"Surprising" Phenomenon
When a babbler spots a predator, that babbler and its group make loud, barklike calls despite the fact that the loud noise itself is typically the reason why the predator discovers that the birds are there.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains why babblers make their barklike call in response to predator sightings even though the call is often what draws their predator’s attention. That explanation will either describe some survival benefit of the barklike call which could outweigh the risks, or a way in which alerting predators of their presence is beneficial to the babblers’ chances of survival.
A
Babblers fly much faster than the predators that prey upon them.
While this answer might explain a way by which babblers escape their predators, it does nothing to explain why the birds would make a noise that alerts the predators to their presence in the first place.
B
Babblers’ predators are generally intimidated by large numbers of babblers.
This explains why it might be a good idea for babblers to make noise when predators are near. Predators are intimidated by large numbers of babblers, and only by hearing their collective call do predators become aware that there are many babblers nearby.
C
There is more than one type of predator that preys upon babblers.
The fact that there are multiple types of predators preying on babblers does nothing to explain why the babblers would want to call any predator’s attention to their presence.
D
Babblers’ predators have very good eyesight but relatively weak hearing.
This may seem to mitigate the potential damage of the babblers’ loud call—maybe the predators can’t hear them well anyway?—but it does nothing to explain why the babblers would want to make any noise at all in the presence of predators.
E
Animals that live in close proximity to babblers are also preyed upon by the predators that prey upon babblers.
Even if the babblers’ call tells predators that other prey are nearby, it still also proves that the babblers themselves are there. Predators could easily decide to eat the babblers instead of the other animals, and this answer doesn’t explain why babblers would take that risk.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Ishiko is a good manager. This is based on the following:
Being a good manager requires understanding people and being able to defuse tense situations.
Defusing tense situations requires understanding people.
Ishiko is able to defuse tense situations.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses necessary conditions for being a good manager with sufficient conditions. The premises establish that Ishiko has satisfied two necessary conditions for being a good manager. She can defuse tense situations, and she must be able to understand people. But this doesn’t guarantee that she is a good manager. (There might be other necessary conditions that we don’t know about; so we can’t conclude that Ishiko is a good manager.)
A
confuses a quality that shows an understanding of people with a quality that is necessary for understanding people
The author accurately uses the premise stating that ability to defuse is sufficient for understanding people. So the author doesn’t confuse the conditional “able to defuse → understand people.”
B
confuses a quality that usually correlates with being a good manager with a quality that results from being a good manager
This argument doesn’t involve cause and effect. The author doesn’t conclude or assume that anything cause something else. Rather, the reasoning involves an attempted use of conditional statements.
C
confuses qualities necessary for being a good manager with qualities that guarantee being a good manager
Understanding and defusing are necessary for being a good manager. But this doesn’t imply that they are sufficient for someone to be a good manager. So Ishiko’s possession of those qualities does not prove that she’s a good manager.
D
overlooks the possibility that different managers defuse tense situations in different ways
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument’s reasoning. We know from a premise that Ishiko can defuse tense situations. How she does it, and how others defuse such situations has no impact.
E
takes for granted that because all good managers have a certain quality, Ishiko must have that quality
The argument doesn’t conclude that Ishiko must have a certain quality because all managers have that quality. The conclusion is that Ishiko is a good manager.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The argument evaluates a hypothesis about why mechanist arguments in support of monarchies were so prolific. The author rejects the hypothesis that there were so many arguments because the principles of mechanism are in tension with democracy. The author instead claims the arguments multiplied because none of them worked. They didn’t work because the principles of mechanism support democracy.
Identify Argument Part
This is the claim that the author is rejecting and offering an alternative theory for. The author’s alternative theory for the proliferating arguments is that the arguments didn’t work because mechanism supports democracy.
A
It states a principle that the argument seeks to establish.
The argument rejects this claim. It is trying to establish that it is false by presenting an alternative explanation.
B
It describes a general phenomenon that the argument seeks to explain.
The author is trying to explain the proliferation of arguments, but he rejects the explanation contained in this claim.
C
It introduces a hypothesis that the argument challenges.
The argument presents an alternative hypothesis and rejects this idea of why the arguments proliferated.
D
It provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument.
This is what the argument is refuting. It doesn’t support the author’s claim, which is an alternative explanation.
E
It expresses the conclusion of the argument.
This is what the conclusion of the argument rejects and presents an alternative for.