Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author looks to the disappearance of Norse settlements and concludes, contrary to what some people claim, that the Norse settlements did not disappear as a result of decreasing temperatures. As evidence, the author points out that Inuit settlers inhabiting Greenland during the same time continued to thrive long after the Norse settlers disappeared.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author counters a position held by others. She does this by providing evidence that is inconsistent with what others claim. Decreasing temperatures could not have been what caused Norse settlements to disappear because Inuit settlements during the same time period were not wiped out.
A
denying the relevance of an analogy
The author does not describe any analogy. The author’s mention of Inuit settlements is a counterexample meant to attack the claim that the Norse settlements were wiped out by decreasing temperatures.
B
producing evidence that is inconsistent with the claim being opposed
The evidence the author produces is that of the Inuit settlements in existence at the same time as the Norse settlements. The claim being opposed is that Greenland became too cold for human habitation.
C
presenting an alternative explanation that purports to account for more of the known facts
The author does not present an alternative explanation. She does not attempt to explain why the Norse settlements in Greenland disappeared.
D
citing a general rule that undermines the claim being opposed
The author does not provide a general rule in order to counter other’s claims. Rather, the author provides the specific instance of Inuit settlements to oppose these claims.
E
redefining a term in a way that is favorable to the argument’s conclusion
The author does not redefine a term, or define any term used.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that either Ms. Chan or her colleague must not be telling the truth. Ms. Chan said that she retired from Quad Cities corporation. Her colleague said that Ms. Chan will be gone for much of next year on business trips and is working harder than she has ever worked before. To the author, what the colleague describes about Ms. Chan does not sound like “retirement.”
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author interprets “retired from Quad Cities Corporation” as if it means Ms. Chan retired from working generally. But this overlooks the reasonable possibility that it simply means retired from working at that specific company. If this is what the phrase means, then both Ms. Chan and her colleague could be telling the truth.
A
is based in part on hearsay
The author does not argue that something is true because he heard someone say that it is true. Rather, the author mistakenly believes what each person said is contradictory.
B
criticizes Ms. Chan rather than the claims she made
The author does not attack Ms. Chan’s background, character, or behavior. He simply believes what she said contradicts what her colleague said about her.
C
draws a conclusion based on equivocal language
The author’s conclusion is based in part on the the language “retired from Quad Cities Corporation.” The author thinks this means Ms. Chan retired from working completely. But this language is equivocal because it could also mean that she retired only from that specific company.
D
fails to consider that Ms. Chan’s colleague may have been deceived by her
There’s no indication that what the colleague said was based on what Ms. Chan said to the colleague. In any case, even if Ms. Chan lied to the colleague, that doesn’t undermine the conclusion that Ms. Chan or the colleague must not be telling the truth.
E
fails to infer that Ms. Chan must be a person of superior character, given her long loyal service
There’s no reason the author should have concluded that Ms. Chan is of superior character. The failure to make this inference does not help show why both Ms. Chan and her colleague might be telling the truth.
Summarize Argument
The game show host concludes that humans are no better than apes at investing. She supports this with an experiment in which five stock analysts and one chimpanzee were each given $1,350 to invest. After one month, the chimpanzee increased its net worth by $210, while the top analyst increased by only $140.
Identify and Describe Flaw
There are many flaws with the game show host’s argument and experiment. First is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. She makes a generalization about all people based on a study of five, and about all apes based on a study of one chimpanzee. She also draws a conclusion about investing in general based on one small experiment that involved only short-term investing; she never considers the analysts’ and chimpanzee’s potential long-term results.
A
A conclusion is drawn about apes in general on the basis of an experiment involving one chimpanzee.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The host broadly concludes that humans are no better than apes at investing based on an experiment involving only one chimpanzee. Would other chimpanzees have had similar success? What about other kinds of apes?
B
No evidence is offered that chimpanzees are capable of understanding stock reports and making reasoned investment decisions.
This is true, but it isn’t a flaw. The host concludes that humans are no better at investing than apes, based on an experiment where an ape made more money investing than humans did. It doesn’t matter if the ape understood investing, just that it performed better than the humans.
C
A broad conclusion is drawn about the investment skills of humans on the basis of what is known about five humans.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The host broadly concludes that humans in general are no better than apes at investing based on an experiment involving only five humans.
D
Too general a conclusion is made about investing on the basis of a single experiment involving short-term investing but not long-term investing.
This is yet another example of the host’s overgeneralization. She draws a general conclusion about all investing based on one experiment that only involved short-term investing.
E
No evidence is considered about the long-term performance of the chimpanzee’s portfolio versus that of the analysts’ portfolios.
This is another one of the host’s flaws. She draws a conclusion about investing based on a very short (one month) experiment. She overlooks the fact that the results could be different after multiple months or years, especially since investing is often a long-term process.
The stimulus does not provide an argument, just a pair of claims. First, humans have superior cognitive abilities compared to other animals. Second, once humans are aware of their superior cognitive faculties, they can only achieve happiness through activities that involve gratifying their cognitive faculties.
Notable Assumptions
The stimulus assumes that both of the claims presented are factually true. This means it assumes:
that no animals have superior cognitive faculties compared to humans; and also
that no humans who are aware of their superior cognition can be made happy through non-cognitively-gratifying activities.
that no animals have superior cognitive faculties compared to humans; and also
that no humans who are aware of their superior cognition can be made happy through non-cognitively-gratifying activities.
A
Certain animals—dolphins and chimpanzees, for example—appear to be capable of rational communication.
This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. First, we don’t actually know if these animals actually are capable of rational communication—they just seem to be. Second, even if they were capable, we still wouldn’t know if they had superior cognition to humans.
B
Many people familiar both with intellectual stimulation and with physical pleasures enjoy the latter more.
This weakens the claims in the stimulus. People familiar with intellectual stimulation can reasonably be said to be aware of their cognitive faculties. If many such people prefer physical (i.e. non-cognitive) pleasures, that undermines the stimulus’ second claim.
C
Someone who never experienced classical music as a child will usually prefer popular music as an adult.
This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. First, we can’t assume that classical and pop music are relevant to distinguishing cognitive and non-cognitive sources of happiness. Second, we don’t know if this “someone” is aware of their cognition, and thus within the domain.
D
Many people who are serious athletes consider themselves to be happy.
This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. Like (E), we have no idea if this provides an example of people who are aware of their cognition but still gain happiness from non-cognitive activities—we can’t assume either of those factors.
E
Many people who are serious athletes love gourmet food.
This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. Like (D), both factors of the stimulus’ second claim are unclear. Are serious athletes aware of their cognition or not? Is gourmet food a non-cognitive source of happiness or not? We don’t know.