Hiro: I have no doubt that people lie on surveys of this type. The question is whether some people lie more than others. While the raw numbers surely underestimate what I’m trying to measure, the relative rates those numbers represent are probably close to being accurate.
Speaker 1 Summary
Now matter how you look at them, your survey results are misleading. Why? Because the numbers collected are serious underestimates, since people generally lie on surveys.
Speaker 2 Summary
The rates these numbers represent are probably close to being accurate. Despite the raw numbers surely being an underestimate, the question is whether some people lie more than others.
Objective
We need a statement Rita and Hiro disagree on. They disagree whether Hiro’s survey results are misleading. Rita thinks the results are misleading because the raw numbers are underestimates. Hiro does not think they are misleading because the rates that the raw numbers represent are probably close to accurate.
A
the survey results are misleading regardless of how they are interpreted
Rita and Hiro disagree on this statement. Rita agrees because she states the results are misleading no matter how you examine them. Hiro disagrees because when you examine the rates instead of the raw numbers, the results are close to accurate.
B
people tend to lie on certain kinds of surveys
Both speakers agree on this statement. Rita claims that the survey results are misleading because people lie on surveys. Hiro concedes this point.
C
a different type of measure than a survey would produce results that are less misleading
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Both speaker’s comments are limited to the results of Hiro’s survey specifically.
D
the raw numbers collected are serious underestimates
Both speakers agree on this statement. Rita claims that the survey results are misleading because the raw numbers are serious underestimates. Hiro concedes this point, but suggests to look at the rates instead of the raw numbers.
E
the number of people surveyed was adequate for the survey’s purpose
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. The raw number from the story could be misleading for reasons other than the total number of people surveyed.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The researchers hypothesize a person with the genetic defect is more likely to have a herniated disk. Why? Because 5 of 100 people with herniated disks had the defect, while 0 of 100 people without herniated disks had the defect.
Notable Assumptions
The researchers assume the correlation they found is explained by a causal relationship—that the genetic defect causes an increased likelihood of suffering a herniated disk. This means assuming no other causal relationship explains the phenomenon. It also means assuming their samples were representative of the general population.
A
The researchers also examined a group of 100 people who did not have the defective gene; 80 were found to have herniated disks in their backs.
If anything, this weakens the researchers’ argument. It suggests lacking the genetic defect—rather than having it—makes suffering a herniated disk more likely.
B
When the researchers examined a group of 100 people with the defective gene, they found that 2 of them had herniated disks in their backs.
If anything, this weakens the researchers’ argument. It implies having the genetic defect doesn’t make the likelihood of suffering a herniated disk all that high.
C
When the researchers examined the families of the 5 subjects who had the defective gene, they found that 30 family members also had the defective gene, and each of them suffered from herniated disks.
This implies a stronger correlation between the genetic defect and herniated disks. It’s more evidence that people with the defective gene tend to suffer herniated disks.
D
Another team of researchers examined a different group of 100 people who suffered from herniated disks, and they found that none of them had the defective gene.
This weakens the researchers’ argument. It suggests the findings were not replicable, raising the possibility the researchers’ study was anomalous or poorly designed.
E
When the researchers examined the family of one of the subjects who did not suffer from herniated disks, they found 30 family members who did not have the defective gene, and 20 of them suffered from herniated disks.
This weakens the researchers’ argument. It implies a different genetic or behavioral factor, other than the genetic defect in question, is likely responsible for the increased likelihood of herniated disks.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that aerobic exercise leads to decreased risk of lung disease. Her premises are:
(1) A 1970s survey wherein the more frequently people engaged in aerobic exercise, the lower their risk of lung disease tended to be.
(2) Subsequent surveys yielded the same finding.
(1) A 1970s survey wherein the more frequently people engaged in aerobic exercise, the lower their risk of lung disease tended to be.
(2) Subsequent surveys yielded the same finding.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a “correlation doesn’t imply causation” flaw, where the author sees a correlation and concludes that one thing causes the other without ruling out the two alternatives hypotheses:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—people at lower risk of lung disease might gravitate toward aerobic exercise. Maybe healthy lungs make aerobics more fun!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—maybe something else (maybe living somewhere with good air quality?) causes people to both do aerobic exercise and be at lower risk for lung disease.
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—people at lower risk of lung disease might gravitate toward aerobic exercise. Maybe healthy lungs make aerobics more fun!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—maybe something else (maybe living somewhere with good air quality?) causes people to both do aerobic exercise and be at lower risk for lung disease.
A
ignores anecdotal evidence and bases its conclusion entirely on scientific research
There’s no reference to any anecdotal evidence at all, let alone any that would contradict the results of the scientific research. Therefore, there’s no support for the claim that the author is ignoring any such evidence.
B
considers only surveys published in one particular medical journal
The stimulus doesn’t state that all the surveys the author considered were published in the same medical journal, so (B) could be factually inaccurate. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that it would be a problem to only consider surveys published in one medical journal.
C
concludes merely from the fact that two things are correlated that one causes the other
This describes the author’s cookie-cutter “correlation proves causation” flaw: based solely on a correlation (frequent aerobic exercise correlates with decreased lung disease risk), the author concludes a specific causation (aerobic exercise causes decreased lung disease risk).
D
presumes, without providing justification, that anyone who does not have lung disease is in good health
The stimulus does not presume that anyone who doesn’t have lung disease is in good health. Rather, it states that lowered risk of lung disease is one significant benefit to a person’s health—a statement that is true whether or not that person is healthy in other respects.
E
fails to consider that even infrequent aerobic exercise may have some beneficial effect on people’s health
The author does not fail to consider the potential benefits of infrequent aerobic exercise; in fact, the conclusion makes a blanket statement regarding the purported health effects of aerobic exercise, regardless of frequency.
Cynthia: If the transit authority tries that maneuver, the federal government will probably just let the authority go out of business. The transit authority cannot risk allowing that to happen.
Speaker 1 Summary
Enrique argues that the city's transit authority should continue operating without cutting services or increasing fares until it runs out of money. He believes that once the authority's funds are exhausted, the federal government will step in and provide the funding to save the transit authority.
Speaker 2 Summary
Cynthia disagrees with Enrique's strategy. She believes that if the transit authority allows its funds to run out without making any cuts or increasing fares, the federal government will likely let it go out of business. Cynthia suggests that the transit authority cannot risk this outcome.
Objective
Disagreement: Enrique and Cynthia disagree on whether the transit authority should continue to run without making any cuts or increasing fares.
A
the transit authority should continue operating without cutting service or increasing fares until it has exhausted its funds
Enrique agrees because he believes that the government will provide more funding once they run out of money. Cynthia disagrees because she thinks the government will just let the transit authority go out of business.
B
the federal government should provide additional funding to the transit authority
It is unclear whether Enrique or Cnythia support/oppose the government providing additional funding. At best, Enrique agrees with this, but Cynthia does not mention this at all. Their disagreement is over what the transit authority should do without government funding.
C
it would be better for the transit authority to cut services than it would be to raise fares
Neither Enrique nor Cynthia addresses whether cutting services would be better than raising fares. Enrique believes the transit authority should do neither, while Cynthia does not provide a position.
D
the federal government is willing to provide additional funding to the transit authority now
Neither Enrique nor Sylvia addresses whether the government is willing to provide funding now. Enrique says that the government has “so far” been able to provide funding, while Cynthia says nothing about it.
E
the transit authority can afford to operate for the next twelve months without cutting service even if it does not receive additional funding
Enrique likely agrees with this statement. He claims the transit authority will run out of money if it doesn’t raise fares or cut services. So, if it raises fares (which is implied in this AC), it *could* survive. However, Cynthia does not address what will happen in this case.