Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “the conclusion that the first sentence in the passage is flawed because…” 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 question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
This flaw question requires us to have a strong understanding of the argument’s structure. The stimulus begins by telling us the role of the supreme court in this particular country is to protect human rights. Makes sense enough. Things get complicated when our author tells us that the court sometimes needs to go outside of the country’s constitution to figure out how to make decisions on rulings. This is a problem because, as the speaker explains, needing to go outside the constitution inherently makes the court likely not to uphold human rights (by putting themselves at the whim of whoever holds power.) We see the conclusion arise within a linking clause at the end of the text where we are told “it cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.”
So, according to our first sentence the court’s role is to protect against human rights abuses. But our author is concluding that contrary to the premise (hey, aren’t we supposed to accept those?) the role of the supreme court is not to protect human rights. Our speaker is telling us the first premise is wrong because premise #3 (needing to adhere to one specific source) exists. Remember the role of our conclusion here. The conclusion is a statement that absolutely must follow based on the truth of the premises. But the truth of premise #1 directly contradicts with our conclusion!
Knowing that our speaker makes a conclusion by rejecting the truth of one of the premises, we can get into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. The argument is accused of ignoring data, but we do not see information aside from overall general trends and requirements here. On top of that this answer choice states that the argument uses a “single example” which we can reject for the same reason. Our stimulus focuses on the requirements of a goal rather than a specific instance of that thing happening.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. When it says “seeks to defend a view on the grounds…” The answer choice is assuming the stimulus of using the following information directly in the argument. But nowhere in the stimulus do we see a reference to a view being “widely held” in order for the conclusion to be accepted.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. When saying the argument “rejects a claim as false on the grounds…” the “grounds” have to line up with the evidence we saw in the stimulus. But the topic of profit appeared nowhere in the discussion of the role of the court.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. But we can categorize this common logical flaw by its name; part-to-whole. For this answer choice to be correct, we would need to see a reference to some individual trait of each member of the court and connection to the traits of the whole. This definitely does not line up with our stimulus.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively accurate flaw answer choice is difficult to unwind. By suggesting it is “equally possible for that premise to be true and some other premise false,” we see the alternative hypothesis. Just as we can conclude premise #3 right and premise #1 wrong, we can reverse our reasoning the same way. This is the only answer choice that points out that our argument ignores the fact that premises are accepted as equally true statements in the absence of any conclusion indicating language.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “T responds to S’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.
This question presents us with two speakers. Right away, we should recognize that there are two conclusions and two reasons behind them. In this question we are presented with two speakers who take varying positions on the use of voting as a comparison to enlisting in the military. First, speaker S presents a belief that people who are old enough to fight in wars are old enough to vote. On the basis that their government enlists 17 year olds to fight, speaker S ultimately concludes the group should be allowed to vote. This argument is immediately questionable. What does knowing how to fight in a war have to do with having the skills to vote? Speaker S assumes that the skills applicable to war transfer to the skills necessary to vote.
Our second speaker begins by pointing out the assumption in speaker S’s argument. Speaker T tells us that so long as we go along with the assumption - voting and war require the same skills - the first speaker would make complete sense. But T points out that assumption is not reality presenting the different skills required between the two activities - physical strength for combat, and reasoning power required to vote.
Knowing we are looking for the answer choice pointing out the assumption T exemplifies, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice does not line up with what we see in the stimulus. To start off, this answer says T points out evidence that is good for S’s conclusion. But we know that T is actually pointing out something bad by explaining how S’s assumption about the transfer of skills from war to voting does not make sense.
Answer Choice (B) We can get rid of this answer choice based on understanding of rights. T is not questioning the opponent’s competence. For this answer choice to be correct, we would need to see some sort of direct reference to S’s knowledge rather than information that questions the validity of the overall assumption.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice do4es not line up with what we predicted from the stimulus. Aside from the fact that the issue of obligation does not appear in our original stimulus, speaker T does not base their argument on something that S has ignored.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for! This answer choice correctly summarizes the structure of our entire argument by explaining how the second speaker calls into question the assumptions of speaker S.
Answer Choice (E) We can eliminate this answer choice once we get to the word opposite. In saying our argument argues for a conclusion opposite to the one drawn, we would need to see speaker T conclude that 17 year olds should not have the right to vote. Speaker T does not go quite that far. Instead of saying a 17 year old should not have the right to vote, our second speaker merely states that speaker S’s reasoning does not make sense.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The personnel director’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that 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 question's objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The argument begins by presenting us with Ms. Tours’s predicament. We are told she requested a salary increase and that her grounds for that increase appear justified given her excellent job performance over others in the office who did receive raises. We finally get to what looks like our conclusion that nevertheless, her request should be denied on the basis of something completely outside the topic of work performance - but instead because giving in to a complaint would threaten the integrity of the merit-based reward system.
That seems quite silly, doesn’t it? The stimulus begins by saying all these things that lead us to the conclusion that Ms. Tours should get the raise. I mean, everyone in her corner of the office received a raise and we’re told Ms. Tours does a way better job than those guys. The truth of our premises are supposed to guarantee the truth of our conclusion. But we cannot guarantee a claim’s denial on the basis of integrity. And why not? Well, because then we would be denying Ms. Tours a raise she is entitled to - an act that would certainly weaken the integrity of the reward system.
Answer Choice (A) This is descriptively accurate, but it does not describe the flaw of our stimulus. Whether a complaint is handled officially or unofficially has no connection to the integrity issue in this question. Plus, this answer choice does not even say it would be considered unofficially - only that the possibility exists. That does not tell us anything!
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is descriptively accurate in that we do see the director of personnel taking a shot at Ms. Tours’s complain at the end of the stimulus. But the characterization of “mere complaining” does not attack the reasoning of our argument. Someone thinking Ms. Tours’s is a big complainer and does not change whether the decision in response to her complaint was justified.
Answer Choice (C) While this answer choice is descriptively accurate, it is not the flaw of our stimulus. Whether or not superior job performance is a good measurement of giving out an award does not weaken the truth of the conclusion we see in the stimulus. Our correct answer is going to use the rationale of our speaker, and the quality of the award requirements does not hit on the integrity issue.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is descriptively accurate. However, this connects back to the reasoning we do not like answer choice B. Whether or not the awards were justly selected or well vetted makes no difference to our speaker. Because our stimulus relies on the amount of integrity that results from an action, our correct answer choice will point out how denying Ms. Tours' claim will actually undermine that goal.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is both descriptively accurate and hitting the flaw of our conclusion. Notice this is the only answer choice that connects in any way to the ramifications of integrity. If denying Ms. Tours’s request hurts the integrity of the system, we cannot justify a denial on the basis it would hurt that same system.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: The reasoning in the argument is most valid to the criticism that…” 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 question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The argument begins by telling us about an illusion. Already, our author doesn’t like the sound of something! The speaker states it is incorrect robot inventions will liberate humans from hazardous and demeaning work. We should remind ourselves how these modifiers limit the subset of “work” we are dealing with. The author follows by telling us the reasoning behind this claim is that engineers would be using cheap labor, thus (and here is where we get to our conclusion!) that robots will be a substitute rather than a solution to the problem of working these meaningful positions. In short, our author points out the supposed solution to having these undesirable jobs will just put people into a different job that is also undesirable.
For an argument to be valid, the truth of the premises must guarantee the truth of the conclusion. The speaker takes a very specific position by telling us that we are substituting one thing for another. If our conclusion says these things are a direct swap – makes literally no difference – that pursuing the two types of work will still produce the same amount of demeaning labor tasks.
Answer Choice (A) This is descriptively accurate, but not the problem with the reasoning in our stimulus. Answer choice (A) points out a specific field of jobs that would be affected by robot technology. While our argument fails to address this consideration, it is still not the overall problem with the argument’s structure. The trend of jobs being eliminated with or without robots does not point to the terminology assumptions being made in our stimulus.
Answer Choice (B) This is a Circular Reasoning answer choice. By saying our argument “assumes what it sets out to prove,” the answer choice is suggesting the argument confirms the conclusion because the conclusion exists. In the context of our argument the author would have to say “this work substitutes a new demeaning type of work because it substitutes a new demeaning type of work.” This is a common answer choice in flaw questions that we can quickly identify.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not the problem with the reasoning in our stimulus. It is true that our speaker does not explain if the engineers consider their own work to be demeaning – but who cares? What the engineers of this project think does not point out the definition problem we see in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (D) This is not descriptively accurate. We definitely do not see an appeal to fear in the argument. Maybe if the speaker told us humans are afraid to perform demeaning work, but we don’t see any clear connection to our stimulus in this answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively accurate answer choice correctly points out what our argument fails to consider; that jobs before and after robot technology do not see the same levels of hazardous positions being worked. If our robot technology jobs are a tad bit on the hazardous and demeaning side, that does not change the fact they could still be way better than the jobs humans were dealing with before.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “which of the following techniques of reasoning is employed in the argument?”
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.
Our speaker lays out a survey and the results surrounding it. We are told a survey asked respondents how old they felt. The respondent almost unanimously said that they felt 75% of their actual age. Our speaker claims that there is a problem with this result because of the undesirable effect of a hypothetical scenario; if we repeatedly asked the respondents this question they might continue to give the exact same answer. Thus, the author concludes, this undesirable outcome means the survey results are problematic.
Our author makes a conclusion about the survey results on the basis of a situation that is unlikely to happen. The survey probably is not going to repeatedly ask the same person the same question. Because even if they did, there is no telling that the respondents would change their askers! If someone asks me how old I feel and the answer is 23, the answer is not going to change just because someone bugs me with the same question repeatedly.
Knowing that this argument uses an unreasonable hypothetical to support their claim, we can jump into the answer choices.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This answer choice correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. By telling us that the argument references “hypothetical earlier responses of a single individual…” we can identify this to be the only answer choice hitting on the repetition assumed by the argument. Additionally, the answer choice echoes how the argument uses a comparison between one individual and a quality we can give to the results of a group of people.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice incorrectly describes the issue our author has with the survey. By telling us that the stimulus questions the results based on what would “have been the most reasonable thing for them to say,” this answer choice goes beyond the scope of the stimulus. In fact, the problem is that our argument does not consider the reasonable interpretations we can actually draw from the survey.
Answer Choice (C) We do not see an “overly sweeping” generalization in our argument as suggested by this answer choice. While the author does conclude something about all the survey results on the basis of one hypothetical, the problem is that the hypothetical chosen is unreasonable. Because of this, our prediction actually contradicts this answer choice. From the beginning, we can identify that the author’s “counterexample” is certainly poorly chosen rather than well chosen.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice does not line up with what we see in the structure of the argument. This answer tells us that a contradiction is used to prove that one of two statements is false. But we do not quite see a contradiction in our argument. Instead, we are told about an end result that would be silly or nonsensical rather than one that is in contradiction with another idea. Additionally, our argument strives to prove there is a problem in understanding the survey results rather than to prove the results are false.
Answer Choice (E) Our argument does not contain “manipulation of the questionnaires,” as suggested by this answer choice. On top of that, the survey results are being used to prove whether the results can be interesting rather than for the purpose of showing what the questionnaires were trying to accomplish. Furthermore, this is descriptively inaccurate based on the second premise which tells us we do not have completely unanimous results when it comes to the survey.
From the question stem, “Which one of the following most accurately states the conclusion of the argument above?” we can tell that we are looking for the main conclusion or main point of the argument.
This argument opens with a question, so first we ask ourselves if it's rhetorical or not. In other words, is it just being used as a language tool to make a point, or will it be explicitly answered? Before breaking down the content and details of the first sentence, I’ll skim forward to see if I can glean a quick answer as to why the author included this question. The first few words of the following sentence tell me the answer is a contingent “no.” Contingent upon what? Well, let’s break down the content of the question first. The author is wondering if it’s cool for journalists to start their stories with this set phrase, “in a surprise development.” Immediately, the answer follows with “not if,” indicating to us that we have at least one situation in which the answer is no (journalists shouldn’t do that). That situation is if the “surprise development” is referring ONLY to the journalist's own surprise. Then, we are given a premise in support of that answer, which just lays out a principle we don’t want to violate in the “world” of this stimulus: that journalists shouldn’t insert themselves in their stories. We then read another “not if” or contingent no, that under the condition that the “surprise development” was some other individual’s than the journalist. Again, this is supported by a quick premise that any person’s surprise that was worth mentioning should have been explicitly attributed to them in the story.
Quick recap: we have a couple scenarios in which the answer to the first sentence is going to be no. I’m wondering if the author is setting this up to point to a final scenario in which the answer would be YES, or if the author will lay out more contingent “no’s” so as to exhaust all the possibilities and point to a final answer of NO. Maybe there is some other point to this as well, but we only have one sentence left to find out. The last sentence opens with “the one possibility remaining,” so we at least know that the author intends to exhaust all the possibilities and point us towards some final answer of yes or no. If many people were surprised by this development, there is no point in pointing out superfluously that the story comes as a surprise! In this scenario, he is also implying that journalists should not use this phrase.
So, the author has laid out three scenarios that are intended to cover the full range of possibilities and point us towards a final answer of no, journalists shouldn’t start stories with “in a surprise development.” Looks like this is a main conclusion question where we can’t point to a single sentence as the conclusion itself, but where each sentence acts as a premise that, altogether, truly couldn’t take the argument in a different direction than the one we are thinking. The author’s conclusion here is supported by each premise: in any scenario, the answer to the first sentence is no. Let’s find this in the ACs:
Answer Choice (A) Bottom line, this doesn’t match our prediction. Our prediction was based on evidence from the text, so we trust it. There is nothing in the text that points to some scenario where journalists should use that phrase, so I don’t even need to read past the comma to eliminate A.
Answer Choice (B) Again, this doesn’t line up with the prediction that the final answer is no. We are sure there are no scenarios in which to use this phrase appropriately, due to the author’s phrasing “the one possibility remaining” before laying out the third contingent no.
Answer Choice (C) Ah. Maybe true, and at first glance does seem to be supported due to that same phrasing we referenced in the line above. But, my first question is if that was the author’s main point in writing this argument?? If it were, why would the author phrase the opening question like they did? This is definitely an argument about whether or not journalists should do something, not an argument about when a certain phrase is used. Also, (C) doesn’t even mention journalists’ use of the phrase. Bye!
Answer Choice (D) As much as I agree with the “when introducing a story” part of this AC, I hate the rest. It goes too far! We don’t know if the author thinks journalists should use that phrase when summing up, just that it’s never appropriate to use when introducing a story.
Correct Answer Choice (E) Easy! Done. This is a rephrase of exactly what we predicted, that the answer to that initial question is an all-applicable no. Introducing stories this way is not good to do as a journalist. Uncomplicated and to the point.
The question stem couldn’t be more straightforward: we are looking for the main conclusion of the argument, as it says, “The main conclusion of the argument is that…”
Looks like this argument opens with a question: should the government stop trying to determine toxic substances in our food? Is it rhetorical or not? In other words, is it just being used as a language tool to make a point, or will it be explicitly answered? Before breaking down the content and details of the first sentence, I’ll skim forward to see if I can glean a quick answer as to why the author included this question. The second sentence opens with “only if,” which indicates that we have some pretty specific requirements for the answer to that first sentence to be yes. Remember, only if indicates a necessary condition, so the author thinks it's absolutely necessary for the conditions that follow to be true if the answer to the question is to be yes. Also, it was a literal question meant to be answered right away. What did that first sentence ask? Well, the author wants to explore some ethical dilemma: whether it would be right for the government to give up trying to figure out what levels of toxicity should be allowed in food. They think the answer is yes only if it’s not too crazy to argue that the only (again, strong and limiting) permissible toxicity level is zero. Not sure what to make of this yet, but these first two sentences combined are fair game to be the conclusion.
“However” leads us into the following sentence, priming me to expect some sort of contrast that could be the conclusion itself or could lead to one. We end up learning new information that seems to contradict what we already posited. “Virtually all” foods apparently have toxic substances, yet cause no harm. Why? These foods do not meet a sufficient concentration of toxicity to cause harm. What do we make of all of this? Well, I’m pretty sure we haven’t gotten to the full conclusion just yet. We are on the way to forming an answer to the first sentence, as we now know that the necessary condition (there is absolutely zero toxicity) is probably denied. Adding this new information makes it much less likely that we can meet our necessary condition laid out in the second sentence. So far, this claim doesn’t have any support itself, but seems to be building on our previous knowledge. So, this is a premise that acts as a stepping stone on the way to the gist of our argument.
The final sentence opens with “furthermore,” which is a cookie cutter premise indicator we have seen to introduce new premises. We learn that we can never have full certainty that the concentration of any substance has been reduced to zero, and instead all we can know is that the concentration is unable to be detected by the methods we use now. Now we are presented with another claim, on top of the previous sentence, that seems to make that necessary condition much less likely to be reachable. That previous sentence led us to believe the necessary condition could be denied, and now we are very sure it just won’t be met. Wait, so, the argument ends here? Where’s the conclusion?
This might be a trickier question but it isn’t a trick: we already know what the author’s conclusion is. Everything presented in the argument points towards the fact that the necessary (absolutely required) condition for the government to be justified in giving up on this research cannot be met. Therefore, we have no reason to believe the government should abandon these efforts. What’s the alternative; what should the government do instead? Well, if it can’t be justified in giving up, it's gotta continue! In other words, the author’s answer to the initial question they posed is a hard NO, and the reasons are enumerated in the rest of the argument.
Let’s search for a rephrase of this in our AC’s:
Correct Answer Choice (A) That was quick! This is essentially rephrasing our prediction, that if the government won’t be justified in abandoning their efforts, they should continue those efforts. Not too crazy of a jump to make and if this is the author’s conclusion, everything they presented in the argument has a place or acts as a stepping stone.
Answer Choice (B) This is a copy-paste of the second half of that necessary condition presented as the answer to the first sentence. After our read of this argument, are we even inclined to think the author agrees with B? Not at all. Let alone could it ever be the main conclusion, as none of the other parts of the argument are offered as evidence for it.
Answer Choice (C) This looks like a rephrase of parts of sentence three, which we know was offered as the first premise leading to our conclusion that this necessary condition cannot be met and therefore governments should keep on keepin’ on. So, not the conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) Okay, could be true, and seems to be supported in the text as the last sentence told us that the collective “we” (or everyone) is unable to be sure a food has zero toxicity, so it’s reasonable to apply that statement to governments. But, it’s not the conclusion, because none of the other sentences support it as evidence, and why else would the author have included the rest of the argument? Plus, it goes too far. We don’t know about the future, we only know about the present in this stimulus.
Answer Choice (E) What?? Totally out of left field. Goes way too far and we have no evidence for this in the stimulus. The author never said it nor implied it, so it can’t be their main conclusion.
The question stem asks, “Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?” So, we know this must be a main conclusion question.
First off, we learn about this report that presents some sort of information. Right away I’m thinking that LR stimuli really are so predictable, as introducing the stimulus with a study or report is something we’ve seen before that can help lay out context or background information. After reading that first sentence, it looks like my prediction was right––the author is giving us the background info we need to understand the argument and its upcoming conclusion.
Pause before we move onto the next sentence, though, and let’s break the content down into its separate parts. The first sentence fragment before the comma tells us the subject matter of the report: someone wanted to explore the “likely effects” that current air pollution levels have on forest growth in North America. What two variables do we care about? just air pollution and forest growth. Where? only in North America, as far as we know now. Do we know anything else? Again, just that the study concluded something.
Now, let’s jump to the sentence fragment after the first comma (still in the first sentence). We have seen the word “since” used to indicate a premise, or a statement that leads us to our conclusion. Because we have already decided this first sentence is likely context, we need to remind ourselves that this might not be a premise leading to the author’s main conclusion, but just a stopping point on the way to getting there. Instead, this looks like its a premise for the study’s conclusion, which is likely to be different from the author’s conclusion as we have seen in other LR arguments. So, the study’s conclusion has this premise, which tells us that one reason to accept the conclusion is that nitrogen is a necessary nutrient for plant growth. Then, the study makes a conclusion about one effect of air pollution: air pollution actually deposits nitrogen on the soil (more context built into the conclusion) which (here’s the actual conclusion of the study) “probably benefits eastern forests.” To recap: All we know so far is contextual information about a study and its conclusion.
We jump right into the next sentence with “however.” That’s a cookie cutter! We’ve seen it elsewhere to indicate a shift or contrast, which can lead us to the argument of the stimulus. We keep reading and find out that another group is being introduced: European soil scientists. Before, we only knew about whoever conducted the initial study, which was on North American air pollution and forest growth. These European soil scientists, on the other hand, have concluded something new. We know now that yet another conclusion from a group distinct from the author is being presented. What we learn from this new group is that, for a specific sub-group of all forests, those saturated in sulfate and nitrate, nitrogen deposits may not be as helpful to trees as the first study led us to believe. This group actually tells us that when the ratio of nitrogen deposited to nitrogen absorbed is too high, trees begin to die. That sounds bad for the trees! Beyond that, though, how do we know if this is a premise or conclusion? Well, let’s see if it is the claim providing support or being supported. I can’t find any support for the claim in the same sentence, just a claim itself. So, it might be a premise, or a claim supporting another claim (the eventual conclusion). After reading this claim, though, I’m left wondering if this only applies to some forests. How do we know these findings apply to forest growth in North America?
The last sentence begins with another “Since!” Let’s see... does this sentence reference another individual or group’s position? As far as we can tell, no. So, it’s safe to assume this is where the author’s real position is going to come in. Plus, we’re running out of sentences. All of those clues prime me to read what follows the “since” as the author’s premise that connects the context to our main conclusion. The premise says that the European soil scientists’ finding is “likely to apply everywhere.” Not sure how or why this is true, but who cares. My end goal is not to attack this argument (although pointing out where it falls short might help us gain insight), but instead to understand its parts. So, what follows the premise is expected to be the author’s main conclusion here: that huge parts of eastern forests in North America have already and undoubtedly been affected negatively.
Let’s double check: does the rest of the stuff in the argument seem to be supporting this statement? Well, if I were to switch it around and try to use the idea that large areas of the eastern parts of North American forests have already and undoubtedly been affected negatively to support the findings of the first study, that wouldn’t make any sense at all. Now, we are certain that the claim from the second group’s findings was a premise that provided support for the main conclusion, because it didn’t have any support itself. And, well, if it were true, combined with the following premise that we can apply these findings to trees everywhere, we are much more likely to accept the conclusion.
The author took us on that journey through those seemingly different arguments to finally end up at their own conclusion, which applies findings from the second group to the geographic location that the first study was interested in. And the conclusion definitely can’t be what follows the “since” before the first comma in the last sentence, as that statement has no premise itself (remember… we didn’t know how or why it was true) and instead is used as support to arrive at the final conclusion.
Now, we know exactly what to look for in the answer choices: something that paraphrases or explicitly states the very last statement in the stimulus, that huge parts of eastern forests in North America have already and undoubtedly been affected negatively by air pollution and its nitrogen deposits.
Answer Choice (A) This is not stated or implied as any part of the argument, let alone the conclusion. First of all, the conclusion isn’t just an implication of the report cited, but instead an application of the findings of group 2 on the area the report cared about. And then beyond that, why would the author have ended their argument with a strong statement that there have already been negative effects on the forests in question if this was the author’s main conclusion? They wouldn’t have. We have no reason to think that eastern North American forests DO have that optimal ratio of nitrogen deposited and absorbed, we only have reason to think otherwise (due to the second group’s findings and the author’s premise).
Answer Choice (B) Same thing here, this isn’t stated as any part of the argument. We don’t know what the author would say about this hypothetical! That’s beyond the scope of the argument. Plus, this isn’t a Most Strongly Supported question. We just want to know what the author actually concluded, not if they might agree with this “would” statement about what things might be like if circumstances were a certain way.
Answer Choice (C) Again, not stated in the argument and seems inaccurate based on what we know. We know nothing at all about the type of analysis used by the European soil scientist group, but the author actually stated as their premise that the findings themselves are LIKELY to apply to all forests, so if anything we might use that evidence to assume the opposite of what this AC states.
Answer Choice (D) ONLY! Since when did we say this conclusion ONLY applied to the eastern forests? I’m always skeptical of strong words like ONLY, as we will need explicit evidence from the text to support anything this strong.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is a perfect rephrase of the author’s main point! The author’s conclusion is in contrast to the findings of the first report, and this AC posits the correct relationship between air pollution and trees in eastern forests: that nitrogen posits from the air pollution are more likely to have a negative effect on forest growth than a positive one!
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The author of the passage criticizes the editorial by…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker.
Our stimulus begins by telling us about the defense of the U.S. government published by an editorial. The editorial defends government restrictions on scientists by saying those receiving government funding cannot rightly detach themselves from the nation’s politics. This instance of the editorial’s publication is quite different from the one that is described next. The speaker tells us the same editorial has also criticized another government for doing the opposite - not allowing their scientists to detach themselves from politics. These contrasting examples lead to the conclusion of the stimulus which asserts the editorial should explain what the difference between these scenarios entails.
Knowing that our correct answer choice will highlight the use of contrasting examples to support a conclusion, we can jump into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) If our stimulus were disputing factual claims as asserted in the first answer choice, we would see some sort of opinion on whether or not the claims of the different editorial publications were correct. But our argument is not concerned with identifying which one is right; it is concerned with an explanation for the different opinions being published.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is the answer choice we are looking for! By pointing out the inconsistency between the publications, this answer choice lines up well with our prediction.
Answer Choice (C) Our stimulus focuses on an apparent inconsistency rather than on an exception. If our stimulus were using some sort of exception we would expect to hear information supporting the idea that this event rarely occurs or happens in contrast to the typical result.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice does not align with our stimulus. Rather than refuting something in the argument, our author points out that two ideas don’t make sense together. For this reason we can eliminate the answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) Similar to the answer choice above, this one suggests our speaker is drawing a conclusion about the factual accuracy of what is published in the editorials. But whether the information is correct, our stimulus ultimately aims to push the editorial for an explanation. Thus, we can get rid of this answer choice.