Summarize Argument
This argument concludes that governmental power over information must be reduced. The journalist supports this by saying that, in most countries, the government controls over half of the information that the public receives. This governmental control restricts the free marketplace of ideas. The free marketplace of ideas is what allows all ideas to receive fair consideration, so limiting this free marketplace can limit beneficial outcomes that come from free exchange of ideas. Further, the journalist claims that everyone concedes that governments should not suppress free expression, yet governments hold near monopolies on information.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that the government should be restricted in its control over information: “The power of governments over information needs to be curtailed.”
A
The freedom of the marketplace of ideas is in jeopardy.
This is not the main conclusion. The argument makes a claim about the freedom of the marketplace of ideas in order to support the overall conclusion, which is that governmental control over information should be reduced.
B
Preserving a free marketplace of ideas is important.
The importance of the free marketplace of ideas is an unstated idea that provides support for the overall conclusion, which is that governmental control over information should be reduced, so this is not the main conclusion
C
The control that governments have over information needs to be reduced.
This is the main conclusion. The rest of the argument supports this claim by demonstrating the value of the free marketplace of ideas, and by showing that governmental monopolization of information can restrict free expression.
D
Ideas that have malicious content or stem from questionable sources can be valuable.
The argument says that ideas with malicious content can prompt beneficial outcomes; the argument does not say if the ideas themselves are valuable. Further, the value in the outcomes of these ideas exists as support for the main conclusion.
E
Governments have near monopolies on the dissemination of many kinds of information.
This claim about governmental control of information acts as a premise to demonstrate that governments are acting in a way that may impede the free expression of information. Further, we only know that governments “continue to construct” near monopolies, not that they have them.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that South America and Africa were once joined. This is because the continents used to be part of a single massive landmass, which then broke apart as plates shifted.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that South America and Africa are situated in such a way that suggests they were once joined before breaking apart.
A
A large band of ancient rock of a rare type along the east coast of South America is of the same type as a band on the west coast of Africa.
This is evidence that South America and Africa were once joined. The rare rock in question is unlikely to exist on both coasts if the continents weren’t joined at one point.
B
Many people today living in Brazil are genetically quite similar to many western Africans.
Continental drift happened long before humans existed. Such genetic differences have different explanations.
C
The climates of western Africa and of the east coast of South America resemble each other.
Irrelevant. Climates are affected by many things, but continental drift from millions of years ago aren’t one of them.
D
Some of the oldest tribes of people living in eastern South America speak languages linguistically similar to various languages spoken by certain western African peoples.
Like (B), continental drift happened long before humans. Such linguistic differences have different explanations.
E
Several species of plants found in western Africa closely resemble plants growing in South America.
Plants migrate for many reasons. It’s likely these species were carried across the ocean in more recent times.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the public generally does not find violent movies offensive, contrary to the claims of legislators. As support, he cites a survey of frequent moviegoers in which the majority of respondents did not find violent movies offensive.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author draws a conclusion about public opinion based on an industry survey of frequent moviegoers. This is the cookie-cutter flaw of relying on an unrepresentative sample: he fails to consider that the views of frequent moviegoers might not be representative of the public as a whole.
A
attempts to undermine the legislators’ credibility instead of addressing their argument
The author does address their argument: the problem is that his rebuttal is flawed, not that he didn’t make a rebuttal.
B
bases its conclusion on subjective judgments rather than on an objective criterion of moral offensiveness
The relevant criterion is subjective judgments (what the public thinks of violent movies), so this can’t be the flaw.
C
fails to consider the possibility that violent movies increase the prevalence of antisocial behavior
The argument in the stimulus is about what fraction of the public disapproves of violent movies. The actual consequences of the movies are irrelevant; what matters is what the public thinks.
D
generalizes from a sample that is unlikely to be representative of public sentiment
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of relying on an unrepresentative sample. The author commits this by citing a survey of frequent moviegoers as definitive evidence. They might differ from the public as a whole. So they can’t be used to draw a conclusion about the public in general.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that the people surveyed based their responses on a random sampling of movies
Whether the respondents had a random sample of movies is irrelevant: the argument is about what people in general think of violent movies. It doesn’t matter if their choice of movies is non-random. The problem is that the respondents themselves aren’t randomly sampled.
Considering that Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens, I have always found it amazing that very few people know that Samuel Clemens was a writer, since almost everybody knows that Mark Twain was one.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do so few people know that Samuel Clemens is a writer when almost everybody knows that Mark Twain, which is Samuel Clemens’ pen name, is a writer?
Objective
The correct answer must provide a difference between people’s awareness of Mark Twain as a writer on the one hand, and their awareness of Samuel Clemens as a writer on the other.
A
Most people probably have not read anything by Samuel Clemens.
“Mark Twain” is Samuel Clemens’ pen name. If most people haven’t read anything by Samuel Clemens, it means most people haven’t read anything by Mark Twain. Therefore, this answer doesn’t explain why more people know that Mark Twain is a writer.
B
Everyone who knows that Samuel Clemens was a writer also knows that Mark Twain was one.
This provides a similarity between people’s awareness of Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens, but we need a difference. (B) tells us that of all the people who know Samuel Clemens was a writer, those same people also know Mark Twain was a writer. This doesn’t explain why so many more people know about Twain than Clemens.
C
Most people do not know that Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens.
This points out a difference in people’s knowledge about Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens. If most people don’t know that Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens, it provides a possible explanation for why far more people know that Mark Twain was a writer than Samuel Clemens.
D
Many people believe apparently conflicting things about authors.
Even if people believe conflicting things about Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens, it doesn’t address why far more people are aware that Mark Twain is a writer.
E
Some people know that “Mark Twain” is a pseudonym for Samuel Clemens.
This explains why some people could be equally aware of both Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens, but we need an answer choice that does the opposite. We need a difference between people’s awareness of Twain and Clemens.
Summarize Argument
The advertisement concludes that Barr Motor Company produces more winning automobiles than its competitors do. This is supported by a claimed analogy: that Barr Motor Company demonstrates similar pride to that displayed by Austin Stables. And apparently, Austin Stables’ pride is responsible for Austin Stables producing more winning racehorses than their own competitors.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The advertisement draws an analogy between two cases which possess the same quality of pride. Because this quality is responsible for a certain outcome in one case, the outcome is said to be similar in the other case. In other words, because Barr Motor Company displays similar pride to Austin Stables, Barr Motor Company—by analogy to Austin Stables—will also have similar success over its competition.
A
demonstrating that Barr Motor Company has more repeat customers than its competitors
The advertisement does not mention repeat customers, only claiming that Barr Motor Company will produce better products than their competitors.
B
using an analogy to reach the conclusion that Barr Motor Company is superior to its competitors
The advertisement uses an analogy between Austin Stables and Barr Motor Company to conclude that Barr Motor Company is superior to its competitors in a way analogous to Austin Stables’ superiority over its competitors.
C
proving that Barr Motor Company has a long-standing tradition of pride
The advertisement doesn’t function to prove Barr Motor Company’s long-standing tradition of pride. Rather, Barr’s pride is a premise that supports drawing an analogy between Barr Motor Company and Austin Stables.
D
understating the role that pride plays in accounting for the success of Austin Stables
The advertisement doesn’t understate the role of pride in accounting for the success of Austin Stables, instead claiming that pride truly does account for that success.
E
asserting that Barr Motor Company has an older tradition of pride than does Austin Stables
The advertisement doesn’t make any claims about how old the tradition of pride at Austin Stables is.
Summary
Robin lived through extraordinary childhood circumstances.
Robin committed an offense.
Robin doesn’t know the moral difference between right and wrong.
Robin did not recognize that her offense was morally wrong.
Robin does know the difference between what is legally permitted and what is not.
Robin did recognize that her offense was illegal.
Robin committed an offense.
Robin doesn’t know the moral difference between right and wrong.
Robin did not recognize that her offense was morally wrong.
Robin does know the difference between what is legally permitted and what is not.
Robin did recognize that her offense was illegal.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
Robin’s offense was illegal.
Robin’s offense was morally wrong.
Robin’s offense was morally wrong.
A
Robin committed no offense that was not legally permissible.
Anti-supported. Robin committed an offense that was illegal, meaning it was not legally permissible.
B
Robin did something that was morally wrong.
Very strongly supported. In telling us that Robin didn’t recognize that the offense she committed was morally wrong, the author implies that the act was, in fact, wrong, although Robin did not realize it.
C
Moral ignorance is never excusable in the eyes of the law.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t indicate whether Robin’s moral ignorance constitutes a legal excuse for her behavior.
D
Robin’s childhood could have provided more adequate moral training even in the circumstances.
Unsupported. The stimulus gives no information about what was or was not theoretically possible under the circumstances of Robin’s childhood.
E
Robin could now be brought to see the moral difference between right and wrong.
Unsupported. The stimulus gives no information about Robin’s capacity to learn the moral difference between right and wrong.
Sue: Nonsense. Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun. This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very carefully.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Sue concludes that Anne’s position—that it must be unusual for a comet to flare visibly while far from the Sun—is “nonsense.” This is supported by Sue’s claim that such a flare was observed only once merely because comets far from the Sun are not usually observed. The exceptional event was thus closely tracking the specific comet which flared, not necessarily the flare itself.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Sue introduces a new consideration to undermine Anne’s claim that an event only rarely being seen means that the event itself must be rare. Instead, Sue suggests that the event is rarely seen simply because of a lack of observation.
A
pointing out that Anne’s use of the term “observed” is excessively vague
Sue doesn’t claim that Anne’s language choices are unsatisfactory at all; their arguments agree in their usage of the term “observed.”
B
drawing attention to an inconsistency between two of Anne’s claims
Sue doesn’t claim that Anne is making inconsistent claims, only that her claims do not support her conclusion given the new consideration that Sue introduces.
C
presenting evidence that directly contradicts Anne’s evidence
Sue does not contradict Anne’s evidence. Rather, she agrees with Anne that Halley’s comet was observed to flare, and just doesn’t comment on Anne’s claim that no other comet had ever been observed to flare so far from the sun.
D
offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Anne cites
Sue explains the evidence Anne cites about comet flares far from the Sun rarely being observed, by explaining that comets far from the Sun are rarely observed at all. This is an alternative explanation to Anne’s conclusion that these flares must be highly unusual.
E
undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion
Sue doesn’t undermine any of Anne’s evidence. Sue appears to just take Anne’s evidence at face value, and simply finds an alternate explanation for it.