Summarize Argument
The linguist looks to certain studies purporting to show that bilingual children tend to have a smaller vocabulary and concludes that these studies are deeply flawed. As evidence, the linguist states that vocabulary tests were only given in one language. Dual-language tests show children often expressed a given concept with a word from only one of their two languages.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The linguist shows that the studies are deeply flawed by pointing out a significant error in their methodology. If the children were given tests in only one language, then the tests are flawed because dual-language tests show children often express concepts with words from only one of their two languages.
A
offering evidence for the advantages of bilingualism over monolingualism
The linguist does not compare the advantages and disadvantages between bilingualism and monolingualism. The linguist’s argument does not address children who are monolingual.
B
pointing out an inconsistency in the view that bilingualism overstresses a child’s linguistic capabilities
The linguist does not describe a contradiction with this viewpoint. Instead, the linguist provides additional information relevant to evaluating the integrity of the studies that support this viewpoint.
C
offering evidence that undermines the use of any vocabulary test to provide information about a child’s conceptual map
The linguist only disfavors a specific kind of vocabulary test. We cannot assume that the linguist would disfavor any vocabulary test. In fact, the linguist seems to view dual-language tests somewhat favorably.
D
providing a different explanation for the apparent advantages of bilingualism from the explanation suggested by the results of certain studies
The linguist does not address any advantages of bilingualism. The linguist’s argument seeks to counter the viewpoint of bilingual children having a disadvantage, but this is not the same as describing the advantages of bilingualism.
E
pointing out a methodological error in the technique used to obtain the purported evidence of a problem with bilingualism
the methodological error in technique is administering a vocabulary test in only one language. The evidence of the problem with bilingualism is the evidence that bilingual children have a smaller vocabulary and thus reduced conceptual map.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The researcher argues that the psychological problems of children of divorced parents may not be caused by the children’s difficulty adjusting to their parents’ divorce. Instead, the researcher proposes an alternative explanation: the children learn divorce-related bad behavior from their parents. This bad behavior could then be the cause of the children’s problems. By offering an alternative explanation, the researcher supports the conclusion that children’s psychological problems may not be caused by difficulty adjusting.
Identify Argument Part
The assertion that children of divorced parents have a higher rate of psychological problems is given as a known phenomenon that the researcher explains through learned behavior rather than through difficulty adjusting to divorce.
A
It is the conclusion of the argument.
The argument’s conclusion is that children’s problems aren’t necessarily caused by difficulty adjusting. The assertion that children of divorced parents have more problems is just given as a fact; it isn’t supported by anything, so can’t be a conclusion.
B
It is the claim that the argument tries to refute.
The researcher accepts that children of divorced parents have more problems. The argument is instead trying to refute the idea that the problems are caused by difficulty adjusting to the divorce.
C
It is offered as evidence for the claim that divorce is harmful to the children of the divorcing parents.
The researcher never claims that divorce is harmful to children. If anything, the argument implies that problems are caused by the parents’ pre-divorce behavior, not the divorce itself.
D
It is offered as evidence for the claim that certain behaviors are often responsible for divorce.
The claim that certain behaviors can lead to divorce is presented as a fact without any support. Also, the claim about children of divorced parents having psychological problems doesn’t support any other claim in the argument: it’s context.
E
It is cited as an established finding for which the argument proposes an explanation.
This is the role played by the claim that children of divorced parents have more psychological problems. It’s taken as a fact, and the researcher explains it with learned behavior.
Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.
Summarize Argument
The proponent concludes that there’s no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety. As support, he gives four claims:
(1) Irradiation prevents food from spoiling before reaching stores.
(2) It leaves behind no radiation.
(3) Vitamin loss from irradiation and from cooking are the same.
(4) It kills harmful Salmonella bacteria.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Per the question stem, we need to find the gap between claim (3) above and the conclusion that irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutritional or safety reasons.
The author assumes that since irradiation and cooking cause the same amount of vitamin loss, irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutritional reasons. But what if you cook irradiated food? Wouldn’t it have twice as much vitamin loss? Or if you don’t cook it, wouldn’t it still have more vitamin loss than non-irradiated raw food?
A
After irradiation, food might still spoil if kept in storage for a long time after being purchased by the consumer.
This is an issue with consumers’ storage practices, not with irradiation. Also, the author only claims that irradiation prevents food from spoiling before it reaches stores. He doesn’t say anything about it spoiling after it’s purchased. (A) also fails to address vitamin loss.
B
Irradiated food would still need cooking, or, if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of raw food.
The author assumes that since irradiation and cooking cause the same vitamin loss, irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutrition reasons. But if irradiated foods are cooked, they lose twice the vitamins. And if eaten raw, they’ve already lost more vitamins than other raw food.
C
Vitamin loss is a separate issue from safety.
This may be true, but the proponent’s conclusion addresses safety and nutrition. Vitamin loss is surely included in nutrition.
D
Vitamins can be ingested in pill form as well as in foods.
This may be true, but the argument just addresses vitamin loss due to irradiation. Even if one can still take vitamin supplements, it doesn’t impact the argument that irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutritional reasons because it causes the same vitamin loss as cooking.
E
That food does not spoil before it can be offered to the consumer is primarily a benefit to the seller, not to the consumer.
This may be true, but it doesn't address vitamin loss, nor does it impact the argument. The argument is just about whether or not there’s grounds to reject irradiation. It doesn’t matter who benefits from the food not spoiling.
Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to the proponent’s claim that there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety, the opponent states irradiation does not kill botulism bacteria but kills bacteria that warn consumers of botulism. Moreover, a safe chemical drip easily kills salmonella and the bacteria that causes botulism.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The opponent counters the position held by the proponent. He does this by suggesting an alternative method. A safe chemical drip would achieve the benefit of killing salmonella and does not fail to kill botulism bacteria.
A
isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument
There is no ambiguity in the proponent’s argument. The opponent does not discuss two or more interpretations of a term the proponent uses in their argument.
B
showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
The proponent’s argument does not result in a self-contradiction. The opponent addresses the proponent’s argument by presenting an additional consideration the proponent fails to account for.
C
establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies
The opponent does not discuss any undesirable consequences of the chemical drip method. He only addresses undesirable consequences resulting from the irradiation method.
D
shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers
The opponent does not address safety with response to producers. His claims are only in the perspective of safety with respect to consumers.
E
pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage
The advantage claimed by the proponent is the advantage of killing salmonella. The disadvantage is the irradiation method kills bacteria that warn of botulism without actually killing botulism. The alternative way the opponent proposes is the safe chemical drip method.