The typological theory of species classification, which has few adherents today, distinguishes species solely on the basis of observable physical characteristics, such as plumage color, adult size, or dental structure. However, there are many so-called “sibling species,” which are indistinguishable on the basis of their appearance but cannot interbreed and thus, according to the mainstream biological theory of species classification, are separate species. Since the typological theory does not count sibling species as separate species, it is unacceptable.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the typological theory of species classification is unacceptable. This is based on the fact that (1) it doesn’t count sibling species as separate species, and (2) mainstream biological theory of species classification would classify sibling species as separate species.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the way mainstream biological theory classifies sibling species is the appropriate way to classify them. But we are presented with no reason to think that the mainstream theory’s approach is better than the typological theory’s approach.

A
the argument does not evaluate all aspects of the typological theory
The argument didn’t have to evaluate “all” aspects of typological theory. We’re allowed to criticize a single aspect. And if our criticism is valid, we’re allowed to reject a theory on the basis of that criticism.
B
the argument confuses a necessary condition for species distinction with a sufficient condition for species distinction
The author doesn’t confuse sufficient and necessary conditions. Nothing in the argument is based on a mistaken interpretation of a conditional relationship.
C
the argument, in its attempt to refute one theory of species classification, presupposes the truth of an opposing theory
The author tries to refute typological theory because it doesn’t treat sibling species as distinct species. But this would be a wrong classification only if we assume the mainstream classification is correct. So, the author assumes that the mainstream theory is true.
D
the argument takes a single fact that is incompatible with a theory as enough to show that theory to be false
There is no “fact” that is incompatible with typological theory. What is incompatible is another theory’s interpretation of sibling species as distinct species. The view that sibling species are distinct species is not a “fact.”
E
the argument does not explain why sibling species cannot interbreed
The argument does not need to explain why they can’t interbreed. The issue is whether species that look the same, but can’t interbreed, should be classified as different species. Mainstream theory says they should, and the author assumes that this is correct.

48 comments

Chiu: The belief that a person is always morally blameworthy for feeling certain emotions, such as unjustifiable anger, jealousy, or resentment, is misguided. Individuals are responsible for only what is under their control, and whether one feels such an emotion is not always under one’s control.

Summary
Chiu concludes that, in feeling certain emotions, people’s morals aren’t always to blame. She supports this with an inference that people aren’t always responsible for certain emotions. This inference comes from the premises (two conditional statements).

Missing Connection
The conclusion is about moral blame, but the support doesn’t discuss this. Chiu has successfully supported the inference that people aren’t responsible for certain emotions. This inference leads to the conclusion if we assume that if someone isn’t responsible for something, then they are not morally blameworthy.

A
Individuals do not have control over their actions when they feel certain emotions.
This answer doesn’t address moral blameworthiness. Moral blameworthiness is in the conclusion, but we were not provided any information about this in the support. So, we need that concept to be in our answer choice.
B
If a person is morally blameworthy for something, then that person is responsible for it.
The contrapositive of this is, “If a person is not responsible for something, then they are not morally blameworthy.” This is a link that leads from what was inferred in the argument (people are not always responsible) to the conclusion.
C
Although a person may sometimes be unjustifiably angry, jealous, or resentful, there are occasions when these emotions are appropriate.
Appropriateness is irrelevant here. We cannot assume anything about the relationship between appropriateness and responsibility, or appropriateness and moral blame.
D
If an emotion is under a person’s control, then that person cannot hold others responsible for it.
(D) does not address moral blame. Without that, we cannot build a bridge from support to conclusion. Additionally, the ability to hold others responsible is irrelevant.
E
The emotions for which a person is most commonly blamed are those that are under that person’s control.
Knowing which emotions people are most commonly blamed for doesn’t allow us to conclude anything about whether someone is morally blameworthy.

17 comments

In a poll of a representative sample of a province’s residents, the provincial capital was the city most often selected as the best place to live in that province. Since the capital is also the largest of that province’s many cities, the poll shows that most residents of that province generally prefer life in large cities to life in small cities.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that most residents in the province prefer large cities to small cities. As support, he notes that the capital is the largest city in the province and was most often selected as the best place to live in a poll of the province’s residents.

Identify and Describe Flaw

(1) The author assumes that people chose the capital as the best city because it’s large. But if they chose it for other reasons, like its job opportunities or food scene, he can’t assume that these residents prefer large cities.

(2) The author confuses plurality and majority. He assumes that the option with more votes than any other (plurality) is also the option with the majority of the votes (>50%). But maybe 40% of people chose the capital, while 30% chose City A and 30% chose City B. If so, it’s not true that most residents prefer the capital.

A
overlooks the possibility that what is true of the residents of the province may not be true of other people

Like (B), the author’s conclusion is only about the preferences of the residents of the province. It doesn’t matter if other people share these preferences.

B
does not indicate whether most residents of other provinces also prefer life in large cities to life in small cities

Like (A), the author’s conclusion is only about the preferences of the residents of this province. The preferences of the residents of other provinces are irrelevant.

C
takes for granted that when people are polled for their preferences among cities, they tend to vote for the city that they think is the best place to live

The author may assume this, but it doesn’t explain why his argument is vulnerable to criticism. The poll is seeking to measure what city the residents think is the best place to live.

D
overlooks the possibility that the people who preferred small cities over the provincial capital did so not because of their general feelings about the sizes of cities, but because of their general feelings about capital cities

The author overlooks the possibility that people who preferred the capital city didn’t do so because of their general feelings about the sizes of cities, but because of their general feelings about capital cities.

E
overlooks the possibility that most people may have voted for small cities even though a large city received more votes than any other single city

The author confuses plurality and majority. Just because the capital city received more votes than any other city doesn’t mean that most residents chose the capital. Maybe most people voted for small cities, even though the capital had more votes than any of the small cities.


38 comments

Geneticist: Genes, like viruses, have a strong tendency to self-replicate; this has led some biologists to call genes “selfish.” This term is, in this instance, intended to be defined behaviorally: it describes what genes do without ascribing intentions to them. But even given that genes are ascribed no intentions, the label “selfish” as applied to genes is a misnomer. Selfishness only concerns bringing about the best conditions for oneself; creating replicas of oneself is not selfish.

Summary
The geneticist first concludes that replicating is not selfish, and from this ultimately concludes that “selfish” isn’t an accurate label for genes. Why isn’t replicating selfish? Because to be selfish, you must be bringing out the best conditions for yourself.

Missing Connection
If we can validly draw the geneticist’s sub-conclusion (replicating is not selfish), then we have an automatic ticket to her conclusion. The only support provided for the sub-conclusion is that bringing about the best conditions for yourself is necessary for selfishness. To validly draw the geneticist’s sub-conclusion, we need to know that replication does not bring about the best conditions for oneself.

A
Bringing about the best conditions for oneself is less important than doing this for others.
Weighing importance of one thing versus another doesn’t help us conclude that replicating is not selfish. (A) only tells us that selfishness is linked to something less important than helping people.
B
Creating replicas of oneself does not help bring about the best conditions for oneself.
This means that replication fails a necessary condition of selfishness, so we can now validly draw the sub-conclusion (replication is not selfish). Since replication is the gene behavior that led to the “selfish” label, we can conclude that it isn’t a good descriptor for genes.
C
The behavioral definition of “selfish” is incompatible with its everyday definition.
The conventional definition of “selfish” is irrelevant. It does not support a conclusion that replication is not selfish.
D
To ignore the fact that self-replication is not limited to genes is to misunderstand genetic behavior.
This tells that replicating behavior doesn’t only occur in genes. This does not help us to conclude that replicating is not selfish, or that genes are not selfish.
E
Biologists have insufficient evidence about genetic behavior to determine whether it is best described as selfish.
Lack of knowledge doesn’t change truth. Whether people feel like they can speak to a certain thing doesn’t change whether it is true or not.
Additionally, we are speaking specifically about genes and replication, not genetic behavior overall.

8 comments

Designer: Any garden and adjoining living room that are separated from one another by sliding glass doors can visually merge into a single space. If the sliding doors are open, as may happen in summer, this effect will be created if it does not already exist and intensified if it does. The effect remains quite strong during colder months if the garden is well coordinated with the room and contributes strong visual interest of its own.

Summary

A Designer says that any garden and adjoining living room separated by a sliding glass door can visually merge into a single space. If the doors are left open, this effect will be created if it is not already present. If they are already visually merged, the effect will be intensified. If the garden is well coordinated with the room and contributes a strong visual interest, the effect will remain quite strong during colder months.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

If the sliding doors are closed, this effect can/cannot be present.

If the doors are left open, this effect will be present.

A
A garden separated from an adjoining living room by closed sliding glass doors cannot be well coordinated with the room unless the garden contributes strong visual interest.

The stimulus does not give this condition. The stimulus only says that being well coordinated and contributing a strong visual interest is sufficient for the effect to remain strong in the winter.

B
In cold weather, a garden and an adjoining living room separated from one another by sliding glass doors will not visually merge into a single space unless the garden is well coordinated with the room.

This is too strong to support. The stimulus says that the effect will remain *strong* if the room is well coordinated and contributes a strong visual interest. The stimulus gives no condition that can conclude that the room does not visually merge.

C
A garden and an adjoining living room separated by sliding glass doors cannot visually merge in summer unless the doors are open.

This is antisupported. The doors being open in the summer *enhances* the effect if it is already present and provides the effect if it is not.

D
A garden can visually merge with an adjoining living room into a single space even if the garden does not contribute strong visual interest of its own.

This reflects the reasoning in the stimulus. The room contributing a strong visual interest is only linked to the effect remaining quite strong during *colder* months. The room can still visually merge without this condition.

E
Except in summer, opening the sliding glass doors that separate a garden from an adjoining living room does not intensify the effect of the garden and room visually merging into a single space.

This is antisupported. The stimulus only uses summer as an example, not a definitive rule. The stimulus says that the effect will be enhanced or created if the doors are left open and does not specify any time of year.


26 comments

Last summer, after a number of people got sick from eating locally caught anchovies, the coastal city of San Martin advised against eating such anchovies. The anchovies were apparently tainted with domoic acid, a harmful neurotoxin. However, a dramatic drop in the population of P. australis plankton to numbers more normal for local coastal waters indicates that it is once again safe to eat locally caught anchovies.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why does the decrease in plankton numbers make the anchovies safe to eat?

Objective

The correct answer will establish a relationship between the number of P. australis and the safety of the anchovies. It will imply that fewer plankton means less domoic acid in the anchovies or that a decrease in plankton makes the domoic acid in anchovies safer to consume.

A
P. australis is one of several varieties of plankton common to the region that, when ingested by anchovies, cause the latter to secrete small amounts of domoic acid.

This states that anchovies will secrete, not contain, domoic acid after ingesting P. australis. It is not implied that anchovies secreting domoic acid must contain that acid, nor that domoic acid in the water builds up in anchovies’ bodies.

B
P. australis naturally produces domoic acid, though anchovies consume enough to become toxic only when the population of P. australis is extraordinarily large.

This explains why a decrease in P. australis numbers makes the anchovies safe. Once the plankton are less prevalent, the domoic acid in anchovies lowers to safe levels.

C
Scientists have used P. australis plankton to obtain domoic acid in the laboratory.

This does not imply that high P. australis numbers cause anchovies to contain domoic acid. It is possible that P. australis does not naturally produce or contain domoic acid, in which case its relationship to the anchovies remains unexplained.

D
A sharp decline in the population of P. australis is typically mirrored by a corresponding drop in the local anchovy population.

This does not explain why locally caught anchovies are safe to eat. It does not imply that the surviving anchovies are in any way safer to consume.

E
P. australis cannot survive in large numbers in seawater that does not contain significant quantities of domoic acid along with numerous other compounds.

This establishes a condition necessary for the survival of P. australis, but does not imply that a decrease in plankton must accompany a decrease in domoic acid. It is possible the plankton died for a different reason and domoic acid is still prevalent in the water.


14 comments

Constance: The traditional definition of full employment as a 5 percent unemployment rate is correct, because at levels below 5 percent, inflation rises.

Brigita: That traditional definition of full employment was developed before the rise of temporary and part-time work and the fall in benefit levels. When people are juggling several part-time jobs with no benefits, or working in a series of temporary assignments, as is now the case, 5 percent unemployment is not full employment.

Speaker 1 Summary
Constance claims that it is correct to define full employment as a 5 percent unemployment rate. Why? Because when unemployment drops below 5 percent, inflation increases.

Speaker 2 Summary
Brigita argues that 5 percent unemployment is truly full employment. Why not? Because Constance’s definition doesn’t account for modern working conditions. Brigita says that when people are working multiple part-time or temporary jobs, 5 percent unemployment is not full employment. Furthermore, people currently do work in those conditions. Thus, 5 percent unemployment is not actually full employment.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Constance and Brigita disagree about whether full employment can be accurately defined as a 5 percent unemployment rate.

A
what definition of full employment is applicable under contemporary economic conditions
Constance thinks that the traditional definition of 5 percent unemployment is applicable. However, Brigita thinks that contemporary conditions make the traditional definition inapplicable. This is the speakers’ point of disagreement.
B
whether it is a good idea, all things considered, to allow the unemployment level to drop below 5 percent
Neither speaker makes a claim about whether it would be good or bad to allow unemployment to drop below 5 percent. Constance says that inflation rises when the unemployment rate is below 5 percent, but doesn’t say whether that’s a good or bad thing.
C
whether a person with a part-time job should count as fully employed
Neither speaker talks about the meaning of a individuals being fully employed. Constance and Brigita’s discussion is about full employment on a larger scale, across a whole economy.
D
whether the number of part-time and temporary workers has increased since the traditional definition of full employment was developed
Brigita agrees with this, but Constance doesn’t express an opinion. Constance thinks that the traditional definition is accurate, but that doesn’t mean she thinks there isn’t more part-time and temporary employment now.
E
whether unemployment levels above 5 percent can cause inflation levels to rise
Neither speaker claims that this is the case. Constance only says that unemployment levels below 5 percent cause inflation to rise, and Brigita doesn’t say anything about inflation. We don’t know what either speaker thinks about unemployment being over 5 percent.

9 comments

The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in that there is still no evidence of the neutron star that current theory says should have remained after a supernova of that size. This is in spite of the fact that many of the most sensitive instruments ever developed have searched for the tell-tale pulse of radiation that neutron stars emit. Thus, current theory is wrong in claiming that supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that current theory is wrong about supernovas of certain sizes always producing neutron stars.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because no radiation has been found yet, no radiation (and thus no neutron star) exists. The author also assumes that the supernova was correctly measured, despite the fact the supernova event happened in 1987. Perhaps instruments weren’t quite as sophisticated and reliable in 1987.

A
Most supernova remnants that astronomers have detected have a neutron star nearby.
We already know current theory holds that supernovas of a certain size produce neutron stars. If anything, this supports that argument.
B
Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova.
The current instruments absolutely would be able to detect the neutron star in question if the neutron star existed. Thus, there’s probably no neutron star.
C
The supernova of 1987 was the first that scientists were able to observe in progress.
We don’t care that the scientists observed the supernova in progress. We care about the neutron star, or a lack thereof.
D
Several important features of the 1987 supernova are correctly predicted by the current theory.
Even if the current theory predicts several features, the author argues rather convincingly it’s failing to account for another very important feature: the lack of a neutron star.
E
Some neutron stars are known to have come into existence by a cause other than a supernova explosion.
As far as we know, there’s no neutron star. We don’t care how else neutron stars can come into existence.

25 comments