Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by severe scandals. You were given funds to hire 500 investigators to examine the scandals, but you hired no more than 400. I am forced to conclude that you purposely limited hiring in an attempt to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed.

Regulator: We tried to hire the 500 investigators but the starting salaries for these positions had been frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The regulator concludes that it was impossible to attract enough qualified investigators. As support, the regulator says that the starting salaries were frozen so low by the legislature that they did not have 500 qualified applicants.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The regulator responds to the legislator’s accusation that the regulation agency purposely limited hiring by highlighting new information that impacts the hiring process. The information raised by the regulator about the low starting salaries provides an alternate explanation that weakens the legislator’s argument. The new information suggests that it was the low salaries, rather than malice by the regulators, that explains the fact that no more than 400 regulators were hired.

A
shifting the blame for the scandals to the legislature
The regulator does not shift blame for the sandals. The regulator does not discuss who is responsible for the scandals referenced by the legislator.
B
providing information that challenges the conclusion drawn by the legislator
The regulator provides new information about the low starting salaries for the positions that challenges the legislator’s conclusion that the low hiring numbers were a result of the regulator’s desire to hide the scandals.
C
claiming that compliance with the legislature’s mandate would have been an insufficient response
The regulator does not address what would have happened if the agency actually had hired 500 investigators. The regulator doesn’t say whether or not that would have been a sufficient response.
D
rephrasing the legislator’s conclusion in terms more favorable to the regulator
The legislator’s conclusion is that the regulator purposely limited hiring in order to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed; the regulator does not rephrase this conclusion at all. The regulator gives a different conclusion.
E
showing that the legislator’s statements are self-contradictory
The regulator does not show that the legislator’s statements are self-contradictory; the regulator raises new information that weakens the legislator’s argument.

13 comments

Adults who work outside the home spend, on average, 100 minutes less time each week in preparing dinner than adults who do not work outside the home. But, contrary to expectation, comparisons show that the dinners eaten at home by the two groups of adults do not differ significantly with respect to nutritional value, variety of menus, or number of courses.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Adults who work outside the home spend less time preparing dinner compared to adults who do not work outside the home, but both groups eat dinners at home that are similar in nutritional value, variety, and number of courses.

Objective

The right answer will be a hypothesis that offers a similarity between both groups. This similarity will explain how they have similar quality dinners at home even though adults who work outside the home spend less time preparing dinner than adults who do not work outside the home. It will resolve the apparent discrepancy in the stimulus, which is that if one spends less time preparing dinner, their dinners are presumably less nutritional, have less variety, or have less courses.

A
The fat content of the dinners eaten at home by adults who do not work outside the home is 25 percent higher than national guidelines recommend.

(A) compares the fat content of dinners eaten at home by adults who do not work outside the home to the national guidelines. (A) does not compare or provide information on the two groups in question (adults who work outside the home and adults who do not).

B
Adults who do not work outside the home tend to prepare breakfast more often than adults who work outside the home.

This does not help to explain the apparent discrepancy: the stimulus discusses dinner, not breakfast.

C
Adults who work outside the home spend 2 hours less time per day on all household responsibilities, including dinner preparation, than do adults who do not work outside the home.

This does not offer a similarity that helps to explain the apparent discrepancy: the stimulus already says that adults who work outside the home spend less time on dinner, which is at the core of the discrepancy.

D
Adults who work outside the home eat dinner at home 20 percent less often than do adults who do not work outside the home.

(D) draws a similarity between the groups, explaining that they may actually spend similar amounts of time preparing dinner at home. Adults who work outside the home eat less dinners at home, meaning the time they do spend on preparing dinner at home is spread across less meals.

E
Adults who work outside the home are less likely to plan dinner menus well in advance than are adults who do not work outside the home.

This deepens the discrepancy between adults who work outside the home and adults who do not. According to (E), adults who work outside the home do less cooking and less planning, yet their homemade dinners are somehow similar to the stay-at-home group's.


28 comments

Scientists analyzing air bubbles that had been trapped in Antarctic ice during the Earth’s last ice age found that the ice-age atmosphere had contained unusually large amounts of ferrous material and surprisingly small amounts of carbon dioxide. One scientist noted that algae absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The scientist hypothesized that the ferrous material, which was contained in atmospheric dust, had promoted a great increase in the population of Antarctic algae such as diatoms.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The scientist hypothesizes that the ferrous material promoted a great increase in the population of Antarctic algae. She supports this by noting that algae absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Notable Assumptions
The scientist assumes that more ferrous material leads to more algae, which in turn absorbs carbon dioxide. This means she assumes that the relationship isn’t the reverse (i.e. more algae leads to more ferrous material), and also that there isn’t some other, hidden cause that’s actually responsible for the amount of algae. The scientist also assumes that algae was actually present in Antarctica at this time, in quantities sufficient to draw her conclusion.

A
Diatoms are a microscopic form of algae that has remained largely unchanged since the last ice age.
Diatoms are just one example of algae, and this fact doesn’t change what we think about algae in general. We need to weaken the connection between ferrous material and algae.
B
Computer models suggest that a large increase in ferrous material today could greatly promote the growth of oceanic algae.
If anything, this supports the scientist’s argument. We want to weaken this same connection.
C
The dust found in the air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice contained other minerals in addition to the ferrous material.
Were these other minerals the cause of the algae? As it is, we don’t know enough about them to say they weaken the argument.
D
Sediment from the ocean floor near Antarctica reflects no increase, during the last ice age, in the rate at which the shells that diatoms leave when they die accumulated.
At least one type of algae didn’t actually increase at all in Antarctica during the period in question. This suggests the ferrous material wasn’t causing algae growth.
E
Algae that currently grow in the oceans near Antarctica do not appear to be harmed by even a large increase in exposure to ferrous material.
The scientist claims that ferrous material causes algae growth. This doesn’t weaken that claim, and in fact defends against a possible weakener—that too much ferrous material is harmful to algae.

157 comments

A large number of drivers routinely violate highway speed limits. Since driving at speeds that exceed posted limits is a significant factor in most accidents, installing devices in all cars that prevent those cars from traveling faster than the speed limit would prevent most accidents.

Summary
The argument concludes that modifying all cars to prevent them from exceeding the speed limit would prevent most car accidents. This is supported by the claim that exceeding the speed limit is a significant factor in most accidents.

Notable Assumptions
The argument’s conclusion aims at preventing most accidents by preventing speeding, which is a “significant factor” in most accidents. This requires the assumption that speeding actually determines whether most accidents will happen—in other words, that there aren’t other significant factors that would still lead most accidents to happen.
It also requires assuming that preventing speeding would not cause so many additional accidents that the total number of accidents would stay high.

A
A person need not be a trained mechanic to install the device properly.
The argument merely claims that installing these devices in all cars would prevent most accidents. How easy it is to install the devices, or who is able to do it, is irrelevant.
B
Most accidents are caused by inexperienced drivers.
The argument’s claim that preventing speeding would prevent most arguments doesn’t depend on who is causing accidents, so this isn’t necessary to assume.
C
A driver seldom needs to exceed the speed limit to avoid an accident when none of the other drivers involved are violating the speed limit.
If we negate this, meaning that drivers would frequently need to speed in order to avoid otherwise non-speeding accidents, that would be one way that installing the device would cause more accidents. And the argument relies on that not being the case!
D
Most drivers who exceed the speed limit do so unintentionally.
The argument that preventing speeding would prevent most accidents doesn’t rely on the intention behind speeding. That makes this irrelevant.
E
Even if the fines for speed-limit violations were increased, the number of such violations would still not be reduced.
The argument never claims that installing this device is the only way to reduce or prevent speeding, so this is irrelevant.

48 comments

Director of Ace Manufacturing Company: Our management consultant proposes that we reassign staff so that all employees are doing both what they like to do and what they do well. This, she says, will “increase productivity by fully exploiting our available resources.” But Ace Manufacturing has a long-standing commitment not to exploit its workers. Therefore, implementing her recommendations would cause us to violate our own policy.

Summarize Argument
The director of concludes that a consultant’s recommendations for improving productivity by giving employees work that they enjoy and are good at would violate company policy. This is because the consultant says her recommendations will “fully exploit” the company’s workforce resources, and the company’s policy is not to exploit its workers.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter equivocation flaw: the director wrongly takes the term “exploit” to be the same between two different uses. When the consultant talks about “exploiting” the resources of the company, she’s just talking about making the best use of employees’ abilities. The company policy not to “exploit” workers refers to treating employees unfairly, which wouldn’t result from the consultant’s recommendations.

A
failing to distinguish two distinct senses of a key term
The director doesn’t distinguish between two uses of “exploit” that have different meanings in their respective contexts. The director wrongly takes the consultant’s use of “exploit” (optimize resources) to be the same as the company policy’s use of “exploit” (treat unfairly).
B
attempting to defend an action on the ground that it is frequently carried out
The director doesn’t try to defend any action in this argument. There also isn’t any example discussed of an action that is frequently carried out.
C
defining a term by pointing to an atypical example of something to which the term applies
The director doesn’t define any terms here. In fact, the flaw in the director’s argument is a failure to recognize two distinct definitions of the same term, “exploit”.
D
drawing a conclusion that simply restates one of the premises of the argument
The director concludes that the consultant’s recommendation would violate company policy, which is not a premise used earlier in the argument.
E
calling something by a less offensive term than the term that is usually used to name that thing
This argument doesn’t deal with offensive terminology, and the director doesn’t replace any usual terms with different ones.

16 comments

The populations of certain species of amphibians have declined dramatically in recent years, an effect many scientists attribute to industrial pollution. However, most amphibian species’ populations vary greatly from year to year because of natural variations in the weather. It is therefore impossible to be sure that the recent decline in those amphibian populations is due to industrial pollution.

Summary
The author concludes that we can’t be sure the recent decline in certain amphibian populations is due to industrial pollution.
Why?
Because most amphibian species populations vary greatly from year to year due to natural weather variations.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the decline in certain amphibian populations is within the range that could be explained by natural weather variations.
The author also assumes that the certain amphibian populations we’re talking about are among the “most” species whose populations are known to vary greatly due to weather variation.

A
The amphibian species whose population declines have been attributed by many scientists to industrial pollution are not known to be among those species whose populations do not vary greatly as a result of natural variations in the weather.
Necessary, because if this were not true — if the amphibian species we’re talking about ARE known to be among the species whose populations don’t vary due to weather — then the author’s premise does not support the conclusion. If (A) were negated, natural weather variations wouldn’t be relevant to the amphibian species’ decline anymore.
B
The variations in amphibian species’ populations that result from natural variations in the weather are not always as large as the amphibian population declines that scientists have attributed to industrial pollution.
Not necessary, because the negation of (B) helps the author’s argument. If the variations in populations that result from weather variation ARE always as large as the population declines that others attribute to pollution, then that’s even more reason to think natural weather variations could be the explanation for the population decline.
C
Either industrial pollution or natural variations in the weather, but not both, caused the amphibian population declines that scientists have attributed to industrial pollution.
Not necessary, because the author never actually takes a position on what caused or didn’t cause the decline in the population. The author’s just saying that we can’t be sure it’s industrial pollution. But it might be industrial pollution, weather, or something else entirely that is the true cause.
D
If industrial pollution were reduced, the decline in certain amphibian populations would be reversed, and if industrial pollution increases, the decline in certain amphibian populations will be exacerbated.
Not necessary, because the author’s not committed to industrial pollution as the cause of the species’ population decline. The author doesn’t have to think industrial pollution has anything to do with the decline.
E
If industrial pollution is severe, it can create more variations in the weather than would occur naturally.
Not necessary, because the author never suggests any causal connection between pollution and weather variation.

27 comments

Columnist: On average, about 70 percent of the profit from tourism in developing countries goes to foreign owners of tourist businesses. In general, as a country becomes a more established tourist destination, the proportion of revenues exported in this way increases. However, tourists can counteract this effect by obtaining accommodations and other services directly from local people.

Summary

Columnist: On average, 70% of tourism profits in developing countries go to foreign business owners. As a country becomes a more popular tourist spot, this percentage tends to rise. However, tourists can counteract this effect by getting accommodations and other services directly from locals.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

In at least some situations, tourists are able to influence local economies.

In some developing countries that are established tourist destinations, most tourism profits go to foreign owners of tourist businesses.

A
Tourists in a developing nation should obtain accommodations and other services directly from local people if most of the profits from tourism in that nation go to foreign owners of tourist businesses.

Unsupported. The stimulus tells us that tourists can counteract the profits of foreign business owners by obtaining services from local people, but it does not provide a value judgement as to what tourists should or should not do.

B
In at least some of the developing countries that are most established as tourist destinations, most of the profits from tourism go to foreign owners of tourist businesses.

Strongly supported. An average of 70% of tourism profits go to foreign business owners. This increases when a country is a more established tourism spot. So, in some of the developing countries that are most established as tourist spots, most tourism profits go to those owners.

C
In at least some developing countries, tourists obtain most of their accommodations and other services directly from local people.

Unsupported. The stimulus tells us that tourists can obtain accommodations directly from local people, but we do not know whether tourists actually obtain these things from local people in any developing countries.

D
In general, as a developing country becomes a more established tourist destination, local people become progressively poorer.

Unsupported. The stimulus tells us that a large percentage of tourism profits are exported, but there is also a percentage that remains in the country. We do not know that local people become progressively poorer as tourism becomes more established.

E
Tourists who obtain accommodations and other services directly from local people do not contribute in any way to the profits of foreign owners of tourist businesses.

Unsupported. Tourists who obtain accommodations and other services directly from local people may help to counteract the rising profits of foreign business owners, but we do not have enough information to conclude that they do not contribute in any way to those profits.


14 comments