We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “The argument in the passage proceeds 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.
The speaker begins by telling us about a fossil discovery. We learn these fossils cast doubt on the theory that dinosaurs are more closely related to reptiles than non-reptile animals. We can identify our first sentence as the conclusion because of the support that follows. After making this claim about the doubt created, the author follows with a series of examples describing how dinosaurs are different from present day reptiles and similar to present day non-reptiles.
Knowing our stimulus lists off the reasons for the author’s main conclusion, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) We can eliminate this answer choice due to the language “erroneous information.” Our speaker bases their conclusion on reasons for their position rather than accusing the opposition of having bad information.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is incorrect due to the suggested ordering of events in our stimulus. This answer accuses the argument of establishing a general principle followed by a conclusion. Knowing our stimulus begins with a conclusion and follows with explanation, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) For this answer to be correct, our argument needs to make a conclusion about the premises. We can eliminate this option because our conclusion surrounds the relationships of dinosaurs (definitely not a modern-day subject) to other animals.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice goes beyond what our argument concludes. While this answer choice asserts the speaker draws a conclusion about all things with some quality belonging in a category. But our conclusion is specific to what we know about dinosaurs. We can eliminate this answer because it goes far beyond the content we can confirm from the stimulus.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for. This is the only answer choice that accurately describes how the author concludes how a past phenomena (dinosaurs) is related to one one rather than the other possible group.
This is a necessary assumption question; we know this because the question stem says: “… following assumption on which the consumer activist’s argument depends?”
Necessary assumption questions fall under the umbrella of the strengthening subset of questions. The analysis of the stimulus is the same. However, our approach changes with our answer choices. Where we were trying to find an answer choice that justified our argument in strengthen, pseudo-sufficient/sufficient assumption questions, the purpose of a necessary assumption correct answer choice is very different. We’re trying to find what is necessary for our argument. In other words, in order for our conclusion to be true/for our argument to work, the correct answer choice must be true.
On the old LSAT, the test would give us one stimulus for 2 questions. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case – the LSAT will definitely give us 25-26 different stimuli for us to get this. Question 17 was a NA question that required us to read both blurbs. For this question, we can ignore the “industry representative” blurb.
The activist’s claim is a single sentence. There is a lot of information packed in here, so let’s break this up by commas starting by reading up until the third comma. We know that airlines were allowed to (and did) abandon all of the routes except their most profitable routes. By whom were they allowed to do this? We don’t know yet.
If we read on, we’re told that the “government’s decision to cease regulation…” What decision are they referring to? Well, it must be their decision to let airlines choose their routes. We’re told that this decision has worked to disadvantage everyone who can’t get to major airports, presumably because this is where all of the “profitable” routes go through.
The first half of the sentence provides support for the second half. The premise is that because the government allowed airlines to abandon whatever routes, the government’s decision hurt certain people. This seems fine at a surface level, but there is a very subtle gap here. There is a correlative-causal element. The argument correlates the timing of the government’s decision to the timing of airlines abandoning routes, and then assigning blame to the governments for the airlines’ actions in the conclusion. Because of the government’s decision, people are disadvantaged. Remember, in the core curriculum correlation does not imply causation (lesson linked here). The airlines could have just decided to do whatever they wanted, regardless of what the government said.
There could be many necessary assumptions for this argument. In order for the causal conclusion to be true, one necessary assumption is affirming that the causal connection exists.
Answer Choice (A) While the argument does talk about advantages in the conclusion, whether or not there was an advantage of easy access before the decision is not necessary for the conclusion or the argument. A change in the ease of access to large metropolitan airports is not necessary for the argument either. This is out.
Answer Choice (B) A change should be reversed? Our conclusion does not hinge on a prescriptive statement. This is not necessary for our conclusion to be true.
Answer Choice (C) Must this answer choice be true in order for our conclusion to be true? No! “Almost always” could be changed to “rarely” and our argument would still stand. This isn’t necessary.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This addresses the correlation-causal element we discussed above and affirmed a partial causal relationship. If we negate this relationship (instead of “at least in part” we get “no part”) this would destroy the argument.
Answer Choice (E) This is not necessary for the conclusion to be true. Regional airlines could have excellent customer service without the reach/routes of major airlines.
This is a sufficient assumption question because of the question stem: “…conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that…” Note that there are two speakers in this stimulus – our job is to address the missing SA in the environmentalist’s argument, but since the environmentalist is responding to the oil rep, we must read both blurbs.
Sufficient assumption questions tend to be very formal. We’re looking for a rule that would 100% validate the conclusion, specifically by bridging the premise and conclusion through the rule. Not only are we extrapolating the rule from our argument, but we’re also using that rule to render the argument “valid.” The way to prephrase our answer choice is by tying our premises and conclusion together into a rule: “If [premise] → then [conclusion].”
The oil company rep’s argument is pretty straightforward: we spent more money cleaning otters hurt by the spill than any other rescue project we’ve been involved in, and this shows their concern. While it’s straightforward, it’s not a solid argument. There are many reasons they could have spent the money… maybe it was a PR move and they have no real concern for the otters.
We’re given the environmentalist’s (E) thoughts on this immediately: they do not believe the rep from the oil company. Why? E says that the rep’s real concern is clear in their admission that photography of the oil-covered otters would damage the oil company’s public image and sales.
E’s argument could definitely weaken and call into question the true motive of the oil company’s motive in trying to help the otters – as we said above, it would be a PR move. However, to claim that the oil company has no concern for the environment is wrong given the information we currently have. Can’t the oil company care about its public image and the environment? E is assuming that if the company has other reasons to help the otters beyond saving the environment, the concern is not real. What we need to bridge the gap and render E’s conclusion valid is to say: if you have any motive beyond saving the environment, your concern is not real.
Correct Answer Choice (A) While it’s not a perfect match to our prephrase, it does get at the “you can’t have both/you can only have one reason” language. This answer choice works because we already know they admitted to cleaning the otters because photography of them covered in oil would have damaged the company’s image and sales. If that’s a reason and we plug A into E’s premises, then the oil company rep’s claim is thrown out the window.
Answer Choice (B) This is not correct – it doesn’t matter that they were saved by the rescue project, nor do we care about the results. We care about the motive for the project.
Answer Choice (C) This is not correct and doesn’t do anything to help the conclusion. This is just adding more information about how important sales are to the company, but they could just as equally have concern for the environment.
Answer Choice (D) This information is irrelevant to the premise and conclusion. Just because the government would have helped, doesn’t mean that the oil company’s concerns aren’t actually for the environment.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is saying that the rescue project was more successful than any other of their projects – but that has nothing to do with their motives. This is wrong.
This is a necessary assumption question and the stem asks: the argument is based on which one of the following assumptions?
The first sentence asks as a concession to the opposing side: as subsidies go down, it’s obviously very hard to maintain the quality of service. In the next sentence, we see an important “pivoting” word: however. This sentence is saying that even though we have less money, the amount of passengers riding has gone up. The next sentence is the conclusion and the “this fact” at the beginning of the sentence refers to the sentence right before it about the number of riders increasing. The conclusion is that their quality of service has been satisfactory. So, even though they have less money, riders are still riding. From this much, doesn’t our conclusion seem like a bit of a stretch? For example, let’s pretend that the NYC subway system is getting less and less money every year. Do you think New Yorkers will ride the train because the quality of service is fine or because they may not have any other choice? The former could be true, but the latter is more likely to be true. Now, we’re not trying to weaken the argument, but this level of analysis is still very important.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is pointing out the wishes of taxpayers. The argument does not depend on what taxpayers wish. If we negate this, it doesn’t do anything to the argument.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is conditional language - do you see the “some” and the “if”? This is a “some” conditional, so we can flip the NC and SC as we please, but let’s flip these two. If some people are dissatisfied with the service, they will not ride the train. Remember what our argument is: people are riding the subway regardless of the reduction in subsidy, therefore they must be satisfied. Does our argument depend on this? Absolutely. Let’s negate it to check: if some people were dissatisfied with the service, they would still take the train. That destroys our argument.
Answer Choice (C) This is an attractive answer choice, but is improvement necessary to the argument? No! The riders could be totally okay with the way the train is now, and that’s why they’re satisfied with the service.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is incorrect for similar reasons to the answer choice above. Is a decrease in quality of service necessary for satisfaction with the service? No! What if they’re still satisfied even if the quality of service went down just a little bit? That would not affect the argument at all.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is noting that even though the subsidy itself was decreased, the revenue will offset the reduction. Is this necessary for our argument that the passengers are satisfied? No! Would this be nice to have, sure; however, even if this didn’t happen, our argument would be intact.