Summary
In a party game, Person A steps out of the room, believing that Person B is sharing a recent dream with the rest of the group. Person A comes back and tries to reconstruct the dream by asking yes-or-no questions. But in reality, no dream was shared. The group just answers based on an arbitrary rule. Surprisingly, Person A usually makes up a dream story that is both coherent and clever, even though the “real” dream was never explained.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
People tend to try to make sense out of information, even when there is no sense behind it.
The belief that something is coherent and meaningful can cause someone to infuse that thing with coherence and meaning.
The belief that something is coherent and meaningful can cause someone to infuse that thing with coherence and meaning.
A
The presumption that something has order and coherence can lead one to imbue it with order and coherence.
This is strongly supported. Person A presumes that the dream has order and coherence, even though there is not really any dream at all. Nevertheless, because Person A presumes this, she then imbues her own construct of the dream with order and coherence.
B
One is less apt to reach a false understanding of what someone says than to make no sense out of it at all.
This is unsupported. The stimulus is not drawing a comparison between these two scenarios. Also, Person A does attempt to make sense out of the arbitrary answers that are given to her.
C
Dreams are often just collections of images and ideas without coherent structures.
This is unsupported. The stimulus tells us nothing about the structure of dreams. In fact, there is no dream related in the stimulus at all.
D
Interpreting another person’s dream requires that one understand the dream as a coherent narrative.
This is unsupported. Person A is not interpreting Person B’s dream; she is simply trying to reconstruct it. Also, again, there is not actually any dream related by Person B at all.
E
People often invent clever and coherent stories to explain their behavior to other people.
This is unsupported. Person A may be inventing a coherent story, but she is not trying to explain her behavior to other people. Rather, she is trying to reconstruct Person B’s supposed dream.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that pollution is not eliminating many amphibian species every year. This is based on the fact that last year, biologists have learned that there are many more species of amphibians in existence than had previously been known.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The fact that we have discovered additional amphibian species doesn’t relate to whether pollution is killing amphibian species. Discovery of amphibian species doesn’t mean that there’s been an actual increase in the species that exist. So pollution can be killing amphibian species even as we are discover new species that we didn’t know about.
A
kinds of things and the things that are of those kinds
“Kinds of things” refers to different kinds of amphibians. “Things that are of those kinds” refers to examples of the kinds of amphibians. The author doesn’t confuse these two. The confusion relates to learning about new species vs. an actual increase in the number of species.
B
a condition necessary for a phenomenon and one that is sufficient for it
The author’s argument doesn’t rely on conditional reasoning, so there’s no confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions.
C
a cause and an effect
The author doesn’t conclude that one thing causes another, so the flaw doesn’t concern a reversal of cause and effect.
D
a correlation between two phenomena and a causal relationship between them
The author doesn’t conclude that one thing causes another, so the flaw doesn’t concern going from correlation to cause.
E
changes in our knowledge of objects and changes in the objects themselves
The author confuses changes in our knowledge of the number of amphibian species with changes in the number of amphibian species. The author mistakenly thinks our discovery of new species indicates that pollution isn’t killing species.
Morgenstern: The only risk in quitting is that of not finding another job. If you don’t find one, you’re going to be pretty unhappy. But you’re already unhappy, so you might as well just quit.
Summarize Argument
Brooks states that she’s unhappy in her job, but doesn’t know whether she can accept the risks of quitting.
Morgenstern concludes that Brooks should just quit. This is based on the fact that even if Brooks can’t find another job after quitting — which is the only risk of quitting — Brooks is going to be unhappy. But Brooks is already unhappy; so Brooks will be unhappy whether she quits or not.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Morgenstern overlooks the possibility that the unhappiness from quitting and being unable to find another job might be much more serious and debilitating than the unhappines Brooks currently feels from staying at the job. Morgenstern also overlooks the possibility that there are other negative effects from quitting that might outweigh whatever gains in happiness Brooks might obtain (such as inability to pay rent, starving, becoming homeless, etc.).
A
fails to take into account that unhappiness can vary in intensity or significance
Morgenstern overlooks the possibility that Brooks’ unhappiness from failing to find a job after quitting might be more intense or significant than her unhappiness from staying in the job. This variation in impact of unhappiness shows why Morg.’s conclusion doesn’t follow.
B
relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true
(B) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion that Brooks should just quit isn’t based on the assumption that Brooks should just quit. It’s based on the assumption that her unhappiness wouldn’t be worse from quitting.
C
mischaracterizes what Brooks says
Morgenstern doesn’t mischaracterize anything Brooks says. Morg. acknowledges that Brooks is unhappy at the job and that there are risks involved in quitting. Morgenstern makes assumptions about those risks and the level of unhappiness, but that isn’t twisting Brooks’ statements.
D
conflates two different types of risk
Morgenstern’s premise indicates that “the only” risk in quitting is that of not finding another job. This kind of risk isn’t confused for another kind of risk. There’s only one sense of “risk” — the chance that a particular bad outcome will happen.
E
reaches a generalization on the basis of a single case
The claim that Brooks “might as well just quit” isn’t a generalization. It’s a claim that applies to Brooks alone and is directed toward what Brooks should do; this isn’t general.