Summary
A study examined a group of children who were taught the word “stairs” while walking up and down stairs. The children were later shown a video of someone climbing a ladder. All the children referred to the ladder as stairs.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Children who learned to associate a word with an activity may erroneously associate the same word with a similar-looking activity.
A
When young children repeatedly hear a word without seeing the object denoted by the word, they sometimes apply the word to objects not denoted by the word.
This is unsupported because the children in the study saw the object denoted by the word as they were walking up and down stairs.
B
Young children best learn words when they are shown how the object denoted by the word is used.
This is unsupported because we don’t know if there isn’t a better way of teaching children words. The stimulus only discussed one method without comparing it to any other method.
C
The earlier in life a child encounters and uses an object, the easier it is for that child to learn how not to misuse the word denoting that object.
This is unsupported because we aren’t told if children who were younger at the time of the experiment were more or less likely to misapply the word to the ladder.
D
Young children who learn a word by observing how the object denoted by that word is used sometimes apply that word to a different object that is similarly used.
This is strongly supported because the children who learned the word “stairs” by observing walking up and down stairs applied that word to the ladder when a similar activity was being performed.
E
Young children best learn the names of objects when the objects are present at the time the children learn the words and when no other objects are simultaneously present.
This is unsupported because we don’t know if the method used in the study was best. The author never compared that method to any other method of teaching children words.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the medication M will probably be produced in capsule form. This is because medications with an unpleasant taste can come in three forms—soft-gel, tablet, and capsule—the first two of which aren’t feasible for manufacturing M.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that M has an unpleasant taste. The author also assumes that the company manufacturing M has the capacity to manufactured capsules, and that M can in fact be manufactured into capsule form.
A
Medication M can be produced in liquid form.
Even if M can be produced in liquid form, there’s a good reason why it isn’t: M has an unpleasant taste. Regardless, this does nothing to tell us M will be produced in capsule form.
B
Medication M has an unpleasant taste.
The author claims that medications with an unpleasant taste are produced in three forms, then assumes M must be produced in one of those three forms. That’s because M indeed has a bad taste, which suggests it will indeed be produced in one of those forms.
C
No medication is produced in both capsule and soft-gel form.
We already know M won’t be produced as a soft-gel because the company developing M can’t create soft-gels. This just tells us no medication at all is produced as both a capsule and soft-gel, which adds nothing to the author’s argument.
D
Most medications with a low melting point are produced in soft-gel form.
We already know M can’t be produced as a soft-gel because the company developing M can’t create soft-gels. This adds nothing.
E
Medications in capsule form taste less unpleasant than those in tablet or soft-gel form.
Does M have a bad taste? We don’t know. Besides, the reason M will be manufactured as a capsule has nothing to do with its taste in capsule form versus other forms.
Carol Morris wants to own a majority of the shares of the city’s largest newspaper, The Daily. The only obstacle to Morris’s amassing a majority of these shares is that Azedcorp, which currently owns a majority, has steadfastly refused to sell. Industry analysts nevertheless predict that Morris will soon be the majority owner of The Daily.
Summarize Argument
Industry analysts predict that Morris will soon be the majority owner of The Daily. No evidence is provided for this claim.
Notable Assumptions
Industry analysts assume that Azedcorp will soon sell its shares to Morris.
A
Azedcorp does not own shares of any newspaper other than The Daily.
We don’t care what other shares Azedcorp owns. We need to know why industry analysts are so sure Azedcorp will sell its shares in The Daily to Morris.
B
Morris has recently offered Azedcorp much more for its shares of The Daily than Azedcorp paid for them.
If anything, this suggests Azedcorp won’t sell its shares. Morris has offered what seems to be a pretty good price, and Azedcorp has refused.
C
No one other than Morris has expressed any interest in purchasing a majority of The Daily’s shares.
We don’t care who else is involved. We need to strengthen the claim that Azedcorp will soon change their “steadfast” position of not selling their shares.
D
Morris already owns more shares of The Daily than anyone except Azedcorp.
Even if Morris didn’t have a single share, she’d become the majority owner of The Daily if Azedcorp sold her its shares. We need to strengthen the claim that Azedcorp will in fact do so.
E
Azedcorp is financially so weak that bankruptcy will probably soon force the sale of its newspaper holdings.
Azedcorp will soon have to sell its shares in The Daily. Thus, Morris will be able to buy them and become The Daily’s majority owner as industry analysists predict.
Summarize Argument
The resident concludes that if all remaining lead paint is eliminated from homes in the area, child lead poisoning will be eradicated. This is based on the observation that childhood lead poisoning has declined since gasoline and paint stopped being made with lead. However, there is still lead paint in some homes.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The resident claims that the elimination of lead paint from homes will completely eradicate childhood lead poisoning in the area. This overlooks the possibility that other sources of lead could be present. Those sources could continue to contribute to lead poisoning, even if lead paint in houses is eliminated.
A
relies on statistical claims that are likely to be unreliable
There’s no reason to believe that the statistical claims used in the argument are unreliable.
B
relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true
There isn’t any assumption in the argument that assumes the conclusion is true.
C
fails to consider that there may be other significant sources of lead in the area’s environment
The resident overlooks the possibility that other major lead sources could still cause childhood lead poisoning in the area. However, if that were true, it would severely undermine the resident’s conclusion.
D
takes for granted that lead paint in homes can be eliminated economically
The argument doesn’t make any claims about whether lead paint in homes can be eliminated economically. The argument only makes claims about what would happen if it were eliminated.
E
takes for granted that children reside in all of the homes in the area that contain lead paint
The argument doesn’t take for granted that children reside in all of the homes with lead paint, only that there are at least some children residing in homes with lead paint.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
If exact caffeine content were listed on soft drink labels, some people would limit their caffeine intake.
If it became easier for people to limit their caffeine intake, some people’s health would improve.
If exact caffeine content were listed on soft drink labels, some people’s health would improve.
If it became easier for people to limit their caffeine intake, some people’s health would improve.
If exact caffeine content were listed on soft drink labels, some people’s health would improve.
A
The health of at least some people would improve if exact caffeine content were listed on soft-drink labels.
Must be true. As shown in the stimulus diagram, if caffeine content is listed, it’s easier to limit intake; if it it’s easier to limit intake, some people would; if people do, their health improves. So “list caffeine content” is a sufficient condition for “improve their health”!
B
Many people will be unable to limit their caffeine intake if exact caffeine content is not listed on soft-drink labels.
Could be false. Answer choice (B) has a negation issue: it takes a statement from the stimulus (list caffeine content → easier to limit) and negates the sufficient condition. We can’t draw conclusions from negated sufficient conditions—that’s like taking half the contrapositive!
C
Many people will find it difficult to eliminate their caffeine intake if they have to guess exactly how much caffeine is in their soft drinks.
Could be false. The stimulus doesn’t tell us anything about what happens if people have to guess how much caffeine is in their soft drinks; we only have information about what happens if the caffeine content is listed.
D
People who wish to eliminate, rather than simply limit, their caffeine intake would benefit if exact caffeine content were listed on soft-drink labels.
Could be false. The stimulus doesn’t tell us anything about people who wish to eliminate their caffeine intake; we only have information about some people who would limit their intake if soft drink labels listed exact content.
E
The health of at least some people would worsen if everyone knew exactly how much caffeine was in their soft drinks.
Could be false. While we know that some people’s health would improve if they could see soft drinks’ caffeine content on the label, we know nothing about people outside that group—maybe some people’s health would worsen, or maybe everyone else’ health would stay the same.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that explorers to Mars would not be unlikely to survive the trip to Mars. This is based on the fact that there would be a well-engineered backup system at every stage of the trip. In addition, at each stage of the trip, a fatal accident is unlikely if the backup system is in place.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the risk of a fatal accident for the trip overall is greater than 50%, even if the risk at each individual stage is less than 50%. In other words, the author overlooks the possibility that what is true about the part (having a less than 50% chance of accident) might not be true about the overall whole.
A
infers that something is true of a whole merely from the fact that it is true of each of the parts
The argument infers that something is true of a whole (the trip will involve less than 50% chance of death) merely from the fact that it is true of each of the parts (each stage involves less than 50% chance of death).
B
infers that something cannot occur merely from the fact that it is unlikely to occur
The conclusion is not that a fatal accident “cannot” occur. The conclusion is simply that it is unlikely to happen during a trip to Mars. Also, the premises do not establish that a fatal accident is unlikely to occur. That is the author’s flawed assumption based on the premises.
C
draws a conclusion about what must be the case based on evidence about what is probably the case
The conclusion is simply that a fatal accident is unlikely to happen. Also, the premises do not establish that a fatal accident probably won’t happen on the trip. That is the flawed assumption based on the premises about each stage.
D
infers that something will work merely because it could work
The author does not infer that anything “will” (as in, with 100% certainty) work. The conclusion is simply that a fatal accident is unlikely during the trip.
E
rejects a view merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it
The author does reject the view that people are unlikely to survive the trip, but not because of an inadequate argument in support of the view. The author’s premises involve the chance of death at each stage of the trip. This isn’t related to the weakness of an opposing argument.