument concludes that almost every food will eventually be reported to be healthful based only on the examples of chocolate and olive oil. This is an overly broad generalization about all food based on just two instances.
D
takes for granted that all results of nutritional research are eventually reported
The argument never claims or assumes that all nutritional research results are eventually reported. The claim is just that, for almost any food, there will eventually be some report that the food is healthful.
E
fails to consider that there are many foods that are reported to be unhealthful
The argument doesn’t claim that there are not many foods that are reported to be unhealthful, only that most foods will eventually be reported to be healthful.