An experiment was conducted in which type A and type B lipid profile volunteers were put on a low-fat diet. Their cholesterol levels and lipid profiles were monitored.
During the experiment, type B volunteers and type A volunteers showed very different results. Type B volunteers demonstrated lowered cholesterol levels but no change to their lipid profiles. Meanwhile, type A volunteers experienced no benefits and, in 40% of cases, actually shifted to type B lipid profiles.
Changes in cholesterol levels do not necessarily correlate with changes in lipid profile types.
A
In the experiment, most of the volunteers had their risk of heart disease reduced at least marginally as a result of having been put on the diet.
B
People with type B lipid profiles have higher cholesterol levels, on average, than do people with type A lipid profiles.
C
Apart from adopting the low-fat diet, most of the volunteers did not substantially change any aspect of their lifestyle that would have affected their cholesterol levels or lipid profiles.
D
The reduction in cholesterol levels in the volunteers is solely responsible for the change in their lipid profiles.
E
For at least some of the volunteers in the experiment, the risk of heart disease increased after having been put on the low-fat diet.
A
Most of the increase in the preserve’s bear population over the past eight years is due to migration.
B
Only some of the increase in the preserve’s bear population over the past eight years is due to migration of bears from other parts of the Abbimac Valley.
C
Only some of the increase in the preserve’s bear population over the past eight years is due to migration of bears from outside the Abbimac Valley.
D
The bear population in areas of the Abbimac Valley outside the Kiffer Forest Preserve has decreased over the past eight years.
E
The bear population in the Abbimac Valley has remained about the same over the past eight years.
This is based on the following:
Made-to-measure wigs range from medium-priced to expensive.
If a wig has a handmade foundation, then it uses human hair. (”Hand made foundations are never found on wigs that don’t use human hair.”)
Wigs that contain human hair should be dry-cleaned.
Well, the first premise tells us that made-to-measure wigs range from medium-priced to expensive. If we can show that “medium-priced to expensive” implies “handmade foundation,” that will show that made-to-measure wigs have a handmade foundation, which in turn will show that they should be dry-cleaned.
A
Any wig whose price falls in the medium-priced to expensive range has a handmade foundation.
B
If a wig’s foundation is handmade, then it is more expensive than one whose foundation is not handmade.
C
A wig that has any handmade components should be dry-cleaned.
D
If a wig’s foundation is handmade, then its price is at least in the medium range.
E
Any wig that should be dry-cleaned has a foundation that is handmade.
Conclusion: That’s wrong.
Premise: Wolves, foxes, and domesticated dogs are capable of obeying moral rules.
A
provide counterexamples to refute a premise on which a particular conclusion is based
B
establish inductively that all animals possess some form of morality
C
cast doubt on the principle that being capable of obeying moral rules is a necessary condition for having rights
D
establish a claim by showing that the denial of that claim entails a logical contradiction
If animals didn’t have rights, a logical contradiction would result. We can’t accept logical contradictions. Therefore, animals have rights.
That’s not the author’s argument.
E
provide evidence suggesting that the concept of morality is often applied too broadly
The Question Stem reads: The philosopher's argument proceeds by attempting too… This is a Method of Reasoning question.
The philosopher begins by describing the phenomenon that wolves don't like when a wolf attacks another wolf showing its neck as a form of submission. The philosopher also claims that foxes and domesticated dogs exhibit the same behavior.
The philosopher says, "It would be erroneous to deny that animals have rights based on the grounds that only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules." That was a mouthful, so let's break it down. The philosopher concludes that a specific argument is bad. What is that argument? The argument is that animals do not have rights because only humans obey moral rules. We will call this argument "X." We can rephrase X to say:
Premise 1: Animals do not obey moral rules (because only humans do).
Conclusion: Animals do not have rights.
By now, you should be comfortable enough with Necessary Assumption to realize that X relies on assuming that obeying moral rules is necessary for having rights. However, we do not need to dive that deep. Argument X's premise that animals do not obey moral rules seems to contradict the philosopher's wolf example. The philosopher has used examples that deny the first premise of Argument X, which is why the philosopher rejects Argument X on the basis that it is not a sound argument (sound arguments are logically valid and have true premises). Importantly, we do not know whether or not the philosopher believes that animals have rights. All we know is the philosopher argues that Argument X is bad because the philosopher rejects a premise of Argument X.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is exactly what we discussed. The philosopher's wolf example directly contradicts the first premise of Argument X.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. The philosopher's position is that Arugment X is not sound. The philosopher does not attempt to show that all animals have morality. (B) would be correct if that philosopher tried to argue that all animals have morality by giving the example that wolves and dogs exhibit moral attitudes.
Answer Choice (C) talks about the wrong premise. The philosopher casts doubt that only humans obey moral rules, not that moral rules are necessary for rights.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because the philosopher might believe that Argument X is logically valid. Philsopher rejects the argument because they believe that one of the premises is false. This means that the argument is not sound.
Answer Choice (E) is antithetical to the philosopher's argument. If anything, the philosopher would argue that morality is not applied broadly enough. The argument the philosopher criticizes says that animals do not obey morality, which the philsopher rejects by giving the example of wolves.
The question stem reads: The argument does which of the following? This is a Method of Reasoning question.
The argument begins by stating, "When a nation is on the brink of financial collapse, its government does not violate free market principles if, in order to prevent financial collapse, it limits the extent to which foreign investors and lenders can withdraw their money." That was a mouthful, so let's break it down. We can remove the embedded clause "in order to prevent financial collapse" and add it to the end of the premise. Now we have: "The government does not violate free market principles if it limits the extent to which foreign investors and lenders can withdraw their money in order to prevent financial collapse." Ok, that makes more sense. It seems like limiting withdrawals violates the free market, so let's see what evidence they offer us. The author describes how the right to free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater because there might be harm resulting from the "stampede" to exit the theater. The author claims that yelling fire is analogous to allowing investors to withdraw money during a financial collapse. On the author's accounts, the mad dash to withdraw money can cause just as much harm as the stampede to exit the theater. The author has made an argument by analogy. Arguably a poor analogy, but our job is not to evaluate the strength of the author's argument; it is merely to determine how the argument proceeds.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is precisely what we are looking for. When we map the stimulus to (A), we get: "tries to show that a set of principles (the free market) is limited in a specific way (limiting investors ability withdraw money during financial collapse) by using an analogy to a similar principle (free speech) that is limited in a similar way (not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater), precisely what we prephased.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. It would be difficult to map the stimulus onto this answer choice. What facts are we trying to explain? There are none, so we can ignore this answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) can be quickly crossed off because the argument contains no experimental results.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because the argument does not claim that a certain explanation of an observed phenomenon is wrong.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect because there is no empirical generalization. The author makes an analogy to the limits of free speech. However, that would not be considered an empirical generalization.