Summarize Argument
Tax cuts across all income brackets tend to benefit the wealthy. Why does this happen? To keep revenue the same, tax cuts on income require revenue to be generated with other, non-progressive taxes. Non-progressive taxes benefit the wealthy. Alternatively, if revenue is allowed to decrease, the budget deficit will increase. This means government borrowing will have to increase, which causes interest rates to increase. Increased interest rates also benefit the wealthy, because they have money to lend. Either result of across the board tax cuts ends up benefitting the wealthy.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the authors claim that income taxes for all brackets disproportionately benefit the wealthy: “across-the-board cuts for all brackets tend to have a similar effect.”
A
Cuts in personal income tax rates for upper income brackets benefit the wealthy more than they benefit others.
This is context that sets up the authors argument about the results of across-the-board cuts for all brackets.
B
Across-the-board cuts in personal income tax rates do not generate enough additional economic activity to prevent a net loss of revenue.
This is not contained in the stimulus. There is no discussion of generating economic activity.
C
It is the wealthy who are favored by generating a high amount of revenue through nonprogressive taxes.
This is a premise that supports the claim that across the board tax cuts ultimately end up benefitting the wealthy. It shows how it occurs.
D
It is primarily the wealthy who benefit from increases in the budget deficit, which drive up interest rates.
This is another premise that supports the claim that across the board tax cuts ultimately end up benefitting the wealthy. It shows how it occurs.
E
Across-the-board personal income tax rate cuts generally benefit the wealthy more than they benefit others.
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. The author is demonstrating that across-the-board cuts for all brackets benefit the wealthy. Benefitting the wealthy is the “similar effect” the conclusion refers to.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the natural world is a work of art. She supports this by saying that all works of art are beautiful and instructive and the natural world is both beautiful and instructive.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency and necessity. The author treats “beautiful and instructive” as sufficient for “art.” But according to her premises, “beautiful and instructive” is necessary, not sufficient.
In other words, just because the natural world is both beautiful and instructive isn’t sufficient to conclude that it’s a work of art.
A
uses the inherently vague term “beautiful” without providing an explicit definition of that term
The author doesn't provide an explicit definition of the term “beautiful,” but this isn’t why her argument is flawed. Even if she did define “beautiful,” her argument would still be flawed because she assumes that all beautiful and instructive things are works of art.
B
attempts to establish an evaluative conclusion solely on the basis of claims about factual matters
The author attempts to establish a conclusion about beauty and art based on claims that are also about beauty and art. She isn’t switching between evaluative and factual statements.
C
concludes, simply because an object possesses two qualities that are each common to all works of art, that the object is a work of art
The author concludes, simply because the natural world is beautiful and instructive, that the natural world is art. But “beautiful and instructive” is necessary for “art,” not sufficient. So it’s possible that the natural world is beautiful and instructive but not a work of art.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that only objects that are beautiful are instructive
The author never assumes that only beautiful things are instructive. She just argues that art must be both beautiful and instructive.
E
fails to consider the possibility that there are many things that are both beautiful and instructive but are not part of the natural world
The author only addresses the beauty and instructiveness of art and of the natural world. Whether many other things are also beautiful and instructive is irrelevant.
Summary
History is full of people making breakthroughs by changing the way they thought about a particular topic. For example, Copernicus made advancements by looking differently at information already available. Jenner discovered the smallpox vaccine when he focused on disease prevention rather than the more common perspective of curing disease.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Scientific advancement can result in part from taking a new perspective.
A
Many valuable intellectual accomplishments occur by chance.
Unsupported. We don’t know that the examples discussed in the stimulus involved discoveries by “chance.” There might not have been anything random about these discoveries.
B
Shifting from earlier modes of thought can result in important advances.
Strongly supported. The stimulus provides several examples of scientific advances that came after scientists changed the way they thought about a topic. This is evidence that such changed perspectives can result in advances.
C
The ability to look at information from a different point of view is rare.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest anything about the frequency of the ability to take a different point of view. Maybe the vast majority of people have this ability.
D
Understanding is advanced less often by better organization of available information than it is by the accumulation of new information.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t compare the likelihood of advancement through new information vs. organization of existing information.
E
Dramatic intellectual breakthroughs are more easily accomplished in fields in which the amount of information available is relatively small.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t compare the ease of making breakthroughs in different fields. We don’t know that the fields involved in the examples in the stimulus involve different amounts of information available.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The politician concludes that censorship is not wrong in itself. He supports this by saying that if censorship were wrong, then it would be wrong for an actor to refuse a role in a film that promotes a viewpoint she finds unacceptable, which is an absurd conclusion.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The politician claims that censorship is not wrong because an actor refusing to participate in a film is not wrong. He conflates the actor’s refusal with censorship, assuming that refusing to participate in a film is in fact censorship. But if refusing to participate in a film does not amount to censorship, then the politician’s argument falls apart.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that actors would subscribe to any tenet of modern liberalism
The politician never assumes that actors would fully subscribe to modern liberalism. Instead, he concludes that modern liberals’ views on censorship are incorrect based on an assumption that an actor refusing to participate in a film is censorship.
B
uses the term “liberal” in order to discredit opponents’ point of view
The politician calls his opponents "modern liberals," but he doesn't do so to discredit their views. Instead, he tries to discredit their point of view with an example he says is absurd.
C
takes for granted that there is a moral obligation to practice one’s profession
The researcher never assumes that actors have a moral obligation to participate in certain films. Instead, he assumes that actors’ refusal to participate in certain films amounts to censorship.
D
draws a conclusion that is inconsistent with a premise it accepts
The politician’s premise may not support his conclusion well, but the two are not inconsistent or contradictory.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that declining a film role constitutes censorship in the relevant sense
The politician assumes, without providing justification, that actors refusing to participate in certain films is an example of censorship. But if this refusal is not actually censorship, then the politician’s argument falls apart.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes cheaper oil brands are superior to more expensive oil brands. This is because, according to a study, all oils perform their basic function with equal effectiveness.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that one brand of oil is better than another if it performs the same job at a lower price. This means the author believes there are only two variables—price and ability to retard engine wear—that affect oil comparisons for most potential buyers. The author must therefore believe that motor oil doesn’t serve some other purpose.
A
Cheaper brands of motor oil are often used by knowledgeable automobile mechanics for their own cars.
Knowledgeable mechanics like cheap motor oil. This seems to support the author’s argument that cheaper oils are better buys.
B
Tests other than of the ability to reduce engine wear also can reliably gauge the quality of motor oil.
Without knowing how those other tests judge cheap oils, we can’t draw any conclusions.
C
The lubricating properties of all motor oils deteriorate over time, and the rate of deterioration is accelerated by heat.
We don’t care about things that are true of all oils. We need something to differentiate cheap oils from more expensive oils.
D
The engines of some individual cars that have had their oil changed every 3,000 miles, using only a certain brand of oil, have lasted an extraordinarily long time.
We don’t know which brand of oil was used.
E
Ability to retard engine wear is not the only property of motor oil important to the running of an engine.
By focusing only on retarding engine wear, the author overlooks an important factor in motor oil performance. We therefore can’t say cheaper oils are “better buys” without knowing how they perform other important functions.
Marsha: But there are many forms of government under which citizens can be manipulated into believing they have a say when they don’t.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Elena believes that democracy is the best form of government. She believes this because the best form of government is one where the people believe they have a say in how it is run.
Marsha points out that many forms of government manipulate people into thinking that they have a say in how the government is run when they really don’t.
Marsha points out that many forms of government manipulate people into thinking that they have a say in how the government is run when they really don’t.
Identify Argument Part
This is utilized to weaken the relationship between Elena’s premise and conclusion. Marsha’s statement shows that just because a populace believes they have a say over government affairs, it does not mean that they *actually* do or are living in a democracy.
A
concur with Elena’s claim that democracy is the best form of government
Marsha does not say whether democracy is the best form of government. She challenges Elena's reasoning by suggesting that the feeling of having a say can be manipulated in non-democratic systems.
B
support Marsha’s unstated conclusion that the best form of government is one that appears to be democratic but really is not
This is not an unstated conclusion anywhere in Marsha’s argument. She is just pointing out an assumption in Elena’s reasoning
C
suggest that the premise Elena uses to support her conclusion could be used to support a conflicting conclusion
This is an accurate description of Marsha’s claim. She suggests that Elena’s premise could also support the conclusion that other forms of government could be considered the best if they manipulated their citizens to believe they were in control.
D
support Marsha’s unstated conclusion that most people seek only the appearance of democracy rather than democracy itself
This is not an unstated conclusion in Marsha’s argument. There is nothing about people wanting the appearance of democracy.
E
reject Elena’s conclusion that the best form of government is democracy
Marsha does not go this far. She is merely casting doubt on Elena’s reasoning that democracy is the best form of government.
Researcher: The use of the newest drug in treating this disease should be discontinued. The treatment usually wreaks havoc with the normal functioning of the human body, causing severe side effects such as total loss of hair, debilitating nausea, and intense pain in the joints.
Summarize Argument
The researcher concludes that the new drug should be discontinued because it disrupts the body's normal functions and causes severe side effects.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The researcher concludes that the drug should be discontinued because of its many costs, like nausea and hair loss. However, she fails to consider the benefits of the drug or the costs of discontinuing it. For example, if the drug is the only way to save lives, then its benefits may far outweigh its costs.
A
fails to specify what is meant by “normal functioning of the human body”
The researcher doesn't define “normal functioning,” but she doesn’t need to. Even if she did define it, it wouldn’t support her argument because she still fails to consider any benefits of the drug that might outweigh the cost of disrupting “normal functioning.”
B
fails to consider the consequences of not administering the treatment
The researcher argues that the drug should be discontinued because of its many costs, but she ignores its potential benefits. That is, she fails to consider the costs of not taking the drug, which might be much more severe than nausea, hair loss, and joint pain.
C
presumes that every patient with the disease is treated with the drug
The researcher never makes this assumption. She just argues that those patients who are treated with the drug usually experience severe side effects.
D
does not consider the length of time needed for the treatment to begin taking effect
The researcher doesn't mention how long it takes for the drug to work, but even if she did, it wouldn’t support her argument because it wouldn’t address the question of whether there are benefits of the drug that outweigh its costs.
E
does not acknowledge that the effects of the treatment may not be of the same severity in all cases
The researcher actually does acknowledge this by saying that the drug “usually wreaks havoc” on patients’ bodies. Whether some patients’ side effects are less severe doesn’t affect the argument that the drug usually causes severe side effects and thus must be discontinued.
Tyra: I accept Aristotle’s principle of justice, but it’s human nature to want to do special favors for friends. Indeed, that’s what friends are—those for whom you would do special favors. It’s not unjust for dentists to do that.
Speaker 1 Summary
Otis concludes that it’s wrong for a dentist to schedule an after-hours appointment for a family friend but not to do it for someone else. This is because Aristotle’s principle of justice says that we should treat relevantly similar cases similarly. Otis’s assumption is that the case of a family friend and the case of someone else are relevantly similar.
Speaker 2 Summary
Tyra concludes that dentists’ treating friends differently from others does not violate Aristotle’s principle of justice. This is because friends are those for whom we do special favors.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether it’s wrong for dentists to schedule after-hours appointments for friends, but not for others. They also disagree about whether the case of friends and others are relevantly similar.
A
Aristotle’s principle of justice is widely applicable
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. They agree with Aristotle’s principle of justice, but neither suggests any belief about how widely it’s applicable. Tyra doesn’t say the principle doesn’t apply to the dentist situation. She’s applies the principle, but finds no violation.
B
situations involving friends and situations involving others should be considered relevantly similar cases
This is a point of disagreement. Otis thinks they are relevantly similar. This is why he thinks inconsistent treatment is wrong. Tyra doesn’t think they’re relevantly similar. This is why she doesn’t find anything wrong with inconsistent treatment.
C
human nature makes it impossible to treat relevantly similar cases similarly
Neither expresses an opinion. Otis doesn’t discuss human nature. Tyra says it’s human nature to want to help our friends. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to treat similar cases similarly.
D
dentists should be willing to schedule an after-hours appointment for anyone who asks
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Otis only wants dentists to do such scheduling consistently. Either friends and others both get after-hours, or neither do. Tyra only says after-hours appointments for friends is not unjust. She doesn’t say what dentists should do.
E
Aristotle recognizes that friendship sometimes morally outweighs justice
Neither expresses an opinion. Nobody discusses Aristotle’s views about friendship and whether it can outweigh justice.