City leader: If our city adopts the new tourism plan, the amount of money that tourists spend here annually will increase by at least $2 billion, creating as many jobs as a new automobile manufacturing plant would. It would be reasonable for the city to spend the amount of money necessary to convince an automobile manufacturer to build a plant here, but adopting the tourism plan would cost less.

Summary

City leader: If we adopt the new tourism plan, tourists will spend at least $2 billion more each year here, creating as many jobs as a new car manufacturing plant would. It would be reasonable to spend money to attract a car manufacturing plant, but the tourism plan would cost less.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

When determining the reasonableness of implementing something that would create job growth for the city, cost is an important factor.

Adopting the new tourism plan would be reasonable.

Adopting the new tourism plan would be economically beneficial for the city.

A
The city should implement the least expensive job creation measures available.

Unsupported. We know that the new tourism plan is cheaper than attracting a car manufacturing plant, but we do not know that it is the least expensive job creating measure available. The stimulus doesn’t discuss the least expensive measures or whether they should be implemented.

B
In general, it is reasonable for the city to spend money to try to convince manufacturing companies to build plants in the city.

Unsupported. The stimulus tells us that it would be reasonable for the city to spend the money necessary to convince an automobile manufacturer to build a plant, but it does not discuss the reasonableness of attracting manufacturing companies in general.

C
The city cannot afford both to spend money to convince an automobile manufacturer to build a plant in the city and to adopt the new tourism plan.

Unsupported. We are not told how much money the city has or whether it can afford to attract a car manufacturer and implement the new tourism plan. We simply don’t know.

D
It would be reasonable for the city to adopt the new tourism plan.

Strongly supported. The new tourism plan would create as many jobs as a new car factory. It would be reasonable for the city to spend the money to attract the car factory. The new tourism plan would cost less. So it would be reasonable for the city to adopt the new tourism plan.

E
The only way the city can create jobs is by increasing tourism.

Anti-supported. The stimulus explicitly states that a new car manufacturing plant would create as many jobs as increased tourism. So increasing tourism is not the only way that the city can create jobs.


26 comments

When surveyed about which party they would like to see in the legislature, 40 percent of respondents said Conservative, 20 percent said Moderate, and 40 percent said Liberal. If the survey results are reliable, we can conclude that most citizens would like to see a legislature that is roughly 40 percent Conservative, 20 percent Moderate, and 40 percent Liberal.

Summarize Argument
In a survey asking which party they want in the legislature, 40% said C, 20% said M, and 40% said L.

The author concludes that if the survey results are reliable, then most citizens would like to see a legislature that is roughly 40% C, 20% M, and 40% L.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The survey asked which party respondents would like to see in the legislature. It didn’t ask what % of the legislature should belong to each party. The author interprets the proportions that said they wanted to see a particular party in the legislature as relevant to the distribution of each party in the legislature.

Another framing of the flaw is that the author mistakenly thinks the overall breakdown of preferences for Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal legislatures is something that applies to most citizens’ individual preferences for the makeup of the legislature.

A
The argument uses premises about the actual state of affairs to draw a conclusion about how matters should be.
The conclusion isn’t about what “should” be the case. The conclusion is simply a statement about the preferences of most citizens.
B
The argument draws a conclusion that merely restates a premise presented in favor of it.
(B) describes circular reasoning. The conclusion is not a restatement of the premise, because the premise is a statement describing the results of a survey. The conclusion is not a description of the results of a survey.
C
The argument takes for granted that the preferences of a group as a whole are the preferences of most individual members of the group.
The 40/20/40 preference in the survey is the preference of the group of survey participants. But the author mistakenly thinks this 40/20/40 preference applies to individual participants in the survey.
D
The argument fails to consider that the survey results might have been influenced by the political biases of the researchers who conducted the survey.
The conclusion starts with “if the survey results are reliable” — this means the conclusion doesn’t assume the results are reliable. It makes a statement about what would be the case IF the results are reliable.
E
The argument uses evidence that supports only rough estimates to draw a precisely quantified conclusion.
The conclusion uses the word “roughly” when describing the 40/20/40 breakdown. So the argument doesn’ draw a “precisely quantified” conclusion. A statement of “rough” numbers is not precise.

35 comments

Journalism’s purpose is to inform people about matters relevant to the choices they must make. Yet, clearly, people often buy newspapers or watch television news programs precisely because they contain sensationalistic gossip about people whom they will never meet and whose business is of little relevance to their lives. Obviously, then, the sensationalistic gossip contained in newspapers and television news programs _______.

Summary
The purpose of journalism is to inform people about things that are relevant to their choices. Newspapers and TV news programs often have sensationalistic gossip, which isn’t relevant to people.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
The blank should be filled with a statement about the sensationalistic gossip in newspapers and TV news programs. Since we know that this gossip isn’t relevant to people, and we know that the purpose of journalism is to provide relevant information, we can conclude that sensationalistic gossip doesn’t serve journalism’s purpose.

A
is at least sometimes included for nonjournalistic reasons
Strongly supported. The gossip is about people who aren’t relevant to news readers/watchers. So, it doesn’t serve journalism’s purpose. This is evidence that the gossip is included in newspapers and TV news programs for some other reason besides serving journalism’s purpose.
B
prevents those news media from achieving their purpose
Unsupported. Most other news stories might serve journalism’s purpose. There’s no evidence that the inclusion of some gossip stories is a significant part of news programs or otherwise represents a significant part of what news media does.
C
is more relevant to people’s lives now than it used to be
Unsupported. The stimulus never compares the present to the past. We have no basis to reach a conclusion about whether gossip is more relevant now compared to the past.
D
should not be thought of as a way of keeping an audience entertained
Unsupported. The gossip might be included to keep the audience entertained. There’s nothing in the stimulus suggesting the gossip doesn’t entertain audiences.
E
is of no value to people who are interested in journalism
Unsupported. We don’t know what people who are interested in journalism find valuable. Maybe gossip stories are valuable to read in journalism classes to give students a better understanding of the media industry and the competitive pressures that lead to gossip stories.

15 comments

Some of the politicians who strongly supported free trade among Canada, the United States, and Mexico are now refusing to support publicly the idea that free trade should be extended to other Latin American countries.

Summary
Some politicians who strongly supported free trade among Canada, the United States, and Mexico now refuse to publicly support the idea that free trade should be extended to other Latin American countries.

Notable Valid Inferences
Not all politicians who supported free trade among Canada, the United States, and Mexico support the idea that free trade should be extended to other Latin American countries.

A
Some of the politicians who now publicly support extending free trade to other Latin American countries did not support free trade among Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
Could be false. The stimulus is restricted to politicians who do not support extending free trade to other Latin American countries. We do not have any information about politicians who do support this idea.
B
Not all politicians who now publicly support extending free trade to other Latin American countries strongly supported free trade among Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
Could be false. The stimulus is restricted to politicians who do not support extending free trade to other Latin American countries. We do not have any information about politicians who do support this idea.
C
Some of the politicians who strongly supported free trade among Canada, the United States, and Mexico have changed their position on free trade.
Could be false. We don’t have any information to infer whether these politicians have changed their position. It is possible that these politicians have never supported the idea of extending free trade to Latin American countries.
D
Not all politicians who strongly supported free trade among Canada, the United States, and Mexico now publicly support extending free trade to other Latin American countries.
Must be true. “Not all politicians” is equivalent to claiming that some politicians do not.
E
Some of the politicians who strongly supported free trade among Canada, the United States, and Mexico now publicly oppose extending free trade to other Latin American countries.
Could be false. Refusing to publicly support an idea is not equivalent to publicly opposing an idea.

21 comments