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.
A
Three-fourths of the Springfield workforce is employed at the same factory outside the city limits.
B
The average number of cars per household is higher in Springfield than in Rorchester.
C
Rorchester has fewer railway lines than Springfield.
D
Buses in Springfield run more frequently and on longer routes than in Rorchester.
E
Springfield has a larger population than Rorchester does.
People who need to reduce their intake of fat and to consume fewer calories often turn to fat substitutes, especially those with zero calories such as N5. But studies indicate that N5 is of no use to such people. Subjects who ate foods prepared with N5 almost invariably reported feeling hungrier afterwards than after eating foods prepared with real fat and consequently they ate more, quickly making up for the calories initially saved by using N5.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that N5 is of no use to people who need to reduce their fat and calorie intake. She supports this by saying that studies show that people who ate foods with N5 felt hungrier afterward and ended up eating more, making up for the calories saved by using N5.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author concludes that N5 is not useful for people who need to reduce fat and calorie intake based on evidence that it doesn’t help lower calorie intake. However, just because the subjects ate more calories doesn’t mean they ate more fat. N5 might still help reduce fat intake, even if it doesn’t lower calories. In this case, it could still be useful for people who need to reduce fat and calories.
A
many foods cannot be prepared with N5
Irrelevant— it doesn’t matter which foods can be prepared with N5 because this doesn’t affect the conclusion that N5 isn’t useful for people who need to reduce their fat and calories.
B
N5 has mild but unpleasant side effects
Irrelevant— it doesn’t matter what side effects N5 causes. The author is only addressing whether or not it helps people who need to reduce their fat and calories. If anything, having unpleasant side effects would likely make N5 even less useful for these people.
C
not everyone who eats foods prepared with N5 pays attention to caloric intake
Irrelevant— the author is only addressing those people who do need to pay attention to fat and calorie intake. Whether some other people also eat N5 doesn’t matter.
D
people who know N5 contains zero calories tend to eat more foods prepared with N5 than do people who are unaware that N5 is calorie-free
Whether people are aware that N5 is calorie-free doesn't change the fact that almost all people who ate it did not reduce their calorie intake in the long run. So (D) doesn't impact the author’s conclusion that N5 isn’t useful for people who need to reduce fat and calories.
E
the total fat intake of people who eat foods prepared with N5 tends to decrease even if their caloric intake does not
The author concludes that N5 isn’t useful for people who need to reduce calories and fat, simply because it doesn’t help people to reduce calories. But it’s possible that N5 does help people to reduce fat and so is still useful.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that the argument fails to consider the possibility that… This is a Flaw question.
The author begins with context, claiming that people who need to decrease their fat intake and consume fewer calories often turn to fat substitutes, especially zero calory sweeteners such as N5. Next, we turn to the author’s argument with the context indicator “but.” The author concludes, “Studies indicate N5 is of no use to such people (people who need to decrease their fat intake and consume fewer calories).” As evidence, the author cites that subjects who ate foods prepared with N5 felt hungrier than those who ate foods prepared with real fat. Because they felt hungrier, those who used N5 consumed more calories, and their extra calories made up for the calories initially saved. So while preparing food with N5 might save you calories for that meal, you do not reduce the total calories consumed.
The study suggests that replacing fat with N5 would not save you calories in the long run. However, if we turn to the author’s conclusion, we see that the author said N5 was useless to both people who needed to save calories and reduce fat intake. While the study claims that subjects who used N5 did not reduce caloric intake, perhaps the subjects reduced total fat intake. They replaced fat with N5, and even though they ate more later, perhaps they ate fat-free foods. The calories that would have been spent on fat instead get spent on carbs and protein. As a result, N5 might be useful to people who need to reduce fat and consumer fewer calories, but only with respect to N5’s ability to reduce fat intake. Now that we have our flaws let’s move to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is arbitrary. What foods can be prepared with N5 does not affect the argument. Additionally, (A) mildly helps the argument. As we increase the number of foods that cannot be prepared with N5, the less useful N5 becomes
Answer Choice (B) is arbitrary. The side effects of N5 are arbitrary to the argument. Similar to (A), (B) would mildly help the argument. As we increase the number of unpleasant side effects of N5, the less useful N5 becomes.
Answer Choice (C) is arbitrary. The argument is only concerned with people who need to reduce fat intake and consume fewer calories.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect. (D) says that of the people who consumed food with N5, those who knew N5 contained zero calories tended to consume more food than those who didn’t know N5 was calorie-free. However, both groups are subsets of a superset: people who eat foods prepared with N5. And we know that people who ate N5 saved no calories in the long run. So while those who did not know N5 contained zero calories ate less food, they still will not have saved any calories.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is what we prephrased. While the N5 subjects might not have saved any calories, they were able to decrease fat intake. So even though they did not accomplish their goal of reducing calories, N5 was able to help them accomplish their other goal: reducing fat.
Music historian: Some critics lament the fact that impoverished postwar recording studios forced early bebop musicians to record extremely short solos, thus leaving a misleading record of their music. But these musicians’ beautifully concise playing makes the recordings superb artistic works instead of mere representations of their live solos. Furthermore, the conciseness characteristic of early bebop musicians’ recordings fostered a compactness in their subsequent live playing, which the playing of the next generation lacks.
Summary
Postwar conditions caused early bebop musicians to record extremely short solos, leaving a misleading record of their music. However, these musicians concise playing makes the recordings superb artistic works instead of mere representations of their live solos. Moreover, the concise recordings resulted in their subsequent live solos to be compact. The next generation of musicians lacked this characteristic.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Postwar conditions had at least one positive effect for bebop musicians.
A
Representations of live solos generally are not valuable artistic works.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus how the music historian would value representations of live solos. It’s possible that both versions are valuable in different aspects.
B
The difficult postwar recording conditions had some beneficial consequences for bebop.
This answer is strongly supported. The music historian praises the conciseness of bebop music caused by postwar recording conditions.
C
Short bebop recordings are always superior to longer ones.
This answer is unsupported. To say that the short recordings are “always” superior is too strong.
D
The music of the generation immediately following early bebop is of lower overall quality than early bebop.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about the quality of the music of the following generation. We only know that this generation’s music lacks conciseness.
E
Musicians will not record extremely short solos unless difficult recording conditions force them to do so.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether difficult recording conditions is a necessary requirement for recording short solos.
Recent studies indicate a correlation between damage to human chromosome number six and adult schizophrenia. We know, however, that there are people without damage to this chromosome who develop adult schizophrenia and that some people with damage to chromosome number six do not develop adult schizophrenia. So there is no causal connection between damage to human chromosome number six and adult schizophrenia.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there is no causal connection between damage to chromosome six and adult schizophrenia. He supports this by pointing out that some people with schizophrenia don't have damage to chromosome six, and some people with chromosome six damage don't develop schizophrenia.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author cites studies that establish a correlation between chromosome six damage and schizophrenia and then concludes that the two aren’t causally connected. But just because there are some exceptions to the correlation doesn’t prove that there is no causal connection between chromosome six damage and schizophrenia at all.
For example, there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer, but some smokers never get lung cancer while some non-smokers do get lung cancer.
A
The argument ignores the possibility that some but not all types of damage to chromosome number six lead to schizophrenia.
The author overlooks the possibility that not all kinds of damage to chromosome six cause schizophrenia. If some types of damage do lead to schizophrenia, then there could still be a causal connection between the two, even if they aren't always linked.
B
The argument presumes, without providing evidence, that schizophrenia is caused solely by chromosomal damage.
The argument actually assumes that schizophrenia is not caused by damage to chromosome six, simply because the two are not perfectly correlated.
C
The argument makes a generalization based on an unrepresentative sample population.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of using unrepresentative samples. However, we have no reason to believe that the recent studies or the author’s argument are based on unrepresentative samples of people with chromosome 6 damage or schizophrenia.
D
The argument mistakes a cause for an effect.
The author doesn’t mistake a cause for an effect. Instead, he assumes that there is no causal connection between chromosome six damage and schizophrenia at all.
E
The argument presumes, without providing warrant, that correlation implies causation.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation implies causation. But the author concludes that there’s no causal connection at all. Instead of (E), he assumes, without providing warrant, that an imperfect correlation implies a lack of causation.
A
Nothing qualifies as art unless it causes debate among experts.
B
If an object causes debate among experts, no expert can be certain whether that object qualifies as art.
C
The purchase of an object that fulfills the purpose of art should not be opposed.
D
Any object that fulfills the purpose of art qualifies as art.
E
The city art commission should purchase the edifice if it qualifies as art.
The question stem reads: Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the city councilperson's argument to be properly inferred? This is a Sufficient Assumption question.
The councilperson begins by stating that many residents oppose the city's proposal to purchase a stone edifice. The residents oppose the purchase because art critics are divided over whether the edifice qualifies as art. We then get the context indicator "but," indicating a turn to the author's argument. The councilperson claims that the purpose of art is to cause experts to debate ideas, including what counts as art. They then say, "Since the edifice has caused experts to debate about what constitutes art itself, it (the edifice) does qualify as art." The indicator "since" is usually attached to both a premise and a conclusion. So "the edifice has caused experts to debate" is a premise, and "the edifice does qualify as art" is our conclusion. Let's outline the argument:
P1: The purpose of art is to cause debate among experts
P2: The edifice has caused debate among experts
______________________________________________
C: The edifice qualifies as art.
We can make the inference P3 that the edifice has fulfilled the purpose of art since the edifice has caused debate among experts (which is the purpose of art). We now get
P1: The purpose of art is to cause debate among experts
P2: The edifice has caused debate among experts
P3 The edifice has fulfilled the purpose of art
______________________________________________
C: The edifice qualifies as art.
In the Core Curriculum, we discussed how ideas contained in the conclusion must also be contained in the premises. The councilperson's conclusion is that the edifice qualifies as art, but we have no premise to tell us what qualifies as art. So we need a conditional with "qualifies as art" in the necessary condition: ( _) -> qualifies as art. As a matter of "logic," any sufficient condition that is satisfied by the stimulus will complete the councilperson's argument. As a matter of what actually happens on the LSAT, the sufficient condition will usually be an inference we made using the premises. We made the inference that the edifice has fulfilled the purpose of art. So our most likely sufficient assumption will be:
P1: The purpose of art is to cause debate among experts
P2: The edifice has caused debate among experts
P3 The edifice has fulfilled the purpose of art
SA: fulfills the purpose of art -> qualifies as art
______________________________________________
C: The edifice qualifies as art.
I'll note that the sufficient condition does not have to be "fulfills the purpose of art," but we absolutely need "qualifies as art" in the necessary condition. We can screen the answer choices by asking ourselves: Does the AC have "qualifies as art" in the necessary? If yes, then Does sufficient get satisfied by the stimulus? Let's take a look at the AC's
Answer Choice (A) fails our test. Translated, we get: "qualifies as art -> causes debate." Here we have "qualifies as art" in the sufficient condition when we want it in the necessary condition.
Answer Choice (B) does not have the necessary condition we are looking for. You might think that (B) would contradict our conclusion. The sufficient condition is met, so we would get: "experts cannot be certain about whether the edifice qualifies as art." However, the fact that "experts cannot be certain about whether the edifice qualifies as art" does not affect whether or not the edifice actually qualifies as art. There is a distinction between what we think is true and what actually is true. In the past, people were not sure whether the Earth was the center of the universe. That did not mean the Earth was or was not the center of the universe. In any case, (B) is wrong. Don't pick it.
Answer Choice (C) is irrelevant. If you picked (C), you likely thought the city councilperson was advocating for the purchase of the edifice. However, we do not know his position on that matter. What we do know is that he thinks the edifice is art. The councilperson may think the edifice qualifies as art and that the city should not purchase the edifice because it is too expensive. (C) is an example of why it is so vital to separate the context from the argument.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is our prephase. The edifice fulfills the purpose of art; therefore, it qualifies as art. Pick it and move.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect for the same reason that (C) is: they are irrelevant. Again, the councilperson's argument has nothing to do with whether or not the city should purchase the edifice, only whether or not the edifice qualifies as art.
A
To be an intriguing person, one must be able to inspire the perpetual curiosity of others.
B
If one constantly broadens one’s abilities and extends one’s intellectual reach, one will be able to inspire the perpetual curiosity of others.
C
If one’s mind becomes impossible to fully comprehend, one will always be a mystery to others.
D
To inspire the perpetual curiosity of others, one must constantly broaden one’s abilities and extend one’s intellectual reach.
E
If one constantly broadens one’s abilities and extends one’s intellectual reach, one will always have curiosity.
Most genetic research is funded exclusively by the government.
Genetic research that is not funded by the government is funded exclusively by corporations.
All genetic research is paid for by either corporations or the government, because genetic research requires funding from one of those sources.
All advances in genetic research are funded by either the government or corporations.
All ethical dilemmas arising from genetic research come from work that was funded by either the government or corporations.