Researchers studying athletes found that those who played mainly for the love of their sport actually had sharper vision during athletic competitions than those whose main goal was winning a trophy or championship. The vision of the first group of athletes was sharper because the concentration necessary for acute vision during an activity is typically possessed to a greater degree by those whose attention is focused on the activity itself.
Summary
Researchers found that athletes who played mainly for the love of their sport had sharper vision during competitions compared to athletes whose main goal was winning a trophy or championship. The first group had sharper vision because those whose attention is focused on an activity itself usually have more of the concentration necessary for acute vision.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Athletes who play mainly for the love of their sport focus more on the activity itself than athletes whose main goal is winning a trophy or championship.
A
Winning a trophy or championship is not important to athletes who play mainly for the love of their sport.
This answer is unsupported. To say that winning a trophy or championship is not important at all is too extreme. We know that these athletes play mainly for the love of their sport, but this does not have to be the only reason they play.
B
If an athlete’s main goal during an athletic competition is winning a trophy or championship, that athlete will lack the concentration necessary for adequate vision during that competition.
This answer is unsupported. To say that these athletes will not have the concentration necessary is too extreme. We only know from the stimulus that these athletes possess this concentration to a lesser degree, not that they don’t possess it at all.
C
Athletes who play mainly for the love of their sport concentrate more on the sport itself during athletic competitions than do athletes whose main goal is winning a trophy or championship.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that the athletes who play for the love of their sport had sharper vision, and we know that this sharper vision comes from concentrating on the sport itself.
D
It is impossible for an athlete to concentrate on more than one thing at a time during an athletic competition.
This answer is unsupported. To say that it is impossible is too extreme. We know from the stimulus that athletes either mainly play for the love of their sport or wining a trophy. We can’t assume that having a main objective means that there are no other objectives.
E
During athletic competitions, an athlete whose attention is focused on the sport itself will perform better than any athlete whose attention is focused elsewhere.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about an athlete’s performance from the stimulus.
A
The argument concludes that something can cause a particular outcome merely because it is necessary for that outcome.
B
The argument contains premises that contradict one another.
C
The argument presumes that something should be done merely because historically it has been done.
D
The argument infers a causal relation between two events merely from the fact that one event occurred before the other.
E
The argument relies on a premise that presupposes what the argument attempts to show in the conclusion.
Varela: You forget that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry. Many great scientific discoveries were motivated by curiosity alone.
Varela points out that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry, and that many great scientific discovered were motivated by only curiosity. (The implicit conclusion is that investigations into the healthy history of historical figures, even if motivated by mere curiosity, can still be a legitimate scientific inquiry.)
A
contending that Pulford’s argument rests on an untenable distinction
B
disputing the validity of a principle that Pulford explicitly states
C
offering a counterexample to a generalization in Pulford’s conclusion
D
attempting to draw a distinction between two views that Pulford treats as a single view
E
maintaining that Pulford’s argument is based on inconsistent premises
Doctor: Angiotensinogen is a protein in human blood. Typically, the higher a person’s angiotensinogen levels are, the higher that person’s blood pressure is. Disease X usually causes an increase in angiotensinogen levels. Therefore, disease X must be a cause of high blood pressure.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The doctor hypothesizes that disease X causes high blood pressure, because it typically increases angiotensinogen levels, which are linked to higher blood pressure.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The doctor shows that disease X usually causes higher angiotensinogen levels and that higher angiotensinogen levels are correlated with higher blood pressure. She then jumps to the conclusion that disease X causes high blood pressure. To do this, she must assume that higher angiotensinogen levels actually cause high blood pressure. However, it’s possible that high blood pressure causes higher angiotensinogen levels, or that another factor like smoking or genetics causes both.
A
It confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient condition.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The doctor doesn’t make this mistake; her argument relies on causal logic, not conditional logic.
B
It overlooks the possibility that even if a condition causally contributes to a given effect, other factors may fully counteract that effect in the presence of that condition.
The doctor’s argument is flawed because she assumes that angiotensinogen levels cause high blood pressure, not because she overlooks other factors that might counteract the effects of disease X.
C
It illicitly infers, solely on the basis of two phenomena being correlated, that one causally contributes to the other.
In order to conclude that disease X causes high blood pressure by raising angiotensinogen levels, the doctor must assume that high angiotensinogen levels cause high blood pressure. However, her argument only establishes that the two are correlated.
D
It confuses one phenomenon’s causing a second with the second phenomenon’s causing the first.
The only proven causal connection in the argument is that disease X usually causes higher angiotensinogen levels. The doctor doesn’t confuse this by saying that higher angiotensinogen levels cause disease X. Instead, she assumes that they cause high blood pressure.
E
It takes for granted that if one phenomenon often causes a second phenomenon and that second phenomenon often causes a third phenomenon, then the first phenomenon cannot ever be the immediate cause of the third.
This is descriptively inaccurate. The doctor says one phenomenon (disease X) causes a second phenomenon (higher angiotensinogen) and assumes that higher angiotensinogen causes high blood pressure. She then concludes that disease X is the immediate cause of high blood pressure.
A
The ancient mine tapped into a large underground deposit that also supplied nearby riverbeds with significant quantities of gold.
B
The ancient mine may have at one time been operated by the same civilization that was responsible for most of the ancient artifacts.
C
The ancient mine was first operated many centuries before the artifacts were constructed.
D
Ancient gold artifacts were often constructed from gold taken from earlier artifacts.
E
Much of the gold dug from the ancient mine in western Asia was transported to faraway destinations.
Further Explanation
Additional note to (A). With (A) being true, the premises now indicate clearly that the artifact gold originated from the somewhere in the network (large underground deposit) but not any specific node (mine or riverbeds). In fact, knowing that there are additional nodes (riverbeds) reduces the likelihood of the hypothesized node (mine) being the source.