Summarize Argument
The author concludes that at least 60% of our town’s houses have some kind of problem that threatens their integrity. This is based on the fact that 30% of houses in our town have inadequate site drainage and 30% have structural defects that could make them unsafe.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that some of our town’s houses have both inadequate site drainage and structural defects. If this possibility were true, than the overall percentage of houses with a problem that threatens their integrity could be less than 60%. The author wouldn’t be able to simply add 30% to 30% if some of the first 30% (with inadequate site drainage) are also part of the other 30% (with structural defects).
A
the town has a relatively small number of houses
The argument concerns the % of houses with something that threatens their integrity. This isn’t affected by the number of houses in the town.
B
inadequate site drainage can make a house unsafe
This possibility, if true, doesn’t weaken the argument. If inadequate site drainage can make a house unsafe, it’s still a feature that threatens the integrity of the house.
C
structural defects are often easier to fix than inadequate site drainage
The argument concerns what % of houses have problems that threaten the houses’ integrity. Whether certain defects are easier to fix than others doesn’t affect the reasoning.
D
many houses in the town have neither inadequate site drainage nor structural defects that could make them unsafe
The author doesn’t fail to recognize this. The conclusion is that at least 60% of the town’s houses have problems that threaten integrity; that leaves up to 40% that the author believes don’t have those problems.
E
some of the houses that have structural defects that could make them unsafe also have inadequate site drainage
This possibility, if true, means we can’t simply add the 30% with inadequate site drainage to the 30% with structural defects. Since one house can have both features, the total proportion with at least one of those features would add up to less than 60%.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that there are exceptions to the general rule of economists that people’s tendency to purchase a commodity is inversely proportional to its price. As support for the conclusion, the author provides an example of a commodity that breaks this rule: lace. As lace became less expensive, the lace market collapsed because lace no longer functioned as a wealth signifier.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is an example of a commodity that follows the general rule of economists that people’s tendency to purchase a commodity is inversely proportional to its price.
A
It is described as inadequate evidence for the falsity of the argument’s conclusion.
The claim in the question stem is not used to claim that the author’s conclusion is false; the claim in the question stem is just used as an example to illustrate the economists’ rule.
B
It is described as an exception to a generalization for which the argument offers evidence.
The claim about steel is used as an example of a commodity that follows the economists’ rule, not an exception to the generalization. Further, the argument does not offer evidence of a generalization; the argument offers evidence of an exception to a generalization.
C
It is used to illustrate the generalization that, according to the argument, does not hold in all cases.
The claim about steel is used as an example to demonstrate the economists’ general rule. Additionally, the argument does say that this general rule does not hold in all cases.
D
It is the evidence that, according to the argument, led economists to embrace a false hypothesis.
The argument does not claim that the example of steel led economists to embrace anything; it is just an example that follows the economists’ rule. Further, the author does not argue that the hypothesis is false, just that it has exceptions.
E
It is cited as one of several reasons for modifying a general assumption made by economists.
The author is not advocating modification of the economists’ general rule; the author is only saying that the rule has exceptions. Further, the example about steel conforms to the general rule.
Sales manager: Having spent my entire career in sales, most of that time as a sales manager for a large computer company, I know that natural superstar salespeople are rare. But many salespeople can perform like superstars if they have a good manager. Therefore, companies should _______.
Summary
The speaker starts by noting that natural superstar salespeople are rare. But, if they have a good manager, many regular salespeople can perform like superstars.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The blank should be filled with a recommendation about what companies should do based on the fact that good managers can help regular salespeople perform like superstars. The speaker would likely recommend that companies should try have salespeople supervised by good managers.
A
devote more effort to training than to evaluating salespeople
Unsupported. We know that managers can improve performance of salespeople. But we don’t know whether this has to do with training. And we don’t know whether evaluation is less important than training.
B
devote more effort to finding good managers than to finding natural superstar salespeople
Strongly supported. Natural superstars are rare, but good managers can make regular salespeople perform like superstars. This is a strong reason for companies to focus more on finding good managers.
C
keep to a minimum the number of salespeople for which a manager is responsible
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t provide evidence about the optimum number of people a manager should supervise. We don’t even know whether supervising a lot of people is a bad thing.
D
promote more natural superstar salespeople to management positions
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest that natural superstar salespeople will make better managers than regular salespeople.
E
reward superstar performance more than superstar talent
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t discuss rewards or what high performers should get.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that an unstable climate was likely a major factor in the fall of the Roman empire. This is based on an observation that Europe’s climate was unstable during the time of the Roman empire’s decline and fall. The author suggests a causal link with the empire’s fall, because an unstable climate could be bad for food production, thus weakening the empire.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there are not other, much more significant alternative explanations for the fall of the Roman empire. The author also assumes that any difficulty caused by lower food production was great enough to contribute to the empire’s downfall.
A
Political failures within the Roman empire during its last years led to conflicts that hampered agricultural production.
This weakens the author’s hypothesis by providing an alternative explanation for the fall of the Roman empire. Either way, this doesn’t support unstable climate as a major cause.
B
The areas of the Roman empire that had the greatest climatic instability between 250 A.D. and 550 A.D. did not experience unusual levels of unrest during that period.
This weakens the author’s assumption that an unstable climate had a negative enough effect to bring down the empire; if that were the case, we would expect the areas with more climactic instability to have higher unrest.
C
Poor farming practices led to depleted soil in many parts of Europe during the last years of the Roman empire.
This weakens the author’s hypothesis by providing an alternative explanation for instability due to poor food production: poor farming practices, rather than an unstable climate. In other words, the unstable climate may have only been a minor cause.
D
During periods when the Roman empire was thriving, Europe consistently experienced weather that was favorable for agriculture.
This strengthens the author’s hypothesis by more closely correlating climate stability with the empire’s strength, supporting the hypothesis that an unstable climate could have been a major factor in the empire’s failure.
E
Total food production in Europe was likely greater in the years around 550 A.D. than in the years around 250 A.D.
This is irrelevant, because it still doesn’t tell us how significant the impact of the unstable climate was on food production. Sure, production rose and fell, but how much? It also doesn’t offer any explanation of how food production impacted the Roman empire.