A
It is in the nature of violent crime that it is not premeditated.
B
About one-fourth of all suspects first arrested for a crime are actually innocent.
C
Many violent crimes are committed by first-time offenders.
D
Everyone accused of a crime has the right to a trial.
E
Countries that promptly punish suspected lawbreakers have lower crime rates than countries that allow long trials.
A
Preschoolers have a tendency to imitate adults, and most adults follow strict routines.
B
Children intensely curious about new things have very short attention spans.
C
Some older children also develop strict systems that help them learn.
D
Preschoolers ask as many creative questions as do older children.
E
Preschool teachers generally report lower levels of stress than do other teachers.
A
takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that body
B
presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that body
C
fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discredited
D
offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similarities
E
draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the lawyer's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The lawyer begins by making an analogy. He claims that a body of circumstantial evidence is similar to a rope. He claims that each piece of evidence is like a strand in that rope: just as adding more strings to the rope makes a rope stronger, adding more pieces of evidence strengthens the body of evidence. He then describes how if a strand of a rope is broken, the rope does not break, and it still retains much of its strength. He concludes that, similarly, if you discredit ("break") a few pieces of evidence, the overall body of evidence is still strong.
When analyzing an argument that uses an analogy, a good first step is to ask yourself, "Are the two things being compared actually similar?" As you increase the points of difference between the two things being compared, the analogy's strength diminishes. In this case, we want to determine where the lawyer's analogy between ropes and bodies of evidence frays apart. The idea that adding pieces of evidence to the body increases the strength of the body, like adding strands to a rope, makes sense and seems like a pretty good point of comparison. However, the analogy fails when we consider the fact that strands of rope are all the same. However, not all pieces of evidence are equal: some add much more strength than others. You have experience with this on the LSAT. Take away a premise that strengthens the argument, and the argument can survive. Take away a premise necessary to the argument, and the argument falls apart. So if we took away a few pieces of necessary evidence, the body would fall apart. However, that is contrary to the lawyer's conclusion. If you didn't see this, that is ok! When doing POE, prioritize answer choices that draw a distinction between ropes and bodies of evidence.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is what we discussed. The lawyer takes for granted that no evidence is more important to the body than others.
Answer Choice (B) is wrong. If you picked (B), you likely had trouble determining what (B) means. (B) says to take the strength of each piece of evidence independently and add them up. That will be greater than the strength of the evidence if you take the pieces altogether. If anything, the opposite is true: adding many pieces of circumstantial evidence together tends to count as better evidence than taking each individually.
Answer Choice (C) is not a problem for the argument. If you interpret "many = few": The point of the lawyer's argument is to show that if you take away some strands of evidence, then the body retains its strength, so the possibility is addressed. If you interpret "many"> few": then sure, the possibility is ignored. However, that is not a problem for the argument because the lawyers' conclusion is limited to taking away a few pieces of evidence. Either way, the argument is not flawed because of (C).
Answer Choice (D) is tempting, but we run into problems with the word "any." The lawyer has indicated that bodies of evidence share similarities to ropes. Adding more pieces of evidence or strands increases the strength of both.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. The lawyer does not use his own premise as a conclusion.
There can be a maximum of two authors in the textbook.
A
If the textbook contains an essay by Lind, then it will not contain an essay by Knight.
B
The textbook will contain an essay by only one of Lind, Knight, and Jones.
C
The textbook will not contain an essay by Knight.
D
If the textbook contains an essay by Lind, then it will also contain an essay by Jones.
E
The textbook will contain an essay by Lind.
A
The waste should never have been stored in its current location.
B
The waste should be placed in the most secure location that can ever be found.
C
Moving the waste to the proposed site would reduce the threat posed by the waste.
D
Whenever waste must be moved, one should limit the amount of time allotted to locating alternative waste storage sites.
E
Any site to which the waste could be moved will be safer than its present site.
A
Recent cutbacks in government spending have forced public libraries to purchase fewer popular contemporary novels.
B
Due to the installation of sophisticated new antitheft equipment, the recent increase in shoplifting that has hit most retail businesses has left bookstores largely unaffected.
C
Over the past few years many bookstores have capitalized on the lucrative coffee industry by installing coffee bars.
D
Bookstore owners reported a general shift away from the sale of inexpensive paperback novels and toward the sale of lucrative hardback books.
E
Citing a lack of free time, many survey respondents indicated that they had canceled magazine subscriptions in favor of purchasing individual issues at bookstores when time permits.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in which of the following is most similar to that in the naturalist's argument? This is a Parallel question.
The naturalist begins by claiming that a species can survive the change in an environment as long as the change is not too rapid. The naturalist has provided a general rule saying that the change can be ok for a species, with the caveat that the change does not occur too rapidly. The naturalist concludes that the threats humans create to woodland species arise not from cutting down trees but from the rate at which we are cutting down trees. The naturalist has applied the universal rule about species to the specific example of woodland species. So the problem is not that change we are creating by cutting down trees, but the because we are causing the change too rapidly.
When evaluating an answer choice, we need a universal rule with a caveat. The correct AC will apply that universal rule to a specific example and say that the specific example is failing to satisfy the caveat.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. (A) does not provide a universal rule; it only gives a specific rule about fossil fuels. Additionally, (A) 's rule about fossil fuels lacks the caveat we are looking for.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. We can quickly eliminate (B) because of the word "many." Remember, we need a universal rule, so if (B) was right, it would begin with "all people." Additionally, (B) 's rule lacks the caveat we are looking for, nor does (B) apply its rule to a specific example.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. Similar to (B), we can eliminate (C) because it says "some" when we are looking for a universal rule. Additionally, (C) also lacks the caveat, nor does (C) apply the rule to a specific example.
Correct Answer Choice (D) matches the stimulus. (D) provides a general rule that "people do not fear change," under the caveat people know what the change will bring. (D) then applies that rule to the specific example of the author's company's employees. The company's employees' fears arise from the fact the company is changing, but because they do not know what the change will bring (the caveat is not satisfied).
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. (E) does not provide a general rule, so we can eliminate it.