The question stem says of the following judgments, which one most closely conforms to the principle above? This is a rarer type of question though we have seen it plenty before. They're asking us to take the principle in the stimulus which is a conditional statement and push it into the arguments in the answers to see where it fits. But that’s like a PSA question. Instead of the stimulus containing an argument searching for a conditional in the answer, it's the other way around. The stimulus contains a conditional searching for an argument. This is a cosmetic difference.
The stimulus lays down two jointly sufficient conditions for justified governmental interference with an individual’s actions. The two conditions are:
- The action would increase the likelihood of harm to others; and
- The action is not motivated by a desire to help others.
If both conditions are met, then the government is justified in interfering with the individual’s action.
As an aside, note that these two conditions each cover a different kind of consideration. The first looks at the consequences of the action. Will this action harm others? The second looks at the intent of the action. What motivated the action? In general, considerations of morality tend to fall into these two buckets of consequences and intent.
Back to the task at hand. Given that this is a PSA question, it’s important to note which conclusions are reachable and which are unreachable.
A reachable conclusion is that the government is justified in interfering with the individual’s action. To reach this conclusion, we just have to show that (1) and (2) are satisfied.
An unreachable conclusion is that the government is not justified in interfering with the individual’s action. There’s simply nothing we can show to trigger the conditional in that way. If we wanted to reach the unjustified conclusion, we need to know what the necessary conditions of justified are, fail those conditions, then contrapose back.
This analysis is helpful in eliminating Answer Choice (A). It tries to conclude that the government is unjustified in interfering with Jerry’s moviemaking. We don’t need to read the rest of the argument. There’s nothing that the premise can state that will make use of the conditional to reach this conclusion. (A) is therefore wrong on its logic alone. In other words, it makes a sufficiency-necessity confusion, the oldest mistake in the book. We can stop here, but for review, look at the premise. It says that Jerry’s action (moviemaking) doesn’t harm and won’t increase the likelihood of harming anyone. It also says that it is motivated by a desire to help others. So it fails both (1) and (2). But failing sufficient conditions just makes the rule go away. It doesn’t trigger anything. Yet, (A) thinks it triggers the failure of the necessary condition. That’s textbook sufficiency-necessity confusion.
Contrast this with Correct Answer Choice (E). It concludes that the government is justified in preventing Jill from giving her speech. That’s a reachable conclusion. We just need to show that Jill’s speech satisfies (1) and (2). And it does. Her speech “would most likely have caused a riot and people would have gotten hurt.” That’s physical harm to others. And her speech was “to further her own political ambitions.” That’s a selfish motivation and hence not a motivation to help others.
Answer Choice (B) concludes that the government is justified in fining the neighbor for not mowing his lawn. That’s a reachable conclusion. We just need to show that the neighbor’s not mowing his lawn satisfies (1) and (2). (1) is problematic. It’s not pleasant to look at an unkempt lawn, but that’s not physical harm to others. We don’t need to consider (2) but probably the neighbor’s decision to not mow his lawn was selfishly motivated. He was probably just feeling lazy.
Answer Choice (C) concludes that the government is justified in requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. That’s a reachable conclusion. We just need to show that motorcyclists’ not wearing helmets satisfies (1) and (2). Again, we have a problem for (1). It’s not clear that their failure to wear helmets would increase harm to others, whatever the consequences of harm are for themselves. We don’t need to consider (2) but probably their decision to not to wear helmets was selfishly motivated. They probably were feeling lazy, wanted to look cool, or have a death wish.
Answer Choice (D) concludes that the government is justified in suspending Z’s license to test new drugs. That’s a reachable conclusion. We just need to show that Z’s testing new drugs satisfies (1) and (2). Again, we have a problem for (1). It’s not clear that their testing of new drugs would increase harm to others. In fact, if they’re a drug company, then it’s more likely that their testing of new drugs would do just the opposite. It would help others alleviate pain and suffering. We don’t need to consider (2) but here the argument makes explicit that their motivation is selfish and not to help others.
Many sociologists oppose this theory. They oppose this theory based on the premise that a complex phenomenon — such as the popularity of political parties — cannot be caused by a simple phenomenon.
A
economically motivated decisions by voters need not constitute a complex phenomenon
B
a complex phenomenon generally will have many complex causes
C
political phenomena often have religious and cultural causes as well as economic ones
D
popular support for political parties is never a complex phenomenon
E
the decisions of individual voters are not usually influenced by their beliefs about which policies will yield them the greatest economic advantage
This is an Inference question.
The question stem says “properly inferred” from the sociologist's perspective. Inference from others' perspective is a question type that we see more often in RC.
The stimulus starts by telling us what rational choice theory says about what causes support for political parties. It says that popular support for political parties is caused by individual voters making deliberate decisions to support those parties whose policies they believe will economically benefit them. In other words, individuals' beliefs about the economic consequences of a particular party's policies cause those individuals to support those parties. This causal relationship is what is meant by “sufficiently explained.”
But the sociologists don't agree. They oppose rational choice theory on the premise that a complex phenomenon like the rise of a political organization or party cannot be caused by a simple phenomenon.
What is this “simple phenomenon”? It must be the individual voters making economic decisions to support political parties, which implies that it must not be a complex phenomenon. This is what Correct Answer Choice (A) says. Sociologists believe that economically motivated decisions by voters need not constitute a complex phenomenon. We are getting hints of an NA question. Note how (A) could have stated this much more strongly. Economically motivated decisions by voters constitute a simple phenomenon. That would have been correct as well. But the test writers took it one step further and stated an inference of that statement.
Answer Choice (B) says a complex phenomenon generally will have many complex causes. This is unsupported. The sociologists only said that a complex phenomenon cannot be caused by a simple phenomenon. This leaves open several possibilities. Perhaps they believe that a complex phenomenon can be caused by many simple phenomena. Or perhaps they believe that a complex phenomenon can be caused by a single complex phenomenon. We’d have to dismiss those alternatives without warrant in order to arrive at (B).
Answer Choice (C) says political phenomena often have religious and cultural causes as well as economic ones. This is even more unsupported. Note the same reasoning in (B) applies here. Additionally, (C) draws an inference to religious and cultural causes on the basis of nothing.
Answer Choice (D) says popular support for political parties is never a complex phenomenon. This is anti-supported. The sociologist called the rise of a political organization a complex phenomenon. Within the context of the stimulus, the rise of the political organization is synonymous with popular support for a political party.
Answer Choice (E) says the decisions of individual voters are not usually influenced by their beliefs about which policies will yield them the greatest economic advantage. This is unsupported. The stimulus talks about a narrow political relationship. It examines the causes of the rise of popular political parties. (E) talks about a much broader political relationship, the causes of individual voting decisions. The stimulus has very little to say about what generally causes (influences) or doesn't cause voters to cast their vote one way or another.
The only primates indigenous to Madagascar are lemurs.
Lemurs are lower primates.
Some lemurs are the only living diurnal lower primates.
All higher primates are thought to have evolved from a single diurnal species of lower primate.
All living diurnal lower primates are lemurs.
A
The chimpanzee, a higher primate, evolved from the lemur.
B
No primates indigenous to Madagascar are diurnal higher primates.
C
No higher primate is nocturnal.
D
There are some lemurs without opposable thumbs.
E
There are no nocturnal lemurs.
This is an Inference question.
The question stem says “properly inferred.” This is a challenging question because there is so much information in the stimulus that is all connected. That can easily induce panic as you scramble to draw all the connections and valid inferences. Strategically, you shouldn't do that. The more connected information a stimulus contains, the more valid inferences there are to be drawn, the less you are able to anticipate the correct answer choice. In stimuli like those, POE is the better approach.
The first line in the stimulus about the study of primates being interesting is the only irrelevant fact. Everything else is fair game.
Only primates have opposable thumbs. Lemurs are lower primates (a subset of primates.) And lemurs are the only primates indigenous to Madagascar. Some species of lemurs are the only living lower primates that are diurnal. They go ahead and define diurnal for us but the answer choices never swapped out the term for its definition so we don't need to pay attention to it. Finally, all higher primates (a subset of primates) are thought to have evolved from a single diurnal species of lower primates.
Lots of information. Let’s POE.
The last piece of information is what sets up the trap in Answer Choice (A). It says that the chimpanzee, a higher primate, evolved from the lemur. This is not a proper inference. This is unsupported. All we can say is that the chimpanzee, being a higher primate, is thought to have evolved from a single diurnal species of lower primates. Which one, though? Must it be the lemur because the lemur is a diurnal species of lower primates and it is the only living one? No. Being alive isn’t required. We’re talking about evolution here. Most ancestor species are extinct. There may well have been other extinct, diurnal species of lower primates. One of those extinct species may well be the evolutionary starting point of all higher primates.
Correct Answer Choice (B) says no primates indigenous to Madagascar are diurnal higher primates. We can transform this into the following logically equivalent claim: all primates indigenous to Madagascar are not diurnal higher primates. This must be true. The stimulus says that the only primates indigenous to Madagascar are lemurs and that lemurs are all lower primates. It is implied that lower primates cannot be higher primates, diurnal or otherwise. This is the conditional chain: prim-indig-M → lemur → low-prim
Answer Choice (C) says no higher primate is nocturnal. This is unsupported. We simply have no idea if higher primates are nocturnal or diurnal or anything else. The only piece of information we have about higher primates is that they are thought to have evolved from a single diurnal species of lower primates.
Answer Choice (D) says there are some lemurs without opposable thumbs. This is unsupported. The stimulus says only primates have opposable thumbs. That means if something is not a primate then it doesn't have opposable thumbs. But lemurs are primates. Sufficient condition failed, rule goes away.
Answer Choice (E) says there are no nocturnal lemurs. This is unsupported. The stimulus tells us that some species of lemurs are diurnal. Maybe all species of lemurs are diurnal, maybe not.
The author also assumes that the inclusion of minor drug-related interactions will not distract/outweigh the importance of the major ones, thereby causing more harm than good.
A
Providing information on minor drug-related interactions would detract from a patient’s attention to serious interactions.
B
Many drugs have fewer documented drug-related interactions than does aspirin.
C
Providing information about all drug-related interactions would result in only negligible price increases for consumers.
D
Current research is such that many drug-related interactions have not yet been identified.
E
Pharmacists usually draw patients’ attention to printed warnings that are provided with drugs.
A
Solving a problem never requires finding the root cause of the problem.
B
Knowing the cause of the current recession would not necessarily enable people to find a solution to it.
C
The question of what caused the current recession is subject to considerable debate.
D
One need not ascertain the cause of the current recession in order to improve the economy.
E
Long before the cause of myopia was known to be genetic, corrective lenses were being used as an effective treatment for the disease.
A
Any radioactive elements created when the universe began have probably decayed into other, nonradioactive elements.
B
Radioactive elements are being created in the universe today.
C
If no new radioactive elements had been created after the universe began, almost no radioactive elements would be left in the universe today.
D
It is possible that radioactive elements were created when the universe began.
E
Due to their instability, most of the universe’s radioactive elements decay within at most a few million years into other, nonradioactive elements.
Some beliefs that are neither self-evident nor grounded in observable evidence are reasonable.
A
Beliefs for which a person does not have observable evidence are unreasonable.
B
Beliefs based on information from a reliable source are self-evident.
C
All reasonable beliefs for which a person has no observable evidence are based on information from a reliable source.
D
If a belief is not grounded in observable evidence, then it is not self-evident either.
E
Among reasonable beliefs that are not self-evident, there are some beliefs that are not grounded in observable evidence.
This is a Must Be True question.
This question tests your ability to manipulate grammar to reveal underlying logical relationships between sets. In particular, we are dealing with sets of intersections and supersets and subsets.
The stimulus states that if a belief is based on information from a reliable source, then it is reasonable to maintain that belief. This is a standard conditional claim using the “if... then...” formulation. Let's kick the idea of “a belief” up into the domain. This will simplify the analysis. You wouldn't know at this moment to do this. You have to finish reading the stimulus.
Kicking the idea of “a belief” as the subject up into the domain, we get to talk about the properties of beliefs. And it's those properties that have a sufficiency necessity relationship. The sufficient property is “based on reliable information.” If that's true, then the necessary property is “reasonableness.”
The next claim is an intersection claim. We know this from the presence of the word “some.” Some beliefs are based on information from a reliable source and yet are neither self-evident nor grounded in observable evidence. This is where you might notice that the subject once again is belief. The sentence here is talking about a triple intersection between three different sets of properties of beliefs.
- based on reliable information (same set as the sufficient condition in the previous sentence)
- not self-evident
- not grounded in observable evidence
These three sets have an intersection. But we also know from the first sentence that if based on reliable information, then reasonable. That implies “reasonable” gets to join this intersection with “not self-evident” and “not grounded in observable evidence” as well.
Using logic, first, represent the intersection of 2 and 3 as simply A. B will represent based on reliable information. C will represent reasonable. The triple intersection can now be represented as A ←s→ B. The conditional is B → C. The valid inference is A ←s→ C. Again, that’s just the triple intersection between “reasonable” and 2 and 3.
If that was confusing, consider this. If a cat is mild-mannered, then it’s domestic. Some mild-mannered cats are large and fluffy. Therefore, some domestic cats are large and fluffy. That’s analogous to the question here. Kick the subject “cats” up into the domain. The “some” premise describes a triple intersection between mild-mannered, large, and fluffy. Because mild-mannered implies domestic, we know that domestic also intersects with large and fluffy.
Hopefully that clears up the logic. Translating it back into English reveals that we have many options. “Some domestic cats are large and fluffy” is probably the most straightforward translation. But we could also say, “Among the large cats, some domestic ones are fluffy.” Or we could say, “Among the fluffy cats, some large ones are domestic.” The order of the modifiers in “some” intersections doesn’t matter. “Some” can be reversibly read.
So, there are many ways to translate the valid inference from the actual stimulus back into English. We could say, “Some beliefs that are neither self-evident nor grounded in observable evidence are nonetheless reasonable.” Or we could state this as Correct Answer Choice (E) does. Among reasonable beliefs that are not self-evident, there are some beliefs that are not grounded in observable evidence. Or even differently still. Grammar is the reason for this flexibility. As long as you know that you're just trying to express a triple intersection, you should be all set.
Answer Choice (A) says beliefs for which a person does not have observable evidence are unreasonable. This is a mishmash of the concepts in the stimulus. What must be true is that some beliefs for which a person does not have observable evidence are reasonable. Or alternatively, we could say that unreasonable beliefs must not be based on unreliable information.
Answer Choice (B) says beliefs based on information from a reliable source are self-evident. This is also a mishmash of the concepts above. We have no information to make claims about self-evident beliefs.
Answer Choice (C) says all reasonable beliefs for which a person has no observable evidence are based on information from a reliable source. This does not validly follow from the premises. But if we changed the quantifier “all” into the quantifier “some,” then it would follow validly.
Answer Choice (D) says if the belief is not grounded in observable evidence then it is not self-evident either. This also does not follow. The relationship between these two concepts is only one of intersection. We don't know if the two sets have a superset-subset relationship.
A
The genetically engineered plants that have been developed so far have few advantages over plants that are not genetically engineered.
B
Whatever health risks there are in food from genetically altered plants may be somewhat reduced by other factors such as enrichment of the plants’ vitamin and mineral content.
C
Scientists have yet to determine, for each characteristic of some plants and animals used for food, the precise location of the genes that determine that characteristic.
D
There are plants that are known to be toxic to some animals and whose toxicity is known to be affected by the alteration of a single gene.
E
Research has shown that those consumers who are most strongly opposed to genetically altered foods tend to be ill-informed on the issue.
There is evidence that a certain ancient society burned large areas of land. Some suggest that this indicates the beginning of large-scale agriculture in that society—that the land was burned to clear ground for planting. But there is little evidence of cultivation after the fires. Therefore, it is likely that this society was still a hunter-gatherer society.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that the society was a hunter-gatherer society. She bases this on evidence that they burned large areas of land with little sign of farming afterward, making it unlikely they were agricultural, as some suggest.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because large areas of land were burned with little evidence of farming afterward, the society must have been hunter-gatherer. She doesn’t consider why a hunter-gatherer society would burn a large area of land, or whether an agricultural society might burn large areas of land for some reason other than farming.
A
Many ancient cultures had agriculture before they began using fire to clear large tracts of land.
Irrelevant—the society in the stimulus did use fire to clear large areas of land. Whether some ancient agricultural societies did not do this doesn't matter. Instead, we need an answer that helps us determine if these fires indicate a hunter-gatherer society.
B
Hunter-gatherer societies used fire for cooking and for heat during cold weather.
Irrelevant— using fire for cooking and heat during the cold is not the same as burning large areas of land. We need to know why burning large areas of land might be evidence of a hunter-gatherer society. Whether this society used fire in other ways doesn’t matter.
C
Many plants and trees have inedible seeds that are contained in hard shells and are released only when subjected to the heat of a great fire.
Even if we assume that these inedible seeds grow into edible plants and that the best way to release them is to burn a large area of land, (C) weakens the argument because it presents evidence of an agricultural society, not a hunter-gatherer society.
D
Hunter-gatherer societies are known to have used fire to move animal populations from one area to another.
This strengthens the argument by addressing the assumption that a hunter-gatherer society would have reason to burn a large area of land at all. If hunter-gatherer societies used fire to move animals from one area to another, the author’s conclusion becomes much more plausible.
E
Few early societies were aware that burning organic material can help create nutrients for soil.
Irrelevant—even if this society didn’t know that burning organic material can enrich soil, (E) only tells us that they probably didn’t plant on the land, which was already stated in the stimulus.
This is a Strengthen question.
The argument begins with a phenomenon that a certain ancient society burned large areas of land. Naturally, we wonder why they did this. The author presents other people's hypothesis: they burned large areas of land to prepare the ground for planting, which means that the ancient society was beginning the transition to agriculture.
To test this hypothesis, we can check its predictions. One prediction would be evidence of agriculture. If it's true that they burned the ground in preparation for planting, then we should expect to find evidence of agriculture. But we have little evidence of cultivation after the fires. This strongly implies that the other people's hypothesis of transition to agriculture is wrong. And so the author concludes it is likely that the society was still a hunter-gatherer society.
Now, one quick assumption you might've noticed is whether ancient societies fall into the binary buckets of either agricultural or hunter-gatherer. That is something to keep in mind, but as it turns out, those two buckets do largely capture all societies. The answer choices don't try to undercut that assumption.
But don't forget that we still have this phenomenon presented in the beginning argument. The author hasn't given an explanation of why the ancient society burned large areas of land. She has only, rather effectively, disposed of a bad explanation.
This is where Correct Answer Choice (D) improves the reasoning of the argument. It says hunter-gatherer societies are known to have used fire to move animal populations from one area to another. This presents a plausible explanation of the phenomenon unexplained in the original argument. If this is true, then that phenomenon itself becomes support for the author's conclusion that the society was still a hunter-gatherer society.
Answer Choice (A) says many ancient cultures had agriculture before they began using fire to clear large tracts of land. This means that fire clearing of land is not necessary for the transition to agriculture. That's good to know if you were curious about early human civilization. But this has nothing to do with the argument. The fact is the particular ancient society we’re talking about did clear large areas of land with fire. We’re trying to figure out what that means about the status of their civilizational development.
Answer Choice (B) says hunter-gatherer societies use fire for cooking and for heat during cold weather. This doesn't affect the argument at all. The argument told us that this particular society used fire to burn large areas of land and then we try to argue that this particular society was still a hunter-gatherer society. Information about hunter-gatherer societies using fire to do other things doesn't help the claim.
Answer Choice (C) says many plants and trees have inedible seeds that are contained in hard shells and are released only when subjected to the heat of a great fire. This is probably the most attractive wrong answer choice because it also looks like it's trying to provide an explanation for the phenomenon described above. It's trying to suggest that the reason why the ancient society burned large areas of land was to extract the seeds from the hard shells. There are at least two problems with (C), however. The first problem is that the seeds are inedible. That means you can't eat them. So what are you trying to do by extracting them? One plausible explanation is that you're trying to plant them. But that's not good for this argument, because that suggests that the culture might have been agrarian. The other problem is that this explanation doesn't fit very well with the phenomenon. Even if it's true that the seeds are released only when subjected to the heat of a great fire, it's not clear that the way to extract a seed is to burn down an entire tract of land. Why not collect all the shells and just burn them? Wouldn’t that be easier than setting a whole forest on fire? Notice (D) doesn't suffer from this problem. The hypothesis fits the facts. If you're trying to move entire populations of animals, then burning large areas of land makes sense. The solution is at the right scale for the problem.
Answer Choice (E) says few early societies were aware that burning organic material can help create nutrients for soil. This suggests the preclusion of a potential explanation. Before reading (E), one potential explanation for why the ancient society burned large areas of land was to fertilize the soil. After reading (E), it seems less likely that that's what our ancient society was attempting to do. What is the significance of this? I suppose it's less likely now that our ancient society was agrarian. But this was already established in the argument.