To acquire a better understanding of the structure and development of the human personality, some psychologists study the personalities of animals.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do scientists study animals’ personalities to understand human personalities?

Objective
The correct answer must fail to identify a difference between humans and animals that explains why scientists would choose to study animal personalities rather than human personalities.

A
The actions of humans and animals are believed to be motivated by similar instincts, but these instincts are easier to discern in animals.
This explains why psychologists would study animals to learn about human personalities. Animals provide results more readily, and those results can be translated to understand human behavior.
B
The law forbids certain experiments on humans but permits them on animals.
This explains why psychologists would study animals to learn about humans. Some experiments would be illegal to perform on humans, but are legal to perform on animals.
C
It is generally less expensive to perform experiments on animals than it is to perform them on humans.
This explains why psychologists would opt to experiment on animals rather than humans. Animal studies are less expensive and thus more accessible for researchers.
D
Proper understanding of human personality is thought to provide a model for better understanding the personality of animals.
This flips the desired relationship on its head. Psychologists are studying animals to understand human personalities, not the reverse.
E
Field observations of the behavior of young animals often inspire insightful hypotheses about human personality development.
This explains why psychologists would opt to study animals over humans. Observing animals can generate insights into human personality that studies of humans alone cannot.

Comment on this

A group of 1,000 students was randomly selected from three high schools in a medium-sized city and asked the question, “Do you plan to finish your high school education?” More than 89 percent answered “Yes.” This shows that the overwhelming majority of students want to finish high school, and that if the national dropout rate among high school students is high, it cannot be due to a lack of desire on the part of the students.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that most students want to finish high school and that if there’s a high high school dropout rate, it’s not due to students’ lack of desire. He supports this with a survey of 1,000 randomly selected students from three high schools in a medium-sized town, where over 89% said they planned to finish high school.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is a cookie-cutter example of a flawed survey. The author draws a conclusion about all high school students based on an unrepresentative survey. Even though the students surveyed were randomly selected, they were still only chosen from three high schools in one medium-sized town. The author mistakenly assumes that 1,000 students from this town represent all high school students.

A
fails to justify its presumption that 89 percent is an overwhelming majority

The author doesn’t need to justify this presumption because 89 percent is an overwhelming majority. He isn’t making an unreasonable assumption here.

B
attempts to draw two conflicting conclusions from the results of one survey

The author does draw two conclusions— that most students want to finish high school and that a high high school dropout rate wouldn’t be due to students’ lack of desire— from one survey. But these conclusions don’t conflict with one another.

C
overlooks the possibility that there may in fact not be a high dropout rate among high school students

The author doesn’t overlook this possibility. In fact, he explicitly addresses it by saying, “If the national dropout rate...is high...”

D
contradicts itself by admitting that there may be a high dropout rate among students while claiming that most students want to finish high school

The author does claim that most students want to finish high school and he admits the possibility of a high dropout rate. But these statements don’t contradict each other. There could be many students who drop out of school despite wanting to finish.

E
treats high school students from a particular medium-sized city as if they are representative of high school students nationwide

This explains the author’s key flaw. He draws a conclusion about all high school students based on a survey of 1,000 students from a single city.


Comment on this

Some government economists view their home countries as immune to outside influence. But economies are always open systems; international trade significantly affects prices and wages. Just as physicists learned the shortcomings of a mechanics based on idealizations such as the postulation of perfectly frictionless bodies, government economists must look beyond national borders if their nations’ economies are to prosper.

Summary
The author concludes that government economists must look beyond national borders in order for their nations’ economies to prosper. This is based on the fact that economies are always open systems — in other words, things outside a nation’s borders can significantly affect an economy.

Missing Connection
The premise establishes that things beyond a nation’s borders can significantly affect a nation’s economy. But this doesn’t establish what government economists must look at in order for their nations’ economies to prosper. Why couldn’t the economists simply focus on things internal to the nation? Sure, there are external factors that influence the economy, but do we have to pay attention to them? Maybe internal factors alone are enough to allow a nation’s economy to prosper.

A
A national economy cannot prosper unless every significant influence on it has been examined by that nation’s government economists.
The premise establishes that there’s at least one significant influence on an economy that’s beyond a nation’s borders — international trade. According to (A), then, in order for a nation’s economy to prosper, government economists must examine international trade. This proves that in order for a nation’s economy to prosper, government economists must examine at least one thing beyond their nation’s borders.
B
Economics is weakly analogous to the physical sciences.
(B) doesn’t establish what government economists need to examine in order for an economy to prosper. The fact economics is somewhat analagous to physical sciences does not lead to anything specific about what government economists need to do.
C
Economic theories relying on idealizations are generally less accurate than economic theories that do not rely on idealizations.
(C) doesn’t establish what government economists need to examine in order for an economy to prosper. Learning what kind of economic theory is more or less accurate doesn’t support anything specific about what government economists need to do.
D
International trade is the primary significant variable influencing prices and wages.
We already know from the premises that international trade significantly influences prices and wages. Learning that it’s the most significant factor in prices and wages doesn’t establish what government economists need to examine in order for an economy to prosper. Do they need to examine things that are the primary variables influencing prices and wages? We don’t know.
E
Some government economists have been ignoring the effects of international trade on prices and wages.
We’re trying to prove that government economists need to do something. What some of them currently do doesn’t establish what they need to do.

18 comments

Raphaela: Forcing people to help others is morally wrong. Therefore, no government has the right to redistribute resources via taxation. Anyone who wants can help others voluntarily.

Edward: Governments do have that right, insofar as they give people the freedom to leave and hence not to live under their authority.

Speaker 1 Summary
Raphaela argues that governments do not have any right to redistribute resources through taxation. She supports this by appealing to a principle that forcing people to help others is morally wrong. (We can infer that redistribution via taxation would be a form of forcing people to help others.)

Speaker 2 Summary
Edward doesn’t make an argument—he states a claim, but doesn’t support it at all. What Edward claims is that governments do have the right to redistribute resources via taxation as long as they allow the people they govern to leave.

Objective
We’re looking for a statement that Raphaela and Edward disagree about. Their disagreement is over whether governments ever have a right to redistribute resources via taxation. Raphaela thinks they never do, and Edward thinks they do under certain conditions.

A
Any government that does not permit emigration would be morally wrong to redistribute resources via taxation.
Raphaela agrees with this, because she believes that it is always morally wrong for a government to redistribute resources via taxation. Edward, however, never mentions morality. We don’t know what he thinks.
B
Any government that permits emigration has the right to redistribute resources via taxation.
Raphaela disagrees with this: she thinks governments never have the right to redistribute resources via taxation. On the other hand, Edward agrees, because emigration allows people to leave, thus meeting his condition for when a government has this right.
C
Every government should allow people to help others voluntarily.
Neither speaker discusses whether governments should allow people to help others voluntarily. Raphaela mentions helping voluntarily as an alternative to being forced to help, but she doesn’t mention the role of government. Edward doesn’t mention helping voluntarily at all.
D
Any government that redistributes resources via taxation forces people to help others.
This is implied in Raphaela’s argument, but Edward never mentions the idea of forcing people to help others. Only one speaker offers an opinion, so we can’t know if they disagree or not.
E
Any government that forces people to help others should permit emigration.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Raphaela discusses forcing people to help others but never mentions emigration. Edward does the opposite, talking about emigration but not discussing the idea of forcing people to help others.

21 comments