Summary
Every employed artist is not interested in the prospect of great personal fame. And all unemployed artists are sympathetic to social justice.
Notable Valid Inferences
Artists interested in the prospect of great personal fame are also sympathetic to social justice.
A
If there are artists interested in the prospect of great personal fame, they are sympathetic to social justice.
Must be true. As shown below, we can take the contrapositive of the second statement in the stimulus and chain it with the first statement. 
B
All artists uninterested in the prospect of great personal fame are sympathetic to social justice.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about uninterested artists.
C
Every unemployed artist is interested in the prospect of great personal fame.
Could be false. This answer choice confuses sufficiency for necessity. As shown on our diagram, we know that all interested artists are unemployed, but we don’t know if all unemployed artists are interested.
D
If an artist is sympathetic to social justice, that artist is unemployed.
Could be false. This answer choice confuses sufficiency for necessity. As shown on our diagram, we know that all unemployed artists are sympathetic, but we don’t know if all sympathetic artists are unemployed.
E
All artists are either sympathetic to social justice or are interested in the prospect of great personal fame.
Could be false. As shown on our diagram, we know all interested artists are also sympathetic.
Summary
Amusia is the difficulty in telling different melodies apart and remembering simple tunes. In an experiment, scientists subjected volunteers with amusia to changes in pitch comparable to playing one piano key and then another. The volunteers could not tell the difference between the tones. However, the volunteers were able to track timed sequences of tones and perceive slight changes in timing.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Amusia is caused results more from being unable to tell different tones apart than being unable to perceive changes in timing.
A
People who are unable to discern pitch compensate by developing a heightened perception of timing.
This answer is unsupported. A conclusion about people generally is too broad for this stimulus. The stimulus is limited to people with amusia.
B
Amusia results more from an inability to discern pitch than from an inability to discern timing.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that while the volunteers could not tell tones apart, they were able to perceive timing. Therefore, amusia may result more from the inability to tell tones apart than inability to perceive timing.
C
People who are unable to tell pitches apart in isolation are able to do so in the context of a melody by relying upon timing.
This answer is unsupported. A conclusion about people generally is too broad for this stimulus. The stimulus is limited to people with amusia.
D
The ability to tell melodies apart depends on the discernment of pitch alone and not at all on the perception of timing.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what are the necessary conditions for being able to tell melodies apart. Moreover, we don’t know if this ability solely depends on discerning pitch.
E
Whereas perception of timing can apparently be learned, discernment of pitch is most likely innate.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether either of these characteristics are learned or innate to make this comparison.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author argues that the standard recommendations for avoidance of infection must be counterproductive. She supports this by noting that those who follow the recommendations are more likely to contract diseases than are those who do not follow the recommendations.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a “correlation doesn’t imply causation” flaw, where the author sees a correlation and concludes that one thing causes the other without ruling out alternative hypotheses. The author overlooks two key alternatives:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe people who follow the recommendations do so because they’re already at heightened risk of contracting infection!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—maybe there’s something completely separate that causes some people to both follow the recommendations and be at higher risk of disease.
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe people who follow the recommendations do so because they’re already at heightened risk of contracting infection!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—maybe there’s something completely separate that causes some people to both follow the recommendations and be at higher risk of disease.
A
Pathogenic microorganisms can reproduce in foods that are not meat-based.
This is irrelevant to the author’s argument. We’re talking about meat-based foods specifically, so information about non-meat-based foods wouldn’t make any difference!
B
Many people do follow precisely all the standard recommendations for avoidance of infection by pathogenic microorganisms in meat-based foods.
This is irrelevant to the author’s argument. It doesn’t matter how many people follow the standard recommendations—whether it’s a lot or just a few, the fact remains that they are more likely than others to contract the diseases in question.
C
Not all diseases caused by microorganisms have readily recognizable symptoms.
The argument doesn’t require (and therefore doesn’t overlook) any discussion of symptoms. We can assume that the premises are true, meaning that the people we’re told have or have not contracted the diseases have been accurately diagnosed.
D
Preventing infection by pathogenic microorganisms is simply a matter of following the appropriate set of recommendations.
If (D) were true, then the author’s argument would be strengthened: we would be able to pinpoint the content of the standard recommendations as “inappropriate” and perhaps “counterproductive”. But we’re looking for a something the argument overlooks, not a strengthener!
E
Those most concerned with avoiding pathogenic infections from meat-based foods are those most susceptible to them.
This is overlooked by the author’s causation assumption. It’s possible that the recommendations cause disease contraction, but it’s also possible that those who follow the recommendations are a self-selected group who were more likely to contract the diseases to begin with!
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that, for the purpose of protecting others, governments are justified in outlawing behavior that puts one’s own health at risk. This is based on the fact that people who cause harm to themselves can also impose emotional and financial costs on others with whom they have important ties.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that preventing harm to others is a purpose that justifies restricting behavior that puts one’s own health at risk. The author overlooks the possibility that, despite the harm that one’s own self-harmful behavior might cause to others, there are reasons governments would not be justified in restricting this behavior.
A
Endangering the social ties that one has to other people is itself a harm to oneself.
This simply describes another potential harm that might result from behavior that harms oneself, if such behavior can threaten one’s social ties. This doesn’t suggest governments might not be justified in restricting self-harmful behavior.
B
People who have important ties to others have a personal obligation not to put their own health at risk.
This relates to one’s own personal obligations. But the argument is about what the government is allowed to do.
C
Governments are not justified in limiting an individual’s behavior unless that behavior imposes emotional or financial costs on others.
This isn’t inconsistent with the author’s reasoning. Justification may be limited to those cases in which one’s behavior imposes costs on others. The stimulus describes one of those cases.
D
Preventing harm to others is not by itself a sufficient justification for laws that limit personal freedom.
This shows that the potential harm posed to others cannot, by itself, justify restrictions on one’s behavior.
E
People’s obligation to avoid harming others outweighs their obligation to avoid harming themselves.
This concerns people’s own obligations. But the argument is about what the government is justified in doing.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The columnist concludes that, although animals are at higher risk of electrocution when cable TV lines are strung alongside electric power lines, this fact alone doesn’t show that cable TV lines should be put elsewhere. As a premise, the columnist states that putting cable TV lines elsewhere wouldn’t fully eliminate the electrocution problem, since some animals are electrocuted by power lines even without the help of cable TV lines.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The columnist argues that, although an intended solution to a problem will help alleviate the problem, said alleviation isn’t a good enough reason to take that action, because it won’t entirely eliminate the problem. This reasoning is flawed, because alleviating a problem can be a very good reason to take an action, even if the action won’t completely solve the problem!
A
It takes a sufficient condition for an argument’s being inadequate to be a necessary condition for its being inadequate.
The columnist’s reason for the argument’s inadequacy is neither sufficient nor necessary for the argument to be inadequate, so we’re not dealing with a flaw of sufficiency vs. necessity.
B
It rejects an argument for a proposal merely on the grounds that the proposal would not completely eliminate the problem it is intended to address.
The columnist rejects the wildlife activists’ proposal solely because it won’t completely stop animals from being electrocuted by power lines. But the proposal would still lead to fewer animal electrocutions, which could be reason enough to adopt it!
C
It fails to consider the additional advantageous effects that a proposal to address a problem might have.
The columnist did not say that the proposal shouldn’t be adopted, just that it shouldn’t be adopted based on the wildlife activists’ argument. There was therefore no need to consider any possible additional advantageous effects.
D
It rejects an argument by criticizing the argument’s proponents rather than by criticizing its substance.
The columnist does not criticize the wildlife activists.
E
It rejects a proposal to address a problem merely on the grounds that other proposals to address the problem would also be effective.
The columnist does not mention any other proposals for addressing animal electrocutions by power lines.