Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
People shouldn’t undergo mediation if the conflict they seek to resolve is based on ideology.
A
People who do not undergo mediation to resolve their conflicts should be sure that their positions are correct.
Could be false. This answer wants you to believe that the only options for people with conflicts are mediation or litigation, but the stimulus doesn’t tell us that. Maybe there’s another conflict resolution method, or maybe some people don’t resolve their conflicts at all.
B
People whose conflicts are not based on ideology should attempt to resolve their conflicts by means of litigation.
Could be false. If your conflicts are not ideological, maybe you’re willing to compromise and you should mediate! Furthermore, we can’t make any inference connecting “ideology-based conflicts” with “should pursue litigation.” Maybe there are more conflict resolution methods.
C
People whose conflicts are based on ideology are not always sure that their positions are correct.
Could be false. Nothing in the stimulus allows us to link ideology-based conflicts with being sure that one’s position is correct. Maybe everyone with an ideology-based conflict is sure that their positions are correct and they should all pursue litigation!
D
People who are sure of the correctness of their positions are not people who should undergo mediation to resolve their conflicts.
Could be false. (D) wants you to confuse the necessary with the sufficient: we know that you should be sure you’re correct if you’re going to pursue litigation, but not that you should pursue litigation if you’re sure you’re correct. Maybe mediation is preferable to litigation.
E
People whose conflicts are based on ideology are not people who should undergo mediation to resolve their conflicts.
Must be true. As shown below, we can chain the conditional claims to see that “should pursue mediation” is a sufficient condition of “conflicts are not ideology-based.” By the contrapositive, “conflicts ideology-based” is a sufficient condition of “should not pursue mediation.”
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that any improvement in short-term psychotherapy must be the result of some aspect that is in common with all psychotherapies. This is because various studies show that, on average, clients in short-term psychotherapy show similar levels of improvement regardless of the kind of psychotherapy they get.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no other explanation for why people who get different kinds of psychotherapy, on average, experience the same levels of improvement besides the theory that all improvements from psychotherapy must come from something shared by all psychotherapies. This overlooks the possibility that, for example, different psychotherapies might have unique aspects that each produce a similar level of improvement.
A
The methods by which the studies measured whether clients improved primarily concerned immediate symptom relief and failed to address other important kinds of improvement.
This shows that we can’t rely on the studies to make a conclusion about “any” improvement. (A) opens the possibility that different psychotherapies might lead to different levels of certain kinds of improvements due to aspects that are not in common with other psychotherapies.
B
On average, clients improve more dramatically when they receive long-term psychotherapy, a year or longer in duration, than when clients receive short-term psychotherapy.
The premises and conclusion are only concerned with short-term psychotherapy. The author never assumes anything about long-term psychotherapy, so it won’t weaken to point out some difference between long-term and short-term psychotherapy.
C
The studies found that psychotherapy by a trained counselor does not result in any greater improvement, on average, among clients than does simple counseling by an untrained layperson.
The author suggests as an example that psychotherapies might help due to the presence of someone who listens. (C) is consistent with that proposal, since it could be the fact someone is listening that produces the improvements described.
D
The specific techniques and interventions used by therapists practicing different kinds of psychotherapy differ dramatically.
The author never suggested that the specific techniques and interventions can’t be different. The author simply hypothesizes that the improvement doesn’t come from those differences — it comes from something that’s similar between the psychotherapies.
E
More-experienced therapists tend to use a wider range of techniques and interventions in psychotherapy than do inexperienced therapists.
The author never suggested that different practitioners won’t use different ranges of techniques. The author simply hypothesizes that the improvement doesn’t come from any differences between the techniques used — it comes from something that’s similar among different therapies.
Summary
The author concludes that a journalistic practice (use of historical photographs) warps public perception of the present. For support, she cites that the practice makes past and present seem more similar than they really are, causing current events to seem less important.
Missing Connection
The conclusion is about warping public understanding, but there is no information on what qualifies as warping public understanding. The premise would lead to the conclusion if we knew that at least one of the effects (overstating similarities or current events seeming less important) of the journalistic practice means that public perception is distorted.
A
Any practice by which journalists present current events as mere repetitions of historical incidents overstates the similarities between past and present.
This does not lead to a conclusion about warping public perception. It leads to something we already know—that this practice overstates similarities between past and present.
B
If the work of a journalist overstates the similarities between past and present, then it distorts public understanding of the present by presenting current events as mere repetitions of historical incidents.
This is a direct link from a known effect of the journalistic practice to the distortion of public perception.
C
If a journalistic practice distorts public understanding of the present by overstating the similarities between past and present, then it denies the individual significance of any articles about current events.
In the sufficient condition, this answer combines conclusion with premise. We cannot use this, because we cannot trigger a sufficient condition that is wholly or in part made of what we are already trying to prove (that the practice distorts public understanding).
D
No article about a current event treats that event as merely a repetition of historical incidents unless it uses historical photographs to illustrate that article.
Phrased differently, this is “If an article about a current event treats that event... then it uses historical photographs...”, but we do not need to conclude that anyone is using historical photographs.
E
If journalists believe current events to be mere repetitions of historical incidents, then public understanding of the present will be distorted.
Belief is irrelevant; we don’t know anything about what the journalists believe.
Sonya: Anyone who lives without constant awareness of the fragility and precariousness of human life has a mind clouded by illusion. Yet those people who are perpetually cognizant of the fragility and precariousness of human life surely taint their emotional outlook on existence.
Summary
If someone lies without constant awareness of the fragility and precariousness of human life, then they have a mind clouded by illusion. People who are perpetually aware of the fragility and precariousness of human life taint their emotional outlook on existence.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Everyone has either a mind clouded by illusion or a tainted emotional outlook on existence. If someone’s mind is unclouded by illusion, then their emotional outlook on existence is tainted. If someone’s emotional outlook on existence is not tainted, then their mind is clouded by illusion.
A
Anyone who places a higher priority on maintaining a positive emotional outlook than on dispelling illusion will be completely unaware of the fragility and precariousness of human life.
This is unsupported because it is not the emotional outlook that produces an awareness of fragility and precariousness. Rather, it is the awareness of fragility and precariousness of human life that is sufficient for a certain emotional outlook.
B
Either no one has a tainted emotional outlook on existence, or no one has a mind clouded by illusion.
This is unsupported because some people could fall into either category. Some people may be aware of the fragility and precariousness of human life while others are not.
C
It is impossible for anyone to live without some degree of self-deception.
This is unsupported because it is possible for people to be always cognizant of the fragility and precariousness of human life, which may not require self-deception.
D
Everyone whose emotional outlook on existence is untainted has a mind clouded by illusion.
This is strongly supported because everyone must be either constantly aware of the fragility and precariousness of human life or they are not. If their emotional outlook on existence is untainted, then they are not aware of the fragility and precariousness of life.
E
It is better to be aware of the fragility and precariousness of human life than to have an untainted emotional outlook on existence.
This is unsupported because the author provides no means for determining which state of awareness is better.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Despite only buying items at a 50%+ discount, the list-less shoppers spent much more money than the shoppers with lists.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains why the shoppers without lists spent so much more than the shoppers with lists, despite only buying discount items. The explanation will likely address how many items the respective groups bought, or else the average price the respective groups spent on an item.
A
Only the shoppers who used a list used a shopping cart.
This almost undermines the stimulus. A shopping cart would help shoppers carry more items. For the list-less shoppers to spend more money, they likely bought more items. This doesn’t help.
B
The shoppers who did not use lists bought many unnecessary items.
Even if they bought unnecessary items, we don’t know how many total items the list-less shoppers bought relative to the shoppers with lists. This doesn’t give us enough information to resolve the paradox.
C
Usually, only the most expensive items go on sale in grocery stores.
Those 50% off items were air fryers and high-quality steaks. Sure, the list-less shoppers were getting discounts. But they were splurging on expensive items, hence why they spent more than the shoppers with lists.
D
The grocery store in the study carries many expensive items that few other grocery stores carry.
Even if this is true, we don’t know if those expensive items were on sale and subsequently purchased by the list-less shoppers.
E
The grocery store in the study places relatively few items on sale.
If this is the case, then why did the list-less shoppers spend so much more than the others? If anything, this deepens the paradox.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the area of the brain controlling speech is not distinct from the area controlling other functions. He supports this by noting that the mountain climbers in the study slurred their speech, took longer to understand simple sentences, and showed poor judgment after climbing above 6,100 meters.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author concludes that the area of the brain controlling speech isn’t separate from the area controlling other functions because multiple brain functions worsened at high altitudes. He assumes that all these functions are controlled in the same area, ignoring the possibility that multiple areas could have been affected by the altitude.
In other words, the altitude might have impacted multiple distinct brain areas, or the entire brain, affecting both speech and judgment, even though they are controlled in distinct areas.
A
the climbers’ performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning was impaired because oxygen deprivation affected their entire brains
If oxygen deprivation affected the climbers’ entire brains, then it’s possible that all of the affected functions are controlled in distinct areas of the brain and that oxygen deprivation is simply worsening them all at the same time.
B
the climbers’ performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning was better than average before they were studied
If the climbers’ speech, comprehension, and reasoning were better than average before the study, it wouldn’t change the fact that these functions worsened at higher altitudes. So, even if the author does overlook (B), it doesn’t describe a flaw in his argument.
C
the climbers showed different levels of impairment in their performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning
We should expect that the climbers didn't all experience the exact same level of impairment. What’s important is that all the climbers still showed worsened performance in these functions, even if the impairment was at different levels.
D
some of the effects described were apparent just before the climbers reached 6,100 meters
Even if some effects were apparent just before 6,100 meters, (D) doesn't change the fact that the climbers’ experienced worsened performance due to diminished oxygen at high altitudes.
E
many of the climbers had engaged in special training before the climb because they wanted to improve the efficiency with which their bodies use oxygen
The climbers still all experienced worsened performance in speech, understanding, and judgement, regardless of whether some of them had special training for the climb.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there’s a positive correlation between drinking caffeinated beverages and the development of heart disease. This is based on the fact that studies show there’s a correlation between smoking and heart disease, and a correlation between smoking and drinking caffeinated beverages.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Even if A is positively correlated with B, and A is also positively correlated with C, this doesn’t imply that B is correlated with C.
Here, drinking caffeinated beverages might have no correlation or even a negative correlation with heart disease. Even if smokers are more likely to drink caffeine than the average person, and more likely to have heart disease, the ones who drink caffeine might not be the ones with heart disease. The caffeine-drinkers might be less likely to have heart disease among the smokers.
A
smokers who drink caffeinated beverages are less likely to develop heart disease than are smokers who do not drink caffeinated beverages
If the smokers who drink caffeinated beverages are less likely to develop heart disease than the ones who don’t drink such beverages, this is evidence there’s actually a negative correlation between drinking caffeinated beverages and heart disease among the people who smoke.
B
something else, such as dietary fat intake, may be a more important factor in the development of heart disease than are the factors cited in the argument
The argument doesn’t concern what causes heart disease. The author is simply trying to establish a correlation on the basis of related correlations. But the author doesn’t assume that anything is the cause of something else.
C
drinking caffeinated beverages is more strongly correlated with the development of heart disease than is smoking
This possibility doesn’t help show why caffeinated beverages might not be positively correlated with heart disease. If anything, it does the opposite, suggesting that there might be a positive correlation between caffeinated beverages and heart disease.
D
it is only among people who have a hereditary predisposition to heart disease that caffeine consumption is positively correlated with the development of heart disease
(D) might show that genetic factors play a causal role in heart disease and undermine a hypothesis that caffeine consumption causes heart disease. But (D) presents evidence of a positive correlation between caffeine and heart disease, which supports the author’s conclusion.
E
there is a common cause of both the development of heart disease and behaviors such as drinking caffeinated beverages and smoking
The existence of a common cause doesn’t undermine the possibility of a positive correlation between heart disease and caffeinated beverages. If anything, it supports the existence of a correlation by explaining why they might be correlated.