Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The municipal legislator argues that there is no issue with the city accepting high-tech streetlights as a gift from a lighting company, even though some people believe the company is trying to influence future lighting contracts. The legislator reasons that the company's only underlying goal is to showcase its products to visiting mayors, and that the city's bidding process would prevent preferential treatment in contracts anyway.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that there would be no issue with the city accepting a lighting company’s gift of several high-tech streetlights: “there would be no problem in accepting these”.
A
Some people’s fear that the company wants to influence the city’s decision regarding park lighting contracts is unfounded.
While the legislator acknowledges that some people have this fear, he does not claim it is unfounded. Instead, he provides evidence for why the city should still accept the streetlights, despite that fear.
B
The mayor’s proposal to accept the gift of streetlights should not be considered problematic.
This rephrases our conclusion that there is no problem with the city accepting the gifted streetlights.
C
It is not appropriate that any company should have the unique opportunity to display its products to mayors attending the upcoming convention.
The legislator does not make this claim. While he acknowledges that the lighting company desires this opportunity, he does not say the opportunity is inappropriate.
D
The city’s competitive-bidding procedure prevents favoritism in the dispensing of city contracts.
This is support for the conclusion. It is evidence for why there is no problem with the city accepting the gifted streetlights; any potential favoritism would be prevented by the city’s competitive-bidding process.
E
The lighting company’s desire to display its products to visiting mayors is the real motivation behind the suggested gift of streetlights.
This part of the stimulus is support for the conclusion. The legislator believes this opportunity is the only ulterior motive for the gift, supporting the conclusion that accepting the gift would be unproblematic.
Summary
The chairperson shouldn’t have released the report because she didn’t consult the other members about releasing it.
Missing Connection
The argument bases a prescriptive conclusion (”the chairperson shouldn’t have done this one thing”) on a purely descriptive premise (”the chairperson didn’t do this other thing”). The premise could lead to the conclusion if we supplied the value-judgment assumption that if the chairperson failed to consult the other members, she was wrong to release the report.
A
It would have been permissible for the chairperson to release the commission’s report to the public only if most other members of the commission had first given their consent.
Contrapositive: if she didn’t have consent from most other members, it wasn’t permissible to release the report. Since she didn’t consult the others to begin with, she can’t possibly have gotten consent from most (or any!) of them. Thus she shouldn’t have released the report.
B
All of the members of the commission had signed the report prior to its release.
Irrelevant. This is a purely descriptive assumption. Since the argument’s premise is likewise descriptive, there’s no way this assumption can lead to the argument’s prescriptive conclusion. The right answer must involve a value judgment that tells us when something’s wrong to do.
C
The chairperson would not have been justified in releasing the commission’s report if any members of the commission had serious reservations about the report’s content.
The sufficient condition here isn’t triggered by the argument’s premise; we don’t know whether any members actually did have serious reservations. All we know is that they weren’t consulted.
D
The chairperson would have been justified in releasing the report only if each of the commission’s members would have agreed to its being released had they been consulted.
Contrapositive: if not all members would have agreed when consulted, the chairperson wasn’t justified. The sufficient condition here isn’t triggered by the argument’s premise; we don’t know what the other members would have done. All we know is that they weren’t consulted.
E
Some members of the commission would have preferred that the report not be released to the public.
Irrelevant. This is a purely descriptive assumption. Since the argument’s premise is likewise descriptive, there’s no way this assumption can lead to the argument’s prescriptive conclusion. The right answer must involve a value judgment that tells us when something’s wrong to do.
Summarize Argument
The reformer concludes that imprisoning more people doesn't reduce crime. As support, she cites a survey showing that while prison spending and the percentage of people in prison have increased dramatically over the past 20 years, crime rates have not significantly decreased.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The reformer argues that imprisoning more people doesn’t reduce crime because the crime rate has stayed the same despite more people being imprisoned. She assumes that the crime rate would be the same or lower without those imprisonments, ignoring the possibility that the crime rate might actually have been higher if fewer people were put in prison. If that were the case, it’s not accurate to conclude that putting more people in prison doesn’t reduce crime.
A
infers without justification that because the national crime rate has increased, the number of crimes reported by each police department has increased
The reform points out that the national crime rate has increased based on a survey of police departments. But she never assumes that the number of crimes reported by each individual police department has also increased.
B
ignores the possibility that the crime rate would have significantly increased if it had not been for the greater rate of imprisonment
The reformer ignores the possibility that the crime rate might have been even higher if fewer people were imprisoned. In other words, maybe imprisoning more people actually helped keep the crime rate stable.
C
overlooks the possibility that the population has increased significantly over the past 20 years
It doesn't matter whether the population increased significantly because the reformer’s argument addresses the rate of crimes and the percentage of the population in prison. The number of people that makes up the population is irrelevant.
D
presumes, without providing warrant, that alternative measures for reducing crime would be more effective than imprisonment
The reformer’s argument only addresses the effectiveness of imprisonment on reducing crime. She doesn’t suggest any alternative measure for reducing crime, nor does she assume that other measures would be more effective. She just concludes that imprisonment is not effective.
E
takes for granted that the number of prisoners must be proportional to the number of crimes committed
The reformer never assumes that the number of prisoners and the number of crimes must be proportional. In fact, she doesn’t cite the actual number of prisoners or crimes at all.
Winona: It is absurd to try to justify funding for space exploration merely by pointing out that such programs will lead to technological advances. If technology with practical applications is all that is desired, then it should be funded directly.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Winona concludes that it's "absurd" for Inez to justify funding space-exploration programs by claiming they will lead to technological advances with practical applications. Winona supports this by saying that if practical technology is the goal, it should be funded directly.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Winona counters Inez’s argument by pointing out that the goal of practical technology can be pursued without funding space-exploration programs.
A
showing that there is no evidence that the outcome Inez anticipates will in fact be realized
Winona doesn’t argue that funding space-exploration programs won’t lead to technological advances with practical applications. She just argues that these technological advances should be pursued and funded directly instead.
B
suggesting that Inez has overlooked evidence that directly argues against the programs Inez supports
Winona doesn’t present any evidence against space-exploration programs. She just argues that funding these programs isn’t necessary to pursuing advances in practical technology.
C
demonstrating that the pieces of evidence that Inez cites contradict each other
Winona doesn’t reject any of Inez’s evidence. Instead, she rejects the idea that funding space-exploration programs is justified because it will lead to practical technology.
D
providing evidence that the beneficial effects that Inez desires can be achieved only at great expense
Winona argues that the beneficial effects that Inez desires— advances in practical technology— can be achieved through direct funding, not that they can be achieved “only at great expense.”
E
claiming that a goal that Inez mentions could be pursued without the programs Inez endorses
Winona claims that advances in practical technology could be pursued directly, without the space-exploration programs Inez endorses.