Summary
According to critics: Freudianism is incompatible with Western rationalism, because Freudianism believes in unconscious desires that can interfere with rational planning. But according to the author, Freudianism also believes that it’s possible to become aware of your unconscious desires and defeat them with rational thought.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The stimulus supports the inference that, in Freudian thought, unconscious desires do not inevitably defeat rational planning. We can also infer that Freudianism isn’t truly opposed to Western rationalism, because it holds that rational thought can still overcome unconscious desires.
A
Freudianism does not run counter to the rationalistic mainstream of Western philosophical and psychological thought
This is strongly supported by the stimulus. Because the irrational unconscious desires in Freudian thought can still be defeated by rational thought after psychoanalysis, rational thought ultimately triumphs. This means Freudianism is compatible with rationalism.
B
Freudianism holds that people can always achieve happiness through psychoanalysis
This is unsupported. The stimulus never talks about happiness, so we just don’t know what Freudianism says about achieving happiness.
C
Freudianism may be the beginning of a new trend in Western philosophical and psychological thought
This is not supported by the stimulus. The author’s claims deal with the apparent conflict between Freudianism and Western rationalism, but nothing in the stimulus suggests that Freudianism is likely to defeat rationalism as the new dominant trend.
D
psychoanalysis provides one with a rational life plan
This is not supported. The author only says that psychoanalysis can help people to defeat unconscious desires that could interfere with their pre-existing life plans. That doesn’t suggest that psychoanalysis provides new rational life plans.
E
Freudianism reflects the predominantly rationalistic spirit of Western philosophical and psychological thought more than any other psychological theory
The stimulus does not support this claim. The author’s statements allow us to infer that Freudianism and Western rationalism are not incompatible, but it doesn’t follow that no other theory has a greater influence on Freudianism.
Summarize Argument
People should put adequate sunblock on skin exposed to strong sunlight. This is because adequate sunblock prevents sunburn even if the skin is exposed to strong sunlight for a while, and overexposure to certain wavelengths of strong sunlight is the main cause of melanoma.
Notable Assumptions
The doctors assume there is overlap between the wavelengths of strong sunlight that cause melanoma and the wavelengths of strong sunlight that cause sunburn.
A
There is no evidence that there are wavelengths of sunlight that lead to both sunburn and melanoma.
This weakens the argument. It attacks the doctors’ assumption that the same wavelengths that cause melanoma cause sunburn as well.
B
There are people who have allergic reactions to certain chemicals found in many sunblocks.
This does not affect the doctors’ argument because it is not relevant. These individuals can use one of the sunblocks that do not contain the specific chemicals to which they react.
C
Many sunblocks need repeated applications to remain effective for a significant length of time.
This does not affect the argument. There is nothing in the stimulus to suggest the doctors disagree with this idea.
D
Toxins contained in certain chemical compounds also cause melanoma.
This does not affect the argument. There can be several different causes of melanoma—the doctors are only discussing the main cause, which is overexposure to certain wavelengths of strong sunlight.
E
Sunburns appear immediately after exposure to the sun but melanoma appears years after repeated exposures.
This does not affect the argument. Ideally, if one follows the doctors’ advice, one would not get sunburned in the first place, as they would have applied adequate sunblock.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why were children who watched programs with an average violence rating of “three” or higher 50 percent more likely to have been disciplined in school than other children?
Objective
The correct answer must be the only answer that doesn’t help to explain why children who watched television programs with a violence rating of “three” or higher were 50 percent more likely to be disciplined in school. The correct answer choice could fail to address the relationship between the violence levels of television programs and the rate at which children who watch them are disciplined in school or could provide information that only makes the phenomenon more confusing.
A
Children who are excited by violent action programs on television tend to become bored with schoolwork and to express their boredom in an unacceptable fashion.
Children excited by violent action are probably more likely to watch more violent television programs than other children. In turn, they’re more likely to become bored with their schoolwork and express their boredom in unacceptable ways that can be disciplined in school.
B
When parents watch violent programs on television with their children, those children become more likely to regard antisocial behavior as legitimate.
Children who watch violent programs with their parents are probably more likely to watch violent programs with violence ratings of “three” or higher. Therefore, these children are more likely to exhibit antisocial behavior in school and be disciplined for it.
C
Parents who rated their children’s television viewing low on violence had become desensitized to the violence on television by watching too much of it.
(C) is silent on the subject of children’s discipline or behavior, so it fails to offer any connection between violence ratings and the rate at which children are disciplined in school. It just comments on how some parents rate the violence levels of programs.
D
Children learn from violent programs on television to disrespect society’s prohibitions of violence and, as a result, are more likely than other children to disrespect the school disciplinary codes.
If this is true, then children who watch programs with an average violence rating of “three” or higher are more likely to learn to disrespect society’s prohibitions of violence and disregard school disciplinary codes, resulting in them being disciplined more frequently in school.
E
Parents who do not allow their children to watch programs with a high level of violence are more likely than other parents to be careful about other aspects of their children’s behavior.
If this is true, then children who aren’t allowed to watch highly violent television programs are probably more likely than other children to respect various disciplinary rules at school, resulting in them being disciplined less frequently at school.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that reporters’ personal biases affected news coverage of an election. Why? Because most of them voted for the incumbent, and there was less negative coverage of the incumbent than the challenger.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The basis for the author’s conclusion is that reporters devoted more negative coverage to the challenger than the incumbent. But what if the challenger deserved more negative coverage than the incumbent? If that were the case, the media would be devoting more negative coverage to the challenger, even if reporters were completely unbiased.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that both candidates received equal amounts of coverage overall
The author never presumes this: his argument is about the ratio of positive/negative coverage for each candidate, not the total amount of coverage (e.g. number of newspaper articles) they received. The ratio isn’t affected by the total.
B
ignores the possibility that there was more negative news worthy of reporting concerning the challenger than there was concerning the incumbent
If this were the case, reporters might devote more negative coverage to the challenger than the incumbent—even if they’re completely unbiased. This undermines the author’s conclusion that the discrepancy in negative coverage is evidence of bias.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that allowing biases to influence reporting is always detrimental to the resulting news coverage
The author doesn’t presume this: he’s alleging the existence of bias, not making a value judgment about its effects.
D
ignores the possibility that the electorate’s voting behavior is not significantly affected by the content of coverage of candidates
The conclusion is about bias in news coverage itself; the potential effects of news coverage on voting are irrelevant. We’re looking for factors that affect coverage, not factors that coverage affects.
E
ignores the possibility that reporters generally fear losing access to incumbents more than they fear losing access to challengers
If this were true, it would, if anything, support the author’s argument: it suggests that reporters would be biased against challengers.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there is no reason to make dietary changes for the sake of preventing heart disease. Why? Because one potential cause of heart disease, lipoprotein(a), isn’t affected by (some) dietary changes. Specifically, dietary changes that lower cholesterol, which we know can lead to heart disease.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author concludes that dietary changes don’t prevent heart disease, but his only support is that they don’t lower lipoprotein(a) levels. What if there were another cause of heart disease that dietary changes could reduce?
In fact, the author already gave us a good candidate for this: cholesterol, which has been associated with heart disease. And which, the author tells us, dietary changes can affect.
In fact, the author already gave us a good candidate for this: cholesterol, which has been associated with heart disease. And which, the author tells us, dietary changes can affect.
A
It fails to consider the possibility that lipoprotein(a) raises cholesterol levels.
We have no reason to believe that this is true. But suppose it were: reducing lipoprotein(a) could reduce cholesterol, which would reduce the risk of heart disease. But we already know that we could make dietary changes that reduce cholesterol (the actual flaw in the argument).
B
It provides no evidence for a link between lipoprotein(a) and heart disease.
Suppose there is a link between lipoprotein(a) and heart disease. Dietary changes might not reduce the risk from lipoprotein(a). But what about other potential causes of heart disease—like cholesterol? Diet could potentially reduce those. The argument still has a major flaw.
C
It presents but ignores evidence that, for some people, high cholesterol contributes to heart disease.
The author presents evidence that high cholesterol contributes to heart disease—namely, that the two have been associated. (Note, this is evidence, not definitive proof.) The author then ignores the possibility that a low cholesterol diet could prevent heart disease.
D
It fails to consider the possibility that poor diets cause some people to develop health problems other than heart disease.
The conclusion is about the effect of diet on heart disease, so other health problems are irrelevant.
E
It offers no explanation for why some people with high cholesterol levels never develop heart disease.
The conclusion is about the effect of diet on heart disease, so why some people with high cholesterol levels never develop heart disease is irrelevant.