This is a Method of Reasoning question, and we know this because of the question stem: “The advertisement employs which one of the following argumentative strategies?”
This is an argument by analogy. The ad puts forward the relationship between exercise of physical organs and better performance of muscles and physical organs. The ad then says that because your brain is a physical organ, taking action it could improve its performance. From that, the ad concludes that we should subscribe to Stimulus and take action by reading. This isn’t a great argument, but our job is to describe what’s happening, not access its strength or validity.
Answer Choice (A) The ad beings with “anyone who exercises knows...” That’s not experimental evidence.
Answer Choice (B) The ad does not ridicule; it’s trying to incentivize people.
Answer Choice (C) This is describing the last part of the last sentence: Stimulus will exercise the brain. However, we’re not describing a sentence in the argument, we have to describe the whole argument.
Answer Choice (D) “Careful analysis” is certainly not what this ad is doing when it comes to exploring what exercise is.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is perfectly describing what an argument by analogy is: A and B are similar in one way; therefore they are both similar in another way.
This is a sufficient assumption question: this question stem includes “properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?”
Sufficient assumption questions tend to be very formal. We’re looking for a rule that would 100% validate the conclusion, specifically by bridging the premise and conclusion through the rule. Not only are we extrapolating the rule from our argument, but we’re also using that rule to render the argument “valid.” The way to prephrase our answer choice is by tying our premises and conclusion together into a rule: “If [premise] → then [conclusion].” Sometimes, rules are a little too chunky and don’t capture the gap accurately. This question is a great example of why.
The first sentence introduces a phenomenon: impact craters have been found everywhere, but more are found in geologically stable regions. Basically, in the most stable regions, for example in Canada, we find a lot more impact craters than we do in Japan. This does make sense. Being geologically stable has nothing to do with the frequency and location of meteor impacts; earthquakes, tsunamis, and tectonic movements don’t impact space activity.
Our next sentence is our conclusion, explaining this phenomenon: the level of land destruction is lower in these regions, so presumably, the impact craters would remain intact. This seems completely logical. However, this is one possible explanation. The argument hasn’t done anything to address any other explanation. Either way, we can’t say the explanation for the higher number of these impact craters being visible in these regions must be because they weren’t destroyed by geophysical processes. To bridge this gap, we have to block other explanation with a rule like: “If impact craters are visible in areas that are geologically stable, it must be because they weren’t destroyed.” Remember that our correct answer choice may not mirror our rule; it could also block any other explanation.
Answer Choice (A) This is not correct. If a meteor obliterates a trace of another meteor, how does that help validate that the craters weren’t destroyed in the more stable regions? This does not help validate our conclusion.
Answer Choice (B) The rates fluctuating don’t help support the explanation for why more craters are visible in stable areas. In fact, the rate of geophysical destruction varying within any region might actually hurt our premise.
Answer Choice (C) Just because there are more meteors striking down, that doesn’t support our conclusion for the explanation for visible meteors in stable areas. In fact, this could weaken the argument - what if all of the increased meteor showers hit stable regions?? Then the explanation the conclusion gives would be totally false.
Correct Answer Choice (D) It’s rejecting the overlooked possibility that the other explanation for why there are more craters in stable regions is simply because there were more craters that hit the areas. With this premise inserted in our argument, we can properly draw the conclusion: since craters were hit everywhere evenly and are more visible in stable regions, the explanation must be that these stable areas aren’t prone to destruction and the craters are preserved.
Answer Choice (E) If one area is studied more than others, that does not help support the explanation. This is not an issue of discovery or what craters are not known. We have to accept the premise that more craters show up in stable regions.
This is a strengthening question, as the question stem asks: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
The stimulus starts by telling us that the rate at which children aged 4 and under use safety seats has doubled within the last 8 years. Good to hear! The next sentence begins with the claim that this increased usage of safety seats has prevented child fatalities. This is the conclusion of our argument. The sentence continues by conceding that it is true that child fatalities have risen by 10% during the same period that safety seat usage has increased, but attributes this to a 20% increase in the number of serious accident.
This author’s conclusion is that the safety seats are working—the increase in their usage has prevented fatalities. However, the fact that child fatalities have actually increased during the exact same period is a big problem for this position. The author’s defends his safety seats are working conclusion by pointing to the increase in accidents—it’s not that safety seats aren’t preventing fatalities, its just that there are a lot more opportunities for people to die. The issue with this defense is we have no idea much of the increase in serious automobile accidents involve children. Let’s look at the answer choices and see which answer strengthens the author’s position:
Answer Choice (A) Irrelevant. We are interested in how the number of children aged 4 and under killed could have increased in the same period that safety seat usage increased and prevented fatalities.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This strengthens the argument by making the 20% increase in serious accidents a much better defense of the safety seats are working conclusion. If serious accidents went up 20% while the proportion involving children remained constant, but child fatalities only increased by 10%, it seems that the children are dying at a lower rate than would be expected, which in turn suggests that the safety seats really are having an effect.
Answer Choice (C) If they are in cars the same amount of time then nothing has changed in terms of their chance of being involved in accidents.
Answer Choice (D) We are concerned with children aged 4 and under as a whole, the varying usage of seatbelts between subsets of children aged 4 and under has no impact on our argument
Answer Choice (E) If the adult fatalities increased at the same rate as the child fatalities while the safety seat usage increased, it suggests the doubling of safety seats had no impact on child fatalities.
We should recognize that this is a strengthening question, as the question stem asks: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
The stimulus begins with a definition of salmonella, which identifies it as a possible cause of intestinal illness. The second sentence tells us that this intestinal illness can be fatal, with an increased likelihood if not identified quickly and treated. So Salmonella can cause intestinal illness which can cause death, especially if you don’t know you have the illness; got it! Following this context about salmonella, we learn about conventional salmonella tests; basically, they suck. They are slow and can miss unusual variants, which since we know you want to quickly identify and treat intestinal illness, is pretty bad. Luckily, there is this new test which identifies whether salmonella is present based of a piece of genetic material which all subsets of salmonella possess. The argument concludes that it would be prudent for public health officials to swap the old conventional tests for the new genetic tests.
A key takeaway from this stimulus you should have is that we need more information about this new test. We know a decent amount about the old one, namely that it’s bad because it is slow and unreliable, but all we really get from the stimulus about the new test is that it is more reliable than the old one. A key detail we are missing is the speed of the test. A necessary assumption of the argument is that the new test isn’t too slow to be a good test for salmonella. As things stand, it is entirely consistent with what we know that the new test is 10 times slower than the old one! While there are always lots of ways to strengthen an argument, the fact that the stimulus mentions the importance of quickly identifying intestinal illness should have us on the lookout for an answer choice that fills the gap in our argument about the new test’s speed. Let’s see what we get:
Answer Choice (A) All this answer choice introduces is a disadvantage of the new test compared to the conventional test. Since our conclusion is that the new test should replace the conventional test, this answer choice actually weakens our argument.
Correct Answer Choice (B) Bingo! This answer gives us another important advantage of the new test over the old test, and fills in our assumption that the new tests aren’t too slow.
Answer Choice (C) Always anchor yourself in the conclusion on strengthening questions. We are looking for reasons why the new test should replace the old test. Our argument is about testing, not treatment.
Answer Choice (D) Ok? How often people get salmonella has nothing to do with relative superiority of the new tests to the old ones. Maybe if, for example, we were told it is hard to mass produce the new tests this answer might do something for us, but as the question is written this answer adds no support.
Answer Choice (E) Cool! We don’t care. Same as C, our argument and conclusion are all about the testing for Salmonella. This answer adds nothing to our argument.
We should recognize that this is a strengthening question, as the question stem says: Which one of the following, if true, would most help to support the conclusion about the German new-car market?
The stimulus begins by telling us about a recent upsurge in demand for used cars in Germany. It continues by further specifying that this demand is coming from former East Germans who can’t afford to buy new cars and who didn’t have access to cars before the unification of East and West Germany. For real-world context, after World War II Germany was split into the allied-controlled democratic West Germany and Soviet-controlled communist East Germany, which weren’t reunited until the fall of the Berlin Wall. Because there is now more demand for used cars than there are used cars available, the price of used cars has also risen. The next sentence tells us that West Germans, because of this rise in used car value due to East German demand, will be selling their old cars. From all of this information, the author concludes that the new car market will improve as well. This is the conclusion we have been tasked with strengthening.
The first thing we should notice once we finish reading the stimulus is that our conclusion is about new cars while all the support is information about used cars. There is a gap in the argument; specifically, what we need is a reason for why (i) increased East German used car demand, (ii) higher used car prices, and (iii) West Germans selling their used cars, could improve the market for new cars. Let’s take a look at the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) While this answer choice does mention new cars, it doesn’t help us because it only does so in comparison to West German used car demand, which we know little about. Our conclusion is that the new car market will improve, it is a prediction about a future change. The relative size of one portion of the new car market to one portion of the used car market has no bearing on whether or not the German new car market as a whole will improve.
Answer Choice (B) This does nothing to support our prediction. For one, most European countries could not include Germany, in which case this answer would have zero impact on our prediction. And even if this answer explicitly says Germany was a part of this majority, this just gives a reason why buying a used car might be preferable to buying a new car, and no information suggesting there will be improvement in the new car market.
Answer Choice (C) Who cares? The average number of cars the majority of Germans own across their lifetime has little impact on whether the German new car market will overall improve after the changes in the used car market.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for. It bridges the gap between one of our premises, the one about an increasing number of West Germans selling their used cars, and our conclusion about the new car market. If West Germans generally buy a new car when they sell a used car, and an increasing number of them are going to be selling their used cars, it seems reasonable that the market for new cars will improve because their will be increased demand from these West Germans selling their old cars.
Answer Choice (E) We aren’t told if these North American cars are used or new, and this a preference of specifically East Germans who we know cannot afford new cars, so this information does nothing for our new car market prediction.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “The argument employs which one of the following reasoning techniques?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
We first learn of a fire that destroyed the city Municipal Building, occupying the fire fighters until the late afternoon. Because anyone within the vicinity would have seen the fire, and Thomas’s walk home had to go through that area, the speaker concludes Thomas must have seen the fire. This seems to be a fairly reasonable conclusion. Knowing that our stimulus uses a series of must-be-true information to affirm the conclusion we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) If our evidence would individually “allow the conclusion to be properly drawn,” we would not need to link the steps together in our stimulus. We can eliminate this answer choice because we know our premises link together to support the conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly describes the linked series of events that lead us to the main point.
Answer Choice (C) This is not descriptively accurate due to the emphasis on temptation. Without any reference to why it is tempting to believe Thomas did not see the fire we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) In order for this to be our correct answer, the stimulus would need to include evidence of something that “regularly occurred” in the past. Without this evidence we can eliminate this answer choice from contention.
Answer Choice (E) Saying our conclusion asserts what is “possible” does not quite line up with our stimulus. The speaker concludes that Thomas must have seen the fire - not that it was simply a possibility.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “In the conversation, Yolanda does which one of the following?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Our first speaker, Sally, introduces some conditional reasoning. Sally tells us: S (if they study at a university) → /A (there is no alcohol problem). We are told on the basis of this relationship that unless something is done about the alcohol problem at this university, Sally will have to transfer somewhere with no fraternities.
Woah, where did that come from? Sally goes from talking about an alcohol problem to accusing the fraternities of causing these issues. By telling us Sally may end up transferring to a university without fraternities Sally assumes that: /F (no fraternities) → /A (no alcohol problem). Our second speaker points out this assumption exactly. Yolanda points out that fraternities are not a necessary condition for universities having alcohol problems. Our second speaker concludes alcohol is a culture rather than a fraternity problem because of the universities with alcohol problems that do not have fraternities.
Knowing that Yolanda points out the existence of these issues in the absence of fraternities, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer suggests Yolanda introduces a hypothetical about the number of people who will abuse alcohol. Rather than discuss what would happen in a certain case Yolanda discusses specific instances of alcohol problems in the absence of fraternities.
Answer Choice (B) This answer accuses Yolanda of saying “because one university has this issue, all universities must have this issue.” Instead the stimulus presents us with the opposite. Because alcohol problems exist at all universities Yolanda concludes fraternities are not an issue at this particular university.
Answer Choice (C) This answer is not descriptively accurate. In their argument Yolanda tells us that fraternities are not a required condition for alcohol problems. Yolanda does not establish that it’s impossible for fraternities to ever cause alcohol problems.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that points out Yolanda’s evidence; alcohol problems at other universities that do not have fraternities.
Answer Choice (E) Similar to answer choice A, we have here a hypothetical scenario not present in Yolanda’s reply. We do not see Yolanda conclude they would maintain their conclusion even if their evidence was not accurate.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Smith responds to Jones by…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Jones begins by telling us about a discovery of prehistoric tools dated to 13,000 years ago. Jones concludes scientists are wrong in their assertion the tools came from people migrating from Siberia.
The reasoning given is that the site of the tools is located far south. Meaning if a group of people migrated from Siberia and took the long trip south there would be evidence of tools along that path. Jones concludes the position of the scientists is wrong because there have been no discoveries of such tools.
Here, Jones makes an assumption. We cannot draw a reasonable conclusion on the basis that no evidence has yet been found. Just because scientists do not currently have evidence for their claim does that mean it is objectively false. The claim could be true depending on what evidence is yet undiscovered.
Smith’s reply hits on this assumption exactly. Our second speaker concludes that because the tools discovered came from peat bogs, the tools were unusually preserved in comparison to tools that would have been dropped along the route from Siberia to the location of the tools.
Knowing that our correct answer will highlight how Smith points out the first speaker’s assumption about the lack of currently existing answers, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer is not descriptively accurate. If our stimulus were citing “several sources” we would be able to identify exactly where some part of Jones’s information is coming from.
Answer Choice (B) This is not a descriptively correct answer choice. Accusing Jones of “distorting” the scientists’ position insinuates that Jones was incorrectly interpreting the position of that group. But rather than accuse Jones of a misinterpretation, Smith identifies how a lack of evidence can be explained by the rate of decomposition for these prehistoric tools.
Answer Choice (C) Smith is not arguing that evidence has been found suggesting the use of tools along this Siberian route. Because of this, answer choice C is not descriptively accurate.
Answer Choice (D) If Smith’s discussion led to the denial of Jones’s conclusion, we could anticipate Smith would argue the discovered tools did in fact come from that group of Siberian ancestors. Because of this lack of dental we can eliminate answer choice D.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies how Smith attacks an assumption Jones makes about the existence of evidence. Jones assumes that an absence of evidence means evidence of absence. However, Smith responds by pointing out the absence of that evidence can be readily explained.
This is a Sufficient Assumption (SA) question and we know this before the question stem: “… an assumption that would allow the company president’s conclusion to be properly drawn?”
Sufficient assumption questions tend to be very formal. We’re looking for a rule that would validate the conclusion, specifically by bridging the premise and conclusion through the rule. Not only are we extrapolating the rule from our argument, but we’re also using that rule to render the argument “valid.” The way to prephrase our answer choice is by tying our premises and conclusion together into a rule: “If [premise] à then [conclusion].” In this question, this isn’t really the case.
In our first sentence, we’re told that Wilson gives free merch to its top salespeople. We’re not told how the company defines “top salespeople” or how many of them there are.
Next, we’re told that the number of salespeople getting this award has declined a lot over the past 15 years. In response to this, the president of Wilsons says: since our award standard is being a part of the top third of the sales team, we can also conclude that the number of people being passed over for awards has declined.
There is a lot of information in the passage and a couple of assumptions the president is making in his argument. It’s easiest to understand this if we put it into perspective if we have some numbers attached to this.
Fifteen years ago, let’s say in 2000, 100 people were given the award.
Now, in 2015, markedly fewer people got the award. Let’s say 50 people got the award. Based on what the president says, the criteria for awarding the prize is being a part of the top third of the sales force. So, if 50 people are 1/3 of the total sales force, the total sales force would be equal to 150 people. This means that 100 people were NOT awarded. Great!
The only problem is: do we the people who were NOT given an award in 2000? No! How do we know that in 2000, the award criteria is being part of the top 2/3 of the sales force? This would mean that the total sales force was 150, and 50 people were NOT awarded. That would really go against the conclusion.
The president is assuming that because there is a decrease in the awarded, there is a decrease in the NOT awarded. What must we have to guarantee that this is not the case? Membership of one-third OR LESS of the sales force would qualify salespeople for the award. This is our rule.
Answer Choice (A) Hiring policies being the same doesn’t mean anything for the number of people employed OR the number of people passed over for the award. It could be that more people are seeking jobs now than before or vice versa. There are so many ways this could affect the number of people employed and passed over for an award, but no way does it allow us to conclude that the number of people passed over for an award has decreased.
Answer Choice (B) Just because the number of salespeople has increased, that does not mean that the number of people of passed over for an award was higher than 15 years ago. We don’t know the criteria for awards back then, so we can’t draw a conclusion about the people awarded vs not awarded.
Correct Answer Choice (C) It gives us that missing information on the proportion of awardees to the total number of employees, allowing us to conclude that the number of people not awarded has also gone down.
Answer Choice (D) If we plug this back into our stimulus, does this validate our conclusion? No! If sales figures are declining, there could be a number of reasons why, and none of this helps explain why the president is able to conclude that non-awardee numbers have also gone down.
Answer Choice (E) We’re not concerned about calculating sales figures. If this is true, and we have different selection criteria, the number of people passed over for an award could increase or decrease. This does not help validate our conclusion.