This is the part-to-whole flaw. The agent assumes that what’s true of a subset of his clients applies to all of his clients. But it’s possible that only a few clients were profitable last year, and while 90% of them increased their profits tenfold, most clients didn’t profit at all.
A
overlooks the possibility that the business clients who made more than $100,000 last year made only slightly more than $100,000
B
fails to explain why some of the business clients who made a profit did not increase their profits at least tenfold last year
C
draws a conclusion about all of the business clients from premises about the business clients who made a profit last year
D
treats conditions that are sufficient for making a profit as though they are necessary for making a profit
E
overlooks the possibility that not all of the business clients made an annual profit of more than $10,000 last year
Strengthen
Pretty hard question.
Premises tell us that Shooter Island's waters are exceptionally still and that there are lots of juvenile birds gathered around its waters. There aren't very many juvenile birds in waters in neighboring islands. We have to catch on that we are not told WHY the juveniles are gathering in still waters/Shooter Island. It could be for any number of reasons. The conclusion says that it's because it's their nursery. Okay, that makes sense I guess baby birds like still waters. They're probably using it as a nursery and that's why there are so many juvenile birds there.
If you thought that, then you likely overlooked (C). (C) tells us that whenever possible, waterbirds use still water as nurseries. We think... don't we already know that? Nope, we don't. This is a really powerful assumption that if established, would do wonders for the argument.
(C) tells us waterbird's preference is to use still waters for nurseries whenever it's possible. The stimulus tells us that there are in fact an overabundance of juveniles in still waters. You put the two statements together and now we're pretty sure that they're actually there because they're using it as a nursery and not for some other reason. Our argument is made much better.
(D) is an attractive trap. It says that the waters around the other islands are MUCH rougher. This seems like new information but it hardly is. We already knew from the premises that Shooter Island water is EXCEPTIONALLY still. Not just kind of still. It's exceptionally still. So even if the neighboring waters are a little bit rough, they're MUCH rougher than exceptionally still.
But let's just say that the waters in the neighboring islands are truly objectively rough. Okay, we still don't know why juvenile birds are gathering in still waters/Shooter Island. Is it as the conclusion says that it's because this is their nursery? Maybe. Or maybe it's for some other reason. That means the argument was as strong/weak as it ever was. We didn't do our job of strengthening the argument.
A
The ruined ships and boats around Shooter’s Island have been there for decades.
B
The number of juvenile waterbirds around Shooter’s Island, as well as the number around each neighboring island, does not fluctuate dramatically throughout the year.
C
Waterbirds use still waters as nurseries for juveniles whenever possible.
D
The waters around the islands neighboring Shooter’s Island are much rougher than the waters around Shooter’s Island.
E
Waterbirds are typically much more abundant in areas that serve as nurseries for juvenile waterbirds than in areas that do not.
Further Explanation
Pretty hard question.
Premises tell us that Shooter Island's waters are exceptionally still and that there are lots of juvenile birds gathered around its waters. There aren't very many juvenile birds in waters in neighboring islands. We have to catch on that we are not told WHY the juveniles are gathering in still waters/Shooter Island. It could be for any number of reasons. The conclusion says that it's because it's their nursery. Okay, that makes sense I guess baby birds like still waters. They're probably using it as a nursery and that's why there are so many juvenile birds there.
If you thought that, then you likely overlooked (C). (C) tells us that whenever possible, waterbirds use still water as nurseries. We think... don't we already know that? Nope, we don't. This is a really powerful assumption that if established, would do wonders for the argument.
(C) tells us waterbird's preference is to use still waters for nurseries whenever it's possible. The stimulus tells us that there are in fact an overabundance of juveniles in still waters. You put the two statements together and now we're pretty sure that they're actually there because they're using it as a nursery and not for some other reason. Our argument is made much better.
(D) is an attractive trap. It says that the waters around the other islands are MUCH rougher. This seems like new information but it hardly is. We already knew from the premises that Shooter Island water is EXCEPTIONALLY still. Not just kind of still. It's exceptionally still. So even if the neighboring waters are a little bit rough, they're MUCH rougher than exceptionally still.
But let's just say that the waters in the neighboring islands are truly objectively rough. Okay, we still don't know why juvenile birds are gathering in still waters/Shooter Island. Is it as the conclusion says that it's because this is their nursery? Maybe. Or maybe it's for some other reason. That means the argument was as strong/weak as it ever was. We didn't do our job of strengthening the argument.