We know this is a strengthening question because of the question stem: Which one of the following, if true, most supports the argument above?
The first thing the stimulus does is give us a correlation; there is a certain strain of bacteria that is found in the stomachs of specifically ulcer patients. Further strengthening this correlation, a researcher with no ulcer history accidently ingested the bacteria and developed an ulcer. Talk about a workplace hazard! From these two correlations the author draws the conclusion that the bacteria strain causes the ulcers. A fair hypothesis to make, but we have to remember that correlation only implies causation, it does not guarantee it.
This stimulus has a very common structure for weakening/strengthening causal hypothesis questions. Correlation, more correlation, hypothesis of causation. Our job is to strengthen the hypothesis that it is the bacteria that are causing the ulcers. An answer choice may do that by eliminating an alternative hypothesis, providing an experiment whose results agree with the hypothesis, or one of many other ways. Let’s see what we end up with in the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) Always stay anchored in the conclusion. The conclusion we want to support is about the causal relation between the bacteria and ulcers. This answer gives us a correlation between the bacteria and kidney disease. Interesting maybe, but definitely not relevant to our argument. A is incorrect.
Answer Choice (B) Good for the researcher, but not meaningful for us. Similar to A, this answer brings in other health issues to distract us. If we clearly understood the conclusion we are supposed to support, we should quickly see that this information isn’t helpful. B is incorrect.
Answer Choice (C) If this were a weakening question this answer choice might have promise, though the absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of an absence. This is a strengthening question however, so this answer is terrible. C is incorrect.
Answer Choice (D) We’re all happy for the researcher (though if the recognized expert is ingesting dangerous bacteria, I don’t want to see what the non-experts are up to!), but his credentials don’t have any bearing on the author’s argument. D is incorrect.
Correct Answer Choice (E) E strengthens our argument by providing an experiment. It might have thrown you off that the experiment didn’t show people with bacteria having the ulcers, but we’ve already been told that correlation exists. What this answer does is give us an experiment strengthening the correlation by showing that where the ulcers aren’t present neither are the bacteria. From what we were told in the stimulus, maybe most people had this bacteria and only some developed ulcers. This study casts doubt on that possibility, and by strengthening the correlation, strengthens our causal hypothesis. E is correct.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning used by the gallery owner is flawed because it…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The argument begins by telling us because this certain painting does not appear in Van Gogh’s catalog, we cannot guarantee its authenticity. But our speaker continues to say that because there are such incredible similarities between this painting and Van Gogh’s (brush strokes, color combinations, etc.) it must be the case this is almost certainly an uncatalogued work made by Van Gogh himself.
The conditional reasoning in the stimulus can help reveal the issue with the gallery owner’s argument. Our first sentence says because it's not in the catalog (/C) → there is no guarantee of authenticity (/G). Let’s write out the contrapositive. By negating both variables and switching their positions, we learn that if there is a guarantee of authenticity it must be the case that the art appears in the artist’s catalog because G → C. Our author continues past this premise to incorrectly conclude this particular painting must be a work of the author’s without being able to meet the necessary condition presented in our first sentence.
While the diagrammable relationships are useful, they are not required in order to predict what is wrong with this stimulus. Just because the paintings are similar in style to Van Gogh’s does not mean they came from his catalog. It could very well be the case that a talented amateur wanted to imitate the work of their favorite artist. Knowing that our correct answer choice will point out the weakness in the connection between similar styles to authenticity, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate issue with our stimulus. Whether or not there is “general agreement” on a topic does not connect to our stimulus concerning a piece of art for which there is actually no apparent general agreement.
Answer Choice (B) Here is another answer choice that descriptively along with the answer choice but does not go far enough in reaching the actual problem in our stimulus. Accusing the argument of failing to cite “expert authority” does not weigh on our discussion about the likelihood a similarity leads us to some level of guarantee of authenticity.
Answer Choice (C) This is not accurate compared to the words of our argument. This answer choice says the only reason in existence for wanting a painting is to make a profit. But we do not have nearly the level of support required in order for us to say the argument makes a conclusion about the sole existing reason for wanting art in the first place.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for. This descriptively correct answer choice is the only one that correctly points out the more reasonable explanation - we’re looking at a painting that happens to be similar, but very well may not be painted by Van Gogh himself.
Answer Choice (E) Here we have another answer choice that is not descriptively accurate. Our argument does not attempt to push the conclusion on the basis of “self interest” of the reader. Without any connection to the self-interest or benefits included in making these catalog decisions we can eliminate this answer choice.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “Which of the following describes an error of reasoning in the merchants’ argument?” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
Our argument begins with a proposed law restricting outdoor advertising abilities in Penglai to small signs of a standard shape identifying a place of business. Next, we are introduced to the opposition. We learn some island merchants are protesting the proposed law because the overall amount of business being brought in would be reduced. The protestors’ base their reasoning on a government study where businesses with outdoor advertising tended to have a bigger market share than those who did not use outdoor advertising.
Ultimately, our speaker is concluding causation from correlation. Simply on the basis that business with outdoor advertising happened to have more business the speaker concludes the increased business is because of the use of outdoor advertising. Remember that our conclusion is something that has to be true on the basis of our premises. Just because these businesses have two qualities at the same time does not mean we can assume a causal relationship. It could be the case that a third outside factor impacts both business volume and outdoor advertising trends in the exact same way.
Knowing that our speaker incorrectly presumes causation from a correlation, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This is not descriptively accurate. Our argument does not claim there are simply no reasons to enact the law. Instead, our argument claims that there is a bad impact that would follow from the enactment of the law.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for. This descriptively accurate answer choice is the only option that points out the existence of a third factor explaining the results in the government’s study. Answer choice B explains that businesses were more successful using outdoor advertising not because it raises the level of overall business available, but simply because it allows businesses to poach customers from their competitors. This points out the strength of the argument’s conclusion. Our speaker did not conclude that businesses with outdoor advertising were generating more business - instead, they were stealing business from their competitors.
Answer Choice (C) This answer is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate issue in our stimulus. Whether or not the study is objective (100% factual without subjectivity) does not change the fact that our author incorrectly interpreted the meaning of the study.
Answer Choice (D) Here, we have another answer choice that is technically correct in description but does not identify the true issue with our argument. By telling us that the argument fails to establish that market share was exactly proportional to advertising, this answer choice does not attack the causal mistake seen in the argument.
Answer Choice (E) This brings us to our last descriptively correct answer choice that fails to describe the true issue of our stimulus. The consideration of this law being “constitutional” does not connect to any sort of the reasoning presented in the stimulus. Knowing our correct answer choice will highlight the flaw with the author’s interpretation of the study, we can eliminate this answer.
We know this is a strengthening question because of the question stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion regarding a signaling function?
The first sentence gives us two facts about zebras and their stripes; all zebras have stripes, and the most widespread subspecies of zebra has the best defined stripes. A sub-conclusion is drawn from these facts that the stripes must have some kind of importance for zebras. Whenever you see a sentence that takes the form of “Since X, Y.” you should expect that you are being given a final premise followed by a conclusion. That’s exactly what we get, and from the final premise that the zebra stripes aren’t good for camouflage, the author concludes they must act a some kind of signal for other zebras. This is the signaling function conclusion we were told about in the question stem.
An important detail to note is that it is a signal for specifically other zebras. A good way to filter out wrong answers will be whether the explanation they offer involves three elements; (1) stripes, (2) signaling, and (3) an effect on other zebras. Let’s look at the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) This answer gives us a correlation between defined stripes, and size and vigor. Always remember to anchor yourself in the conclusion on strengthening questions; we want to support a connection between stripes and a signaling function. This answer is irrelevant to that conclusion. A is incorrect
Answer Choice (B) If having stripes can make zebras harder to spot under certain conditions, that suggests that they do function as camouflage. This contradicts what we’ve been told in the stimulus, and by introducing an alternate hypothesis to our signaling function directly weakens what we want to support. B is incorrect.
Answer Choice (C) While this answer does pick up on the signaling function part of the conclusion, it has nothing to do with zebra’s and their stripes. We’ve been given no information that suggests zebra’s can temporarily change their color. C is incorrect.
Correct Answer Choice (D) Our conclusion is that the stripes must serve as some kind of signal for other zebras. This answer gives us an explanation of how the stripes could serve this function; Zebras react faster to shapes with stripes, so Zebras having stripes allows them to react to each other’s movement more quickly. This is the only answer with all three elements we mentioned. D is correct.
Answer Choice (E) Like C this answer might appeal in the moment because it mentions signaling, but it is important to stay anchored in our conclusion. We want support for the stripes acting as a signal, and therefore other potential signals Zebras might have are not helpful. E is incorrect.
Here we have a strengthening question, as the stem asks: Which one of the following, if true, would most support the naturalists’ prediction?
The stimulus begins with an opinion of some scientists; they believe mice must depend on human civilization for their continued existence. They support this conclusion with the claim that the relationship between mice and humans has diminished their ability to survive in nature. The author quickly makes their position clear and states that the scientists opinion ignores significant facts. While this is the author’s conclusion, it’s important to remember that our job is to specifically support the naturalists’ prediction.
To support his dismissal of the scientists opinion, the author cites several facts. First, Mice have managed to be the most widely distributed mammal after humans, despite threats from predators and humans. Second, they reproduce rapidly. Third, and more important to their survival than rapid reproduction, Mice can adapt to lots of different environments. To further bolster his case, the author quotes a prediction made by naturalists that mice would continue to survive even if the environment became too extreme to support humans.
This question is a good example of why it is important to read a question stem carefully. In this stimulus we are given three positions from three different groups: (1) the scientists’ argument that mice depend on humans, (2) the author’s argument that they don’t, and (3) the naturalists prediction that mice can survive extreme environments. The position we want to strengthen only takes up one sentence of this long stimulus! If we didn’t read the question stem carefully, we might misjudge answer choices based on how they affect the author or the scientists’ conclusion. Always read the question stem carefully.
The correct answer is the one which most strengthens the prediction that if the environment became too extreme for human life, then mice would be able to adapt and survive. Let’s take a look at the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) We want to strengthen the prediction that mice will survive even if the environment is too extreme for human life. This, if anything, weakens that prediction by introducing a limiting factor on mouse survival. A is incorrect.
Answer Choice (B) The stimulus has already told us that mice reproduce rapidly, so this answer doesn’t add anything new as support. Even, worse it only tells us something about mice under optimum conditions. The prediction we want to strengthen concerns what would happen to mice in an extreme environment. It is safe to assume that an extreme environment is not optimum conditions. B is incorrect.
Answer Choice (C) This answer relies on conflating the ability of mice to adapt and survive if the environment becomes too extreme for humans with the ability to survive an environment without humans. This answer might seem appealing if you failed to read the question stem carefully and believe our job is to strengthen the author’s position. However, this information is irrelevant to the naturalist’s extreme environment prediction because nothing we are told indicates that pre-colonial America was an extreme environment. C is incorrect.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This answer gives us a case where mice did exactly what the naturalists predict they can do; they encountered an environment too extreme for human life, and were able to survive. Think of it as an experiment testing their hypothesis. An experiment whose results correspond to a general prediction will always, all else being equal, strengthen that prediction. D is correct.
Answer Choice (E) This information supports the scientists point about the dependence of mice on human civilization, but that isn’t what we’ve been asked to strengthen. For our naturalists prediction it adds no support. E is incorrect.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The stimulus begins with a fact; the new proposed cut to arts funding will make things difficult for arts organizations. Despite this, the author concludes the funding cut will not put these groups entirely out of existence. The stimulus ends with the main reasoning for the author’s conclusion, that we know these groups will continue to exist simply because they survived a budget cut in the past.
Our conclusion definitely does not follow from our premises here. Just because the group survived a budget cut in the past, that has no bearing on whether the groups will survive after this next cut. If anything, the groups seem even less likely to survive if they face one budget cut after surviving another budget cut in the previous year alone.
Knowing that our speaker incorrectly presumes because the arts survived one past cut they must survive this newly proposed budget reduction, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Without seeing somewhere in the stimulus where the speaker claims that the economy is without a doubt going to improve, we can eliminate this answer choice from consideration.
Answer Choice (B) Answer choice B is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate issue with our argument. The justification of the existence of the arts group is not in question. Instead, our speaker focuses on whether or not they will be able to exist moving forward past this new proposed funding cut.
Answer Choice (C) This is not what we are looking for. Answer choice C goes beyond what our stimulus concludes by saying the speaker equated surviving with thriving. But nowhere does our speaker tell us the arts are thriving. For all we know, they exist at a 10th of the capacity as they did before the funding cuts. Our stimulus is concerned with the group existing at all - not whether that existence is a good one.
Answer Choice (D) The amount of our budget cuts is not the issue with our stimulus. Although this answer choice is descriptively accurate in that our speaker does not take this into account, our correct answer has to also hit on the exact reason why the speaker is flawed. The problem with our stimulus centers on a past/future assumption rather than the exact amount of those proposed cuts.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for. This descriptively correct answer choice points out the right issue in our stimulus by telling us that our speaker does not consider the already weakened position of the arts’ group. If the group survived one budget cut, they could very well be put entirely out of business by another round. The cumulative effect of those multiple budget cuts lines up well with our identification of the flaw in the stimulus.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Which one of the following most accurately characterizes Dr. Santos’ response to the hypothesis advanced by Dr. Libokov?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Our first speaker, Dr. Libokov, tells us about the “S” reptile (whose technical name is far too long to recall). The speaker explains that the S reptile has disappeared throughout the rest of the world with the exception of a few islands around New Zealand. Dr. L concludes the explanation for this is simple, on account of the development of mammal species on larger islands that feed on the S reptile’s eggs, leading to extinction.
This first argument doesn’t have any glaring issues. While Dr. L certainly assumes that mammals became enough of a threat to the S reptile that it considerably reduced their numbers, the reasoning behind the speaker’s conclusion lines up. This very well may be why our second speaker, Dr. Santos, provides support to affirm Dr. L’s position. Dr. Santos explains that in addition to what we heard from the first speaker, any islands where mammals have been introduced ultimately see an extinction of the S reptile.
In this way Dr. Santos does fill in the itty bitty gap in Dr. L’s argument. While we can conclude a major predator would have an impact, we don’t quite have the information to assume the mammals would lead to inevitable extinction. But Dr. Santos confirms that actually we can say there is a guarantee if we introduce mammals the S reptile will decline in population. Knowing our correct answer choice will highlight how our second speaker adds to the first, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) Identifying a flaw means Dr. Santos would be weakening the argument. Knowing our second speaker supports (perhaps more importantly, does not discredit) we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (B) If our second speaker were adding nothing to the discussion as claimed by this answer choice, we would expect to see an exact repetition of Dr. L’s argument. We can eliminate this answer choice because there is new information presented by Dr. Santos.
Answer Choice (C) Similarly to answer choice A, this answer accuses Dr. Santos of weakening rather than strengthening our first speaker’s argument. And if we did not like this in A, we should eliminate answer choice C as well.
Answer Choice (D) It almost feels like these wrong answers say the exact same thing in different ways. Again, this answer choice accuses our second speaker of weakening or taking away from the first speaker’s argument. Like A and C, we can eliminate D for this reason.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly highlights the additional positive information Dr. Santos contributes to the first speaker’s position.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “T responds to S by showing that…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Our first speaker, S, begins with their conclusion; S’s nation is becoming too averse for risk. We know this is the conclusion because our “why” follows - why is the nation too risk averse? Well, S tells us, that is because modern society will boycott foods despite the minimal risk of toxic chemical exposure. S assets that Columbus never would have sailed west with this attitude, circling back to our mail point - the nation is too risk averse.
In making this argument S is making an assumption about what it means to embrace risk. According to our first speaker, if you boycott these toxic foods you won’t think like Columbus and as a result become too risk averse. But simply because the public is not adventurous like Columbus (his questionable ethics aside) S cannot say the public is overall too averse to risk. Perhaps the risk taken by Columbus only his crew and the native people compared to contaminated foods which may be sold throughout the whole globe. But let us see what our second speaker has to say about this.
In response, T points out the assumption of our first speaker’s argument. It is not the case that being risk averse in one single way translates to being risk averse in all ways. As T points out, it could be that Columbus did sail the ocean blue in 1492 and also would have been on the boycott bandwagon of toxic foods.
Knowing we are looking for the answer choice that identifies the strict definition S is applying to risk averse we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer sounds good at first by telling us that a distinction about risk should be made. But, not the distinction we want. We don’t care whether the risks are avoidable or not - but whether people are just going to embrace them generally.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for. This is the only answer choice that identifies that what is defined as “risk” depends on the context of the situation.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice accuses our second speaker of making a conclusion about something confusing the minds of the public. Without referring to the confusion on the people specifically (rather than simply in the disagreement between our speakers) we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) The topic of math does arise in S’s argument, but it is not a concern in speaker T’s discussion. So, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) almost seems to be a contender with the mention of a definition. We know the definition of risk averse is at odds between the speakers. However, our speakers are not concerned in establishing the perceived probable “benefit” of taking risks.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “The method of the argument is to…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
The speaker begins by telling us Juanita has two options to get to the zoo; taking the number 12 bus or the subway. This indicates we’re using an exclusive “or.” We know Juanita cannot physically take the bus and the subway at the same time. Next we learn that Juanita does in fact end up at the zoo by the end of the day, but the number 12 bus is not in operation. Thus, the argument concludes that Juanita must have used the other available option – using the subway.
Thinking in terms of conditional reasoning, we could sketch the relationships by identifying:
Getting to the zoo → riding the bus or the subway
From here we can use the contrapositive to confirm the validity of our argument. When we use the contrapositive of an “or” statement, it turns into and.
If we don’t ride the bus and we don’t ride the subway → Juanita isn’t getting to the zoo.
Determining an argument to be valid means we can prove the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. That’s the reason we know we are dealing with a valid argument here. The conclusion affirms one option must have happened for Juanita to get to the zoo. So if one of the two options are closed, the conclusion does follow that Juanita must have used the alternative form of transportation.
Knowing the breakdown of our stimulus, we can jump into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. If our argument concerned a group having knowledge of some concept, the discussion would go beyond Juanita’s use of transportation.
Answer Choice (B) If the argument were proving that something is not exclusive, we would expect our conclusion to assert that “these two things can happen at the same time.” But this does not align with the content of our conclusion, meaning we can eliminate this answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that highlights how our argument comes to its conclusion by outlining the alternative given an impossible option.
Answer Choice (D) There is no reference in the text to say there is some sort of exception in the case of Juanita making their way to the zoo. We can eliminate this answer choice for that reason.
Answer Choice (E) To say that the argument discusses what “typically occurs” indicates our stimulus would discuss the frequency at which Juanita takes transportation or goes to the zoo. Without this information in our stimulus we can eliminate this answer choice.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Maria responds to Lucien’s argument by…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Lucien begins the discussion by summarizing the position of the public housing advocates; more low-income housing apartments are needed due to the large number of unhoused people in the city. Lucien concludes this argument is absurd. The first speaker tells us plenty of apartments are vacant in their apartment building, so homelessness must be the result of a lack of desire to work instead of a lack of housing.
Lucien is presenting quite a silly argument. Clearly, the number of vacancies in their and their college's apartments has no indication on the direness of homelessness across the entire city. It could be the case that there are thousands of unoccupied luxury apartment buildings that are unattainable for the unhoused even if they are employed.
Our second speaker points this out exactly. Maria explains that many homeless people actively hold regular jobs. In doing so, Maria undermines the evidence Lucien is using to prop up their argument. Once we have a prediction we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This is not descriptively accurate. Maria is not questioning Lucien’s personal experiences or suggesting there are not vacancies at Lucien’s apartment building. Because of this we can eliminate answer choice A.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for. An easy answer to accidentally eliminate, this is the only option that points out how Maria attacks a specific piece of evidence provided for Lucien’s position. Whether or not there is a more specific way we could describe the stimulus, that does not change the stimulus factually aligns with answer choice B.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice suggests Maria attacks the motives of the first speaker. We can eliminate this answer choice since Maria’s explanation rests on the number of homeless people maintaining jobs rather than the qualities of the first speaker.
Answer Choice (D) For this answer choice to be correct, Maria would need to present a conclusion different from Lucien’s. But all Maria presents us is evidence that weakens Lucien’s evidence. For this reason we can eliminate answer choice D.
Answer Choice (E) Rather than providing a different explanation for a set of facts, Maria provides new information to weaken Lucien’s argument. The introduction of new information is why we can eliminate this answer choice.