"Surprising" Phenomenon
A new car was much less safe than any other car previously available, yet most customers increased their safety after buying it.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains how a relatively unsafe car can increase driver safety. The explanation must show how two opposite qualities can coexist, likely through the intermediary—the driver. It may state that drivers are more likely to be careful on the roads knowing their vehicle is unsafe, or that all the customers owned even less-safe vehicles before.
A
The company surveyed potential customers and discovered that most of them were more concerned about cost than about safety.
We don’t care what people cared about when buying the car. We need to know why they were safer on the roads after buying it.
B
The company could significantly increase the car’s safety without dramatically increasing its production cost.
We’re not interested in what the company could do. We’re interested in the drivers.
C
Most people who bought the new car were probably unaware that it is much less safe than other cars.
If customers were unaware that the car was relatively unsafe, then we have no reason to believe they would’ve driven more carefully than before. This doesn’t resolve anything.
D
Many households that previously could afford only one car can now afford two.
Why would having two cars in their household make a driver safer? This doesn’t resolve the paradox—that driving a relatively unsafe car made these drivers safer.
E
Most people who bought the new car previously travelled by bicycle or motorcycle, which are less safe than the new car.
Even though the car in question is unsafe compared to other cars, it’s a big step up safety-wise from bicycles and motorcycles. Hence, customers who previously rode bicycles or motorcycles became safer on the roads once they bought the new car.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that eating bread and meat in the same meal is unhealthy. This is based on the fact that after he stopped eating cheeseburgers from fast-food restaurants every day, and instead switched to a diet of lean meats, fruits, and vegetables, he started to have a lower cholesterol level and blood pressure.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the combination of bread and meat in the same meal was the cause of his higher levels of cholesterol and blood pressure before switching his diet. This overlooks the possibility that the true cause was eating meals from fast-food restaurants every day. Perhaps if he had eaten bread and meat in the same meal, but the meal was from places besides fast-food restaurants, he wouldn’t have suffered from higher cholesterol and blood pressure.
A
treats a statement as established fact merely because a self-appointed expert has asserted it
The author doesn’t assume that eating bread and meat in the same meal interferes with digestion simply because experts have said it does. The author’s conclusion is based on his own experience after switching his diet.
B
draws a conclusion that merely restates a premise offered in support of it
(B) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion is not a restatement of any of the premises. The premises concern a description of the author’s diet and what he experienced after switching his diet.
C
treats a condition that must occur in order for an effect to occur as a condition that would ensure that the effect occurs
(C) describes a confusion of sufficient and necessary condition. The argument doesn’t present any condition that “must occur” in order for an effect to occur. There are no necessary conditions presented.
D
concludes that one part of a change was responsible for an effect without ruling out the possibility that other parts of that change were responsible
The author concludes that one part of a change (bread and meat in the same meal) was responsible for the author’s lower cholesterol and blood pressure. But this ignores the possibility that the switch from fast-food was responsible.
E
concludes that making a dietary change improved the health of a particular person simply because that change results in improved health for most people
The author’s conclusion is not based on a claim that refraining from eating meat and bread in the same meal improves health for most people.
Researcher: Newly formed neurons can help to heal an injured brain but only if they develop into the type of neurons that are most common in the injured area. Studies have shown that when a part of the brain called the striatum is injured, newly formed neurons in the striatum never become midsized spiny neurons, the type most common in the striatum.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
If the striatum is injured, then newly formed neurons will not help heal the injury.
A
Newly formed neurons sometimes develop into midsized spiny neurons in areas of the brain other than the striatum.
Could be false. We don’t have any information about neuron development into midsized spiny neurons outside of the striatum.
B
Newly formed neurons are commonly found in injured areas of the brain shortly after the injury occurs.
Could be false. We don’t know anything about the amount of time between injury and appearance of newly formed neurons.
C
Midsized spiny neurons are not the most common type of neuron in any part of the brain other than the striatum.
Could be false. We don’t know anything about what kinds of neurons are most common in areas of the brain other than the striatum.
D
In cases of injury to the striatum, newly formed neurons will not help to heal the injury.
Must be true. As shown below, by chaining the conditional relationships, we know that if the striatum is injured, then the newly formed neuron will not help heal the injury.
E
In most cases of brain injury, newly formed neurons do not help to heal the injury.
Could be false. We don’t have any information about the quantity of brain injuries that are or aren’t healed with the assistance of newly formed neurons.
Summarize Argument
Leona concludes that Thompson’s article about a particular novel is puzzling. This is because it apparently contradicts itself. The article says that one character in the novel is anxious during a particular scene. But the article also says that the same character in that same scene is a “self-identified agent,” and that “self-identified agents” are incapable of feeling anxious.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author points out a contradiction in the article’s claims.
A
some of Thompson’s reasoning is circular
Circular reasoning involves a conclusion that restates one of the premises. That doesn’t occur here, since the conclusion expresses a different idea from any of the premises.
B
Thompson provides no definition of the concept of a “self-identified agent”
Failure to provide a definition is not a flaw. The author tells us the significance of “self-identified agent” and how it is part of what shows a contradiction. An exact definition is not required.
C
the analysis of character offered by Thompson is insufficiently supported by the textual evidence
The author does not suggest that there isn’t enough evidence to support various claims in the article. The criticism is that the article contradicts itself.
D
it is unlikely that any character could qualify as a “self-identified agent”
The author does not suggest that being a “self-identified agent” is unlikely. The author points out that a certain character’s status as a “self-identified agent” leads to a contradiction (that the character can’t be anxious, even though she was described as anxious).
E
some of Thompson’s claims contradict each other
The author points out that Thompson’s article claims that a character is anxious, but also claims that the same character is a “self-identified agent,” which cannot be anxious. A character cannot be both anxious and incapable of being anxious; this is a contradiction.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Cars sold more frequently and for higher prices when their defects were listed.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains something about consumer behavior. The explanation must result in consumers responding more favorably to listings that report defects than to listings that only give brief descriptions. The explanation must also provide some rationale for why this is, which likely has to do with consumer trust.
A
Most people are skeptical of the descriptions that accompany items when they are put up for auction online.
We need a comparative aspect. This tells us people are skeptical of descriptions, but we don’t know how they respond to lists of defects.
B
People are likely to assume that a car with no reported defects has been maintained more attentively and is therefore in better overall condition.
If this were true, people would presumably prefer to buy the cars without reported defects. The stimulus tells us the opposite is true.
C
Prospective buyers are likely to overlook mention of defects buried in a detailed description of the condition of an object they are considering purchasing.
According to the stimulus, all the descriptions are brief. We don’t care about detailed descriptions.
D
Listing defects in a description of an item tends to lead people to assume that no major defect has gone unmentioned.
When defects are reported, people assume they’re getting the whole picture. When details aren’t reported, people may assume something about the car’s condition is being hidden, which makes them less inclined to make a purchase.
E
With thousands of cars for sale, prospective buyers are unlikely to read detailed descriptions of more than a small fraction of them.
Like (C), we don’t have detailed descriptions in the stimulus. We’re talking about brief descriptions and lists of defects.