This is an RRE question.
The stimulus tells us that, in general, significant intellectual advances occur in societies with a stable political system. It then goes on to tell us that in ancient Athens during a period of great political and social unrest, Plato and Aristotle made significant intellectual progress.
As with all RRE questions, whether we feel like the phenomenon is surprising or the phenomenon contains some apparent internal inconsistency depends on how much we know about the subject matter. That's just another way of saying it depends on what assumptions we bring into the phenomenon. In this question, whether we think Plato and Aristotle represent a counterexample to the general rule depends on our assumptions about the underlying causal mechanism. The general rule that great intellectual progress occurs in societies with politically stable systems doesn't reveal causation. It merely invites us to speculate that perhaps it's the stability of the political system which causally contributes to the intellectual progress. This is what makes Athens in the time of Plato and Aristotle look like a counterexample. This is not a terrible hypothesis. But it's not the only hypothesis.
Correct Answer Choice (C) suggests a different hypothesis, a different causal mechanism. It tells us that financial support for intellectual endeavors is typically unavailable in unstable political environments, but in ancient Athens wealthy citizens provided such support. This answer suggests an explanation for both the general rule and the apparent counterexample, thus reconciling them. Why is it that we tend to see great intellectual progress take place in politically stable systems? It's not that political stability directly causes intellectual advancement. Rather, political stability enables financial support for intellectual progress and, conversely, lack of political stability typically destroys that financial support. But it’s the financial support that’s causally important. This means that even in a politically unstable society, like Athens in the time of Plato and Aristotle, as long as there is financial support, then intellectual progress can occur anyway. This answer is not ideal. It does require the assumption that financial support for intellectual endeavors has a causal impact on intellectual progress.
Answer Choice (A) says the political systems that have emerged since the time of Plato and Aristotle have in various ways been different from the political system in ancient Athens. This seems so obvious that it's not worth the pixels on which it's displayed. Ancient Athens had a particular political system in the time of Plato and Aristotle. Of course other kinds of political systems have emerged since then. This is a banal fact that doesn't explain the phenomenon above.
Answer Choice (B) says the citizens of ancient Athens generally held in high esteem people who were accomplished intellectually. This is a recurring type of wrong answer. It’s ignoring half the phenomenon in order to explain the other half. We’ll see this again in (D). While (B) may suggest an explanation of the intellectual progress made in Athens, that intellectual progress nonetheless feels like a counterexample to the general rule. If we were simply asked to come up with a list of the causes of intellectual progress in Athens, this answer might be one item on the list. That is to say, one motivating factor for Plato or Aristotle to make progress was prestige or esteem. But that wasn't the task. Our job was to reconcile the apparent counterexample with the general rule. This answer doesn't do that. Now that I know Plato was motivated by esteem, the fact that he made progress in a time of political instability still seems to buck the general rule.
Answer Choice (D) says significant intellectual advances sometimes, though not always, lead to stable political environments. This answer is similar to (B) in that it's explaining only half the phenomenon while ignoring the other half. (D) can function as an explanation of the general rule. Why do we tend to see significant intellectual advances occur in societies with stable political systems? It's because significant intellectual advances cause that stability. Fair enough. But that leaves unexplained why in ancient Athens the unparalleled intellectual progress made there didn't also result in political stability.
Answer Choice (E) says many thinkers besides Plato and Aristotle contributed to the intellectual achievements of ancient Athens. This is a cookie-cutter wrong answer choice. It doesn't explain the phenomenon above. It merely adds to the phenomenon in need of an explanation. The stimulus already gave us a problem. We needed to explain why Plato and Aristotle seemed to have bucked the trend. (E) merely tells us that it's not just Plato and Aristotle that seem to have bucked the trend; there were other thinkers as well.
A
The political systems that have emerged since the time of Plato and Aristotle have in various ways been different from the political system in ancient Athens.
B
The citizens of ancient Athens generally held in high esteem people who were accomplished intellectually.
C
Financial support for intellectual endeavors is typically unavailable in unstable political environments, but in ancient Athens such support was provided by wealthy citizens.
D
Significant intellectual advances sometimes, though not always, lead to stable political environments.
E
Many thinkers besides Plato and Aristotle contributed to the intellectual achievements of ancient Athens.
This is a Strengthen question.
The psychologist starts by defining jargon. “Cognitive plasticity” is the willingness to accept new ideas. Then we’re told the results of a study which found that cognitive plasticity (negatively) correlates with birth order. That means that firstborn children tend to have lower cognitive plasticity than last-born children. Or in other words, later-born children are higher in cognitive plasticity.
The next premise is also a correlation but the psychologist simply declares it to be “reasonable.” For analyzing the argument, we’ll simply treat this second premise as true, because it's a premise. Cognitive plasticity is positively correlated with adventurousness.
So now with the two correlational premises we have a correlation chain. Birth order is correlated with cognitive plasticity which is correlated with adventurousness.
The psychologist concludes with a prediction. She says that birth order will be negatively correlated with adventurousness. That means that firstborn children will tend to be less adventurous than later-born children. Or in other words, later-born children will tend to be more adventurous than their eldest siblings.
As is typically the case with Weaken and Strengthen questions that utilize causation logic, it's hard to anticipate where the answers will go. This is why we default to the strategy of POE. The strategy works pretty well here.
Answer Choice (A) says some of the great creative geniuses in history were firstborn children. We can write this answer off simply for being unrepresentative. The correlations in the premises and conclusion are about people in general. (A) confines itself to great creative geniuses in history. We should be very hesitant to draw any inferences from those people because by definition they are unrepresentative of the general population. Additionally, even if we were to draw some inferences from this unrepresentative sample, it pushes in the wrong direction. Firstborn children are supposed to be less adventurous.
Answer Choice (B) says, in most cases, the more younger siblings one has, the greater one's cognitive plasticity. This is a comparative statement so let’s make sure we understand what is being compared. On the surface it sounds like it's contradicting the correlation above. But that's not true. The correlation above compared cognitive plasticity of siblings to each other. (B) compares the cognitive plasticity of firstborn children to other firstborn children. (B) is comparing people who are not each other's siblings. According to (B), the eldest of five siblings from one family will tend to be more plastic than the eldest of two siblings from another family. Now that we know what (B) is saying, we can eliminate (B) for being irrelevant. Imagine if (B) stated the opposite, that the eldest of five siblings is less plastic than the eldest of two siblings. So what?
Correct Answer Choice (C) says other studies have shown a correlation between cognitive plasticity and the willingness to take risks. This is helpful for the argument because it reveals another correlation (backed up by studies) which suggests a causal mechanism. Now that we know cognitive plasticity correlates with risk-taking, a plausible hypothesis arises which can explain why birth order might correlate with adventurousness. It's because birth order correlates with risk-taking and risk-taking is what causes one to be adventurous.
Answer Choice (D) says a study of business executives shows that several industry leaders have older siblings. This is similar to (A) in that we should be careful about drawing inferences about the population at large based on the sample here which reveals information about only several people. Several people who happen to be industry-leading business executives have older siblings. This should be entirely unsurprising. I'm sure it's also true (even though (D) doesn't say it) that several people who happen to be industry-leading business executives have younger siblings or are the middle child or are the only child. But whatever information is revealed about whether or not they have siblings or the birth order they inhabit, there are just too few of them for us to use this information in a reliable manner. Another issue is the questionable relationship between being a business executive and being adventurous. I'm not sure which way that assumption goes. Are you more likely to be a business leader if you're more adventurous? Perhaps that's true. But the need to make this assumption is also a weakness of this answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) says most participants in the study had characterized themselves as more adaptable than other people. We can eliminate this answer simply by recognizing that it’s not clear what the relationship is between being more adaptable and being adventurous on the one hand and birth order on the other.
Psychologist: We measured the “cognitive plasticity,” or the willingness to accept new ideas, of a group of people of both genders and of all ages. The first-born children in the study consistently exhibited less cognitive plasticity than did their siblings. It is reasonable to think that those who are open to new ideas will be adventurous in other ways. Hence, our study suggests that siblings of first-born children will tend to be more adventurous than will the first-borns.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The psychologist hypothesizes that siblings of first-born children are usually more adventurous than the first-born children themselves. He supports this by citing a study that found that siblings of first-born children were more open to new ideas than were first-born children. He also claims that people open to new ideas are likely to be more adventurous in other ways.
Notable Assumptions
The psychologist assumes that measuring cognitive plasticity is an accurate way to determine how adventurous someone is, without considering that adventurousness might also involve other qualities or factors not captured by the study.
A
Some of the great creative geniuses in history were first-born children.
Irrelevant— the psychologist’s hypothesis is about the general population, not about creative geniuses. Also, we don’t know how adventurousness relates to being a creative genius, so we can't determine if creative geniuses are more or less adventurous than others.
B
In most cases, the more younger siblings one has, the greater one’s cognitive plasticity.
Irrelevant—the psychologist compares the cognitive plasticity of siblings in the same family, finding that first-borns have less cognitive plasticity than their younger siblings. But (B) compares first-born children to other first-borns in different families.
C
Other studies have shown a correlation between cognitive plasticity and the willingness to take risks.
If cognitive plasticity correlates with risk-taking, it becomes more plausible that birth order correlates with adventurousness. This is because birth order now correlates with risk-taking, which causes one to be adventurous.
D
A study of business executives shows that several industry leaders have older siblings.
Irrelevant— like (A), a study on business executives can’t be used to draw inferences about the general population. Also, we don’t know how adventurousness relates to being a business executive, so we can't determine if business executives are more adventurous than others.
E
Most of the participants in the study had characterized themselves as more adaptable than other people.
Irrelevant— we don’t know how adaptability is connected to cognitive plasticity or adventurousness. But even if they are connected, it’s unclear how (E) would strengthen the argument.
This is a Strengthen question.
The psychologist starts by defining jargon. “Cognitive plasticity” is the willingness to accept new ideas. Then we’re told the results of a study which found that cognitive plasticity (negatively) correlates with birth order. That means that firstborn children tend to have lower cognitive plasticity than last-born children. Or in other words, later-born children are higher in cognitive plasticity.
The next premise is also a correlation but the psychologist simply declares it to be “reasonable.” For analyzing the argument, we’ll simply treat this second premise as true, because it's a premise. Cognitive plasticity is positively correlated with adventurousness.
So now with the two correlational premises we have a correlation chain. Birth order is correlated with cognitive plasticity which is correlated with adventurousness.
The psychologist concludes with a prediction. She says that birth order will be negatively correlated with adventurousness. That means that firstborn children will tend to be less adventurous than later-born children. Or in other words, later-born children will tend to be more adventurous than their eldest siblings.
As is typically the case with Weaken and Strengthen questions that utilize causation logic, it's hard to anticipate where the answers will go. This is why we default to the strategy of POE. The strategy works pretty well here.
Answer Choice (A) says some of the great creative geniuses in history were firstborn children. We can write this answer off simply for being unrepresentative. The correlations in the premises and conclusion are about people in general. (A) confines itself to great creative geniuses in history. We should be very hesitant to draw any inferences from those people because by definition they are unrepresentative of the general population. Additionally, even if we were to draw some inferences from this unrepresentative sample, it pushes in the wrong direction. Firstborn children are supposed to be less adventurous.
Answer Choice (B) says, in most cases, the more younger siblings one has, the greater one's cognitive plasticity. This is a comparative statement so let’s make sure we understand what is being compared. On the surface it sounds like it's contradicting the correlation above. But that's not true. The correlation above compared cognitive plasticity of siblings to each other. (B) compares the cognitive plasticity of firstborn children to other firstborn children. (B) is comparing people who are not each other's siblings. According to (B), the eldest of five siblings from one family will tend to be more plastic than the eldest of two siblings from another family. Now that we know what (B) is saying, we can eliminate (B) for being irrelevant. Imagine if (B) stated the opposite, that the eldest of five siblings is less plastic than the eldest of two siblings. So what?
Correct Answer Choice (C) says other studies have shown a correlation between cognitive plasticity and the willingness to take risks. This is helpful for the argument because it reveals another correlation (backed up by studies) which suggests a causal mechanism. Now that we know cognitive plasticity correlates with risk-taking, a plausible hypothesis arises which can explain why birth order might correlate with adventurousness. It's because birth order correlates with risk-taking and risk-taking is what causes one to be adventurous.
Answer Choice (D) says a study of business executives shows that several industry leaders have older siblings. This is similar to (A) in that we should be careful about drawing inferences about the population at large based on the sample here which reveals information about only several people. Several people who happen to be industry-leading business executives have older siblings. This should be entirely unsurprising. I'm sure it's also true (even though (D) doesn't say it) that several people who happen to be industry-leading business executives have younger siblings or are the middle child or are the only child. But whatever information is revealed about whether or not they have siblings or the birth order they inhabit, there are just too few of them for us to use this information in a reliable manner. Another issue is the questionable relationship between being a business executive and being adventurous. I'm not sure which way that assumption goes. Are you more likely to be a business leader if you're more adventurous? Perhaps that's true. But the need to make this assumption is also a weakness of this answer choice.
Answer Choice (E) says most participants in the study had characterized themselves as more adaptable than other people. We can eliminate this answer simply by recognizing that it’s not clear what the relationship is between being more adaptable and being adventurous on the one hand and birth order on the other.
This is a Weaken question.
The argument starts by telling us a result of a recent study of elementary school computers. They found that keyboards and monitors were positioned higher than what was recommended for children. As a result of this (causation), the children were seated in ways that encourage craned necks, awkwardly placed wrists, and other unhealthy postures. That’s the end of the description of the study. Contained within that description are several phenomena and at least one causal relationship between them.
From this study, the researchers conclude that most elementary school computers are installed without consideration of their effects on posture. This is just one potential explanation for the results of the study. There could be other explanations besides the “not-well-considered hypothesis.” Had the stimulus ended here, then it would be very likely that the correct answer choice would have presented an alternative hypothesis. For example, perhaps the designers of the classrooms considered the effects on posture and concluded (for whatever reason) that it didn’t matter.
But, anyway, the argument continues with its main conclusion, as indicated by the word “thus.” It says thus children are put at the same risk for repetitive stress injuries as office workers. By talking about office workers, the argument now utilizes the logic of analogies in addition to causation logic. Is it true that unhealthy postures put children at the same risk for injuries as office workers? That depends on whether children and office workers are affected in a similar manner by these postures. If children and office workers are relevantly similar in that regard, then this argument is fine. Otherwise it's weak.
Correct Answer Choice (C) says the greater suppleness of children's bodies makes them less susceptible than adults to repetitive stress injuries. This cuts against the analogy assumption. (C) reveals that children and adults are not relevantly similar in how they are affected or how they respond to unhealthy postures.
Interestingly, (C) could be used to generate an alternative to the not-well-considered hypothesis. Perhaps the designers of the classrooms did consider the effects of posture. They knew something that these researchers didn't, namely that children are more supple and therefore don't suffer negative effects from poor posture. And that's why they thought the “awkward” positioning of computer equipment didn't matter. This is pure speculation.
Answer Choice (A) says the recommended height for computers is different for children than adults. This is obvious because children are not only much smaller than adults but also proportioned differently. They have huge heads. But aside from the obviousness of the content in this answer, it's not relevant. While (A) does point out a difference between children and adults, it's not the relevant difference. The argument never assumed that the recommended height would be the same for children and adults. It only said that computer monitors were positioned higher than what was recommended for children.
Answer Choice (B) says children spend more time working with computers at home than at school. We don't care about where children are spending time with computers. We already know that they spend time with computers at school. That is the basis for the conclusion that they’re at risk for repetitive stress injury. Whether that conclusion follows has nothing to do with whether they also spend time with computers at home.
Answer Choice (D) says office workers’ keyboards and monitors are usually not at the recommended height for healthy postures for adults. This only tightens the analogy and therefore strengthens the argument. Now we know that adults are also subject to the same causal forces as children, namely, poorly positioned computer equipment. That doesn’t guarantee the conclusion, since we still need to consider whether adults and children are similarly affected. But at least (D) brings to surface the assumption that the causes are similarly present for both groups.
Answer Choice (E) says office workers are more likely to report injuries than children are. No doubt this is true; after all, office workers are adults and children are children. But who cares? First, note that this doesn't talk about what kind of injuries. Second, even if it specified that the injuries are repetitive stress injuries, we still don’t care, because the argument doesn't assume anything about reported injuries. The conclusion is a prediction about the risk of children suffering injuries, regardless of whether they report them.
The Researcher also assumes that because the keyboards and monitors are positioned in a way that “encourages” poor posture, that it actually results in bad posture.
The Researcher also assumes that the difference in time spent on the computer is negligible between elementary students and office workers.
A
The recommended height for computers is different for children than for adults.
B
Children spend more time working with computers at home than at school.
C
The greater suppleness of children’s bodies makes them less susceptible than adults to repetitive stress injuries.
D
Office workers’ keyboards and monitors are usually not at the recommended heights for healthy postures for adults.
E
Office workers are more likely to report injuries than children are.
This is an RRE question.
The stimulus tells us that individual zebras aren't very well camouflaged in their habitat. On the African plains where it lives, the vegetation tends to be green or brown, but the zebra has black and white stripes. This failure to camouflage makes zebras stand out to lions that hunt them. So the stimulus says that it's surprising that zebras survive.
As with any RRE question, the stimulus presents a phenomenon which is a set of facts in need of an explanation. Whether or not there is anything surprising about the phenomenon largely turns on what naïve assumptions we make. Here, if we simply refrain from making any assumptions, then it isn't surprising that zebras survive with such vivid markings. We simply have to be open-minded to the possibility of some explanation for how the zebras can survive even though their stripes make them stand out.
Correct Answer Choice (E) says that when zebras run in a group, as they generally do in response to danger, the stripe markings make it difficult for predators pursuing a single individual to discern its outline. This phenomenon resolves the problem in the stimulus. The fact that individual zebras stand out from the landscape now seems irrelevant because zebras tend to run in groups, and when they are in a group, their stripes create the effect of blurring the boundaries between any individual zebra and the group as a whole. That's an advantage for the individual zebra in terms of getting away from a predator. All we need to assume is that if it's difficult for a predator to discern an individual zebra, then it's difficult for that predator to effectively catch the zebra.
Using the naïve assumption framework, the phenomenon above only seems puzzling if we naïvely assume that an individual zebra's stripes making the zebra stand out from the landscape is all there is to the story; in other words, if we assume that there were no other causal factors at play. But why would we assume this? This is why I said as long as we keep an open mind about the complexity of the story, we shouldn't really feel a sense of surprise.
Answer Choice (A) says because the vegetation on open plains changes from green to brown as the season changes from wet to dry, true camouflage coloring for prey would have to change according to the seasons. This explains nothing. The zebra stripes are black and white, neither of which is green or brown. The stimulus already told us that the vegetation is green or brown. That's what makes the zebra stand out. This answer choice merely tells us that the vegetation changes from green to brown. But whether the vegetation was statically green or brown or dynamically green or brown doesn't change the fact that the zebras stand out.
Answer Choice (B) says that zebras are able to judge from the demeanor of lions whether or not those lions are preparing to hunt, and the zebras ignore the ones that don't intend to hunt. This is also irrelevant. This phenomenon may explain why zebras can sometimes be found within lions' hunting range, because the zebras know that these lions are not a threat. But it has no bearing on the phenomenon we're actually trying to explain, which has to do with its black and white stripes making it stand out.
Answer Choice (C) says lions that hunt zebras are themselves colored in a way that blends in with the brown color of dry vegetation, so that in the dry season, when prey is scarce, the lions can creep up on their prey to a distance from which lions have a favorable chance of succeeding in the hunt. Okay, so this answer explains the lion's coloration and coat pattern. But we're trying to explain the zebra's coloration and stripe patterns.
Answer Choice (D) says when lions hunt, the whole pride shares in the food obtained when a prey animal is successfully brought down by one of the hunting lions. I don't even know where to start with this answer. Lions are just a little bit socialist. Good for them. What does this have to do with zebras having black and white stripes?
A
Because the vegetation on the open plains changes from green to brown as the season changes from wet to dry, true camouflage coloring for a prey species would have to change according to the seasons.
B
Zebras are able to judge from the demeanor of lions they see in the vicinity whether or not those lions are preparing to hunt, and the zebras ignore the lions that are not.
C
Lions that hunt zebras are themselves colored in a way that blends in with the brown color of dry vegetation, so that in the dry season, when prey is scarce, the lions can creep up on their prey to within a distance from which the lions have a favorable chance of succeeding in the hunt.
D
When lions hunt, the whole pride shares in the food obtained when a prey animal is successfully brought down by one of the hunting lions.
E
When zebras run in a group, as they generally do in response to danger, the stripe markings make it difficult for a predator pursuing a single individual to discern its outline.
This is a Strengthen question.
The educator's argument contains only one premise and one conclusion. The premise says that few problems faced in daily life can be solved most effectively, if at all, by applying knowledge from any single academic discipline in isolation. That means most problems faced in daily life cannot be most effectively solved by… [rest of sentence]. From that she concludes schools should not require students to take courses in individual academic disciplines but should instead require them to take interdisciplinary courses.
The argument contains a number of assumptions. One is the move from a descriptive premise to a prescriptive conclusion. The premise states what is the case. It is the case that most problems cannot be solved… The conclusion moves to a claim about what schools should do in response. That assumes that schools should try to help students solve the problems that they face in daily life.
Another assumption is that schools have to teach students interdisciplinary courses in order for students to combine knowledge from different disciplines. Is that true? If the schools don't teach an interdisciplinary course on, say, ethics and economics and instead teach those courses separately, does that mean the students can't combine knowledge from the two? That's not clear. But the argument assumes they can’t and concludes that it’s up to the schools to teach interdisciplinary courses.
Correct Answer Choice (C) recognizes this assumption and declares it to be so. It says that students who take only courses in individual disciplines are rarely able to combine knowledge from those disciplines. If that's the case, then the need for schools to teach interdisciplinary courses is much stronger.
Answer Choice (A) cuts against the first assumption we identified. It says that problems faced in daily life usually can be solved effectively using only common sense. If this is true, then who cares about whether schools teach disciplines in an isolated or interdisciplinary manner? If this is true, then the fact that applying knowledge from a single discipline in isolation usually does not amount to a solution doesn't seem like a problem at all, because students can just use their common sense.
Answer Choice (B) says most teachers are able to teach courses in a single academic discipline more effectively than they can teach interdisciplinary courses. This means that if the policy in the conclusion is implemented, then the quality of instruction will suffer as a result. Most teachers will become less effective than when they were in the past teaching single disciplines. This consideration certainly weighs against implementing the policy and the conclusion. So it doesn't strengthen the argument.
Answer Choice (D) says most students who are required to take courses that cover only single disciplines can effectively solve many problems facing daily life. This is not necessarily telling us anything new. The premise already made room for the information here. The premise said that few problems can be solved by applying knowledge from a single discipline in isolation. That already acknowledged the possibility that some problems can.
Answer Choice (E) says most interdisciplinary courses are not designed specifically to teach students how to solve problems faced in daily life. It's not clear if a course not being specifically designed to do a thing means that the course won't end up achieving that result anyway. But even if we assume that's true, meaning that because the courses are not designed specifically to teach students how to resolve problems in daily life, the courses therefore don't end up teaching students how to solve problems in daily life, then that's just the weakness of the policy in the conclusion. That doesn't strengthen the argument.