Summarize Argument
Legal responsibility is different than moral responsibility. Why? Moral responsibility depends only on intentions, not outcomes. However, legal responsibility depends on factors other than intentions in some cases. For example, legal drunk driving penalties are stronger when there are worse outcomes.
Identify Argument Part
This is a premise. It is an example that shows that legal responsibility can be outcome dependent, which shows legal responsibility can depend on factors other than intentions, which proves legal responsibility is different from moral responsibility.
A
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that legal responsibility for an action is based solely upon features of the action that are generally unintended by the agent.
This answer choice is too strong. It shows that legal responsibility can be based on unintended features, but not “solely.”
B
It is offered as an illustration of the claim that the criteria of legal responsibility for an action include but are not the same as those for moral responsibility.
This illustrates an aspect of legal responsibility that is different from moral responsibility.
C
It is offered as an illustration of the claim that people may be held morally responsible for an action for which they are not legally responsible.
This claim only shows legal responsibility for drunk driving. We don’t know about moral responsibility.
D
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that legal responsibility depends in at least some cases on factors other than the agent’s intentions.
This shows that outcomes play a role in some legal cases, which is a factor other than the agent’s responsibility.
E
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that moral responsibility depends solely on the intentions underlying the action and not on the action’s result.
That particular claim receives no support. This part of the stimulus supports a claim about legal responsibility.
Note: This question is a veiled PSA question. How can we know this? Consider the question stem. It says that the argument's reasoning conforms to some principle. Stated another way, it means that some principle hiding in the answers is sustaining the reasoning. What would happen if you brought this principle (hiding in the answer) out into the light, explicitly? You would effectively be supplying a premise that sustains the argument's reasoning, making for a very strong argument. How strong? It turns out that in this case, so strong that it almost makes for a valid argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Jennifer’s presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles (Jennifer’s team) will win. This is based on computer analysis showing that in every game that the team has lost, Jennifer was not playing.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Although the premises establish that in all prior games, whenever Jennifer was in, the team didn’t lose (this is the contrapositive of “Team lost only when J wasn’t playing”), that doesn’t imply that this relationship must continue to be true for future games. In other words, what’s true about the past doesn’t have to be true about the future.
There’s also an assumption that in the games that the team didn’t lose, the team actually won (as opposed to having the game end in a tie).
A
infers from the fact that a certain factor is sufficient for a result that the absence of that factor is necessary for the opposite result
(A) doesn’t describe a flaw; it describes the contrapositive inference. Also, the premise didn’t establish that J’s presence “is” sufficient for not losing. It established that in PAST games, her presence WAS sufficient for the team to not lose. This doesn’t apply to the future.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that a player’s contribution to a team’s win or loss can be reliably quantified and analyzed by computer
The author doesn’t assume anything about levels of contribution to the teams’ wins and losses. He simply relies on the fact that in past games, whenever Jennifer was in, the team didn’t lose. This isn’t an attempt to say that Jennifer was 50% responsible, or 80% responsible, etc.
C
draws conclusions about applications of computer analyses to sports from the evidence of a single case
The author’s conclusion concerns whether Jennifer’s presence in a game will ensure that the team wins. The conclusion doesn’t assert anything about computer analyses in sports generally.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that occurrences that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide
The author assumes that the association between Jennifer’s presence and winning, which is something that has been true about the team’s past games, will continue to be true in the future.
E
draws a conclusion about the value of computer analyses from a case in which computer analysis provided no facts beyond what was already known
There’s nothing flawed about believing analysis is valuable even if it provides facts already known. Maybe it helped make those facts easier to interpret, or sped up calculation. Also, the premises say the analysis “revealed” something, which means something not previously known.
Summary
The stimulus states that egg cartons are among the easiest food containers to make from recycled Styrofoam because the eggshells prevent the food (the eggs) from directly contacting the Styrofoam. Therefore, used Styrofoam doesn't need to be as thoroughly cleaned for making egg cartons as it is for making other food containers.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Eggs in a carton make contact with the Styrofoam, but it does not matter because they are in a shell.
A
No food containers other than egg cartons can safely be made of recycled Styrofoam that has not been thoroughly cleaned.
This is too strong to support. There is no information as to whether there is or is not another type of food that does not need its Styrofoam packaging to be thoroughly cleaned.
B
There are some foods that cannot be packaged in recycled Styrofoam no matter how the Styrofoam is recycled.
The stimulus does not mention a food that absolutely cannot be packaged in Styrofoam. You have to make several assumptions for this to work.
C
The main reason Styrofoam must be thoroughly cleaned when recycled is to remove any residual food that has come into contact with the Styrofoam.
This is too strong to support. Perhaps removing residual foods is *a* reason, but there is no indication that it is the *main* reason.
D
Because they are among the easiest food containers to make from recycled Styrofoam, most egg cartons are made from recycled Styrofoam.
There is no mention of what most egg cartons are made from. The stimulus says that egg cartons are among the easiest to make from recycled Styrofoam.
E
Not every type of food container made of recycled Styrofoam is effectively prevented from coming into contact with the food it contains.
This is definitely hard to parse through, but it is supported. The stimulus acknowledges that egg cartons (a type of food container) come into contact with the eggs (food it contains).
Summary
Some bacteria that produce hydrogen sulfide as a waste product would die if exposed to oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide produced removes oxygen from the bacteria’s surroundings by reacting with it. Hydrogen sulfide also kills other organisms which the bacteria use as a food source. Therefore, a dense colony of these bacteria can thrive indefinitely.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A dense colony of bacteria that produce hydrogen sulfide will indefinitely kill enough surrounding organisms for food and prevent oxygen from coming into contact with the bacteria.
A
A dense colony of the bacteria can indefinitely continue to produce enough hydrogen sulfide to kill other organisms in the area and to prevent oxygen from harming the bacteria.
This answer is strongly supported. If the colony is to survive forever, it must be that they will produce enough food for themselves in the form of other organisms and prevent oxygen from coming into direct contact with the colony.
B
The hydrogen sulfide produced by the bacteria kills other organisms in the area by reacting with and removing oxygen.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus how the other organisms in the bacteria’s environment are killed from the hydrogen sulfide. There could be another way than reacting with oxygen in the environment.
C
Most organisms, if killed by the hydrogen sulfide produced by the bacteria, can provide a source of food for the bacteria.
This answer is unsupported. Saying “most” organisms is too strong in this answer. We only know that there must be some organisms that the hydrogen sulfide kills in order to produce a food source.
D
The bacteria can continue to thrive indefinitely only in an environment in which the hydrogen sulfide they produce has removed all oxygen and killed other organisms in the area.
This answer is unsupported. In the stimulus, removing oxygen and killing organisms in the area are sufficient conditions for the continued existence of a colony of bacteria. We don’t know if these conditions are necessary.
E
If any colony of bacteria produces hydrogen sulfide as a waste product, it thereby ensures that it is both provided with a source of food and protected from harm by oxygen.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to “certain” bacteria that produce hydrogen sulfide as a waste product. We don’t know if these facts are true of any colony of bacteria.