Primatologist: Although I agree that your assumption helped you make those predictions, your conclusion does not follow. You might as well argue that since we can predict the output of some bank cash machines by assuming that these machines actually want to satisfy the customers’ requests, these cash machines must really have desires.
A
citing various facts that could not obtain if the anthropologist’s conclusion were correct
B
offering another argument that has as its premise the denial of the thesis that the anthropologist defends
C
applying one of the anthropologist’s reasoning steps in another argument in an attempt to show that it leads to an absurd conclusion
D
attacking the anthropologist’s expertise by suggesting the anthropologist is ignorant of the analogy that can be drawn between animals and machines
E
suggesting that the anthropologist’s argument relies on a misinterpretation of a key scientific term
Merchant: But the amount spent by teenagers who congregate near mall stores constitutes a significant percentage of the total amount spent in those stores.
A
disputing the truth of claims the manager offers as support for the recommendation
B
giving information that pertains to the relation between the manager’s recommendation and the mall’s goal
C
suggesting that the mall’s goal is an undesirable one
D
contending that the manager’s recommendation is sound but for reasons other than those given by the manager
E
using the information cited by the manager to make an additional recommendation that would help achieve the mall’s goal
(1) If a sentence is grammatical, it is diagrammable.
(2) If a sentence is grammatical, it will be recognized as grammatical by speakers of its language.
(3) Speaker X’s sentence is diagrammable.
In other words, he draws a conditional connection between “diagrammable” and “recognizable” when no such connection exists.
A
most people are unable to diagram sentences correctly
B
some ungrammatical sentences are diagrammable
C
all sentences recognized as grammatical can be diagrammed
D
all grammatical sentences can be diagrammed
E
some ungrammatical sentences are recognized as ungrammatical
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “How is Judy’s response related to John’s argument?”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker.
Immediately we should note we have two speakers in our stimulus. That means we need to be on the lookout for two conclusions and two sets of explanations. Our first speaker, John, begins with a statistic. We learn that because 80% of fault accidents occur near the home, John concludes that people are driving less safely near the home. But where does that come from? Here, John is making an assumption. He presumes that because these accidents are congregated in one area, it must be the driver causing these accidents rather than the location contributing to that higher percentage.
Our second speaker, Judy, points out what John fails to consider. Rather than introduce her own conclusion Judy adds a consideration when evaluating John’s argument. While John assumes it’s the driver causing these accidents, Judy points out the frequency of the driving route plays a factor here. Explaining that most of our driving is done close to home provides an alternative explanation for the statistic John stated above. Giving us a reason to doubt John’s argument indicates that Judy is undermining the evidence used that would support John’s main point.
Knowing that our second speaker adds an alternative interpretation rather than a new claim, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is what we are looking for. Judy is giving us reason to question John’s argument rather than giving us a reason to support a new conclusion. This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies how Judy calls out the assumption in John’s argument.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice tells us that Judy restates the evidence provided by John rather than giving us a reason to question the evidence. In addition to this issue, if Judy were to “restate” the facts from John, we would expect to find only restated information we are already familiar with. For these reasons, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) Based on the stimulus, we know Judy is weakening rather than strengthening John’s position. Otherwise our second speaker would not be questioning the validity of the first speaker’s interpretation. Because this answer choice indicates Judy is supportive rather than against John’s reasoning, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice starts out strong by telling us Judy points out some sort of assumption. But, this answer choice does not correctly outline what that assumption is. Rather than assuming when people are going on long trips, Judy is questioning the amount of short trips (close to home) these drivers are making.
Answer Choice (E) Here comes circular reasoning! This answer choice claims Judy accused John of circular reasoning. This type of reasoning occurs when we conclude the conclusion happened, well, because the conclusion happened. We know the correct answer will point out Judy’s questioning of interpretation of the evidence rather than repetition of evidence, so we can eliminate this answer choice.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “the relationship of Ping’s response to Winston’s argument is that Ping’s response…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
This question presents us with two speakers. Right away, we should recognize that there are two conclusions and two reasons behind them. In this case we are analyzing two speakers taking varying positions on proposed budget cuts by the public transit authority. Our first speaker explains the transit authority cannot avoid a deficit unless it eliminates some services. Winston says that because the other means of avoiding the deficit (like fair increases) are not an option, the suggested cuts should be made. While our first speaker ends with a conclusion that affirms a recommendation on an action, our second speaker takes a different perspective. Winston’s argument seems to make sense as long as we are in agreement on what things should be done. If the city is interested in operating with a deficit, that would be evidence it should be pursued.
Ping responds to the first speaker’s argument without addressing Winston’s overall conclusion. Ping points out that there is potential for the budget cuts to not lead to much savings because the cuts would affect riders leaving home during the day but returning at night. By pointing out a possible event Winston does not think about, Ping explains how the first argument actually does not have the evidence necessary to support the conclusion that the budget cuts should be made.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice does not line up with the structure of our argument. While this answer choice states the argument “carefully refines terms,” we do not see the explanation of a term or disagreement with how Winston defined the different parts of their argument.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This answer choice correctly summarizes the different components of our argument by pointing out that Ping questions the first speaker’s evidence, but not the overall conclusion. We can confirm this answer choice by double checking to confirm Ping points out a group of riders left unconsidered rather than argue against Winston’s conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) We can eliminate this answer choice when it tells us that Ping is supplying a premise to Winston’s argument. Supplying a premise suggests that Ping is supporting Winston’s argument rather than questioning (weakening) the assumption on which Winston’s position depends.
Answer Choice (D) By claiming our argument introduces detailed statistical evidence, we know this answer choice does not line up with the structure of the stimulus. For this answer choice to be correct we would need to see a reference to statistical evidence, detailed or otherwise. Aside from that, this answer choice says the statistical evidence (that we do not have) is more persuasive - where does that idea come from?
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice does not line up with the structure of our stimulus most clearly because of the word contradicting. For this answer choice to be correct we need to see two ideas in the stimulus that don’t just appear inconsistent, but that directly contradict one another. Not only do we fail to see ping propose a solution as suggested by answer choice E, but we also cannot find contradictory ideas in the stimulus. We instead see factors that were previously unconsidered.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning in Thomas’ argument is flawed because his argument…”
Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Although this question only requires us to understand what is happening in Thomas’s argument, we can use the second speaker as a means of confirming the flaw in question.
Our first speaker begins the discussion by telling us the club president had no right to disallow Jeffrey’s vote. The reasoning for this is that Jeffrey paid his dues, and only those who pay their dues are able to vote. On the basis of this Jeffrey concludes the club president acted in violation of club rules by disallowing Jeffrey’s vote.
Unfortunately, Thomas is making sufficient and necessary conditions here. We are told that P (paying dues) → G (makes a member in good standing). But as it stands there is no guarantee that simply because we are in good standing we are guaranteed the right to vote. Actually, it’s written by Thomas the other way around.
The stimulus affirms that if you are a V (voting member) → G (you are a member in good standing). But notice how there is no way to draw any sort of conclusion from the presence of being in “good standing” alone. Being in good standing does not guarantee you are able to vote – it simply means the possibility exists. Thus, we cannot confirm the validity of Thomas’s conclusion that the club president was objectively in the wrong. Because there is no guarantee that just because Jeffrey is in good standing, there is not some other requirement that makes him ineligible to vote.
Knowing we are looking for the answer choice that hits on this sufficient/necessary confusion, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that lays out the exact flaw of our stimulus in a descriptively correct manner. Simply because Jeffrey has a prerequisite to vote doesn’t mean he has a guaranteed right to vote.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively correct. If Thomas were attacking the character of the club president, our evidence would be far less based in conditional reasoning.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is descriptively inaccurate due to the scope it contains. Answer choice C says that under any circumstances (not just in the world of Jeffrey’s club and their voting issues) whenever a statement is not denied, it is true. This answer choice goes far beyond the scope established by Thomas’s conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is descriptively correct but ultimately irrelevant when it comes to finding our flaw. Whether or not the exact issue being voted on is specified does not point out the sufficient and necessary confusion present in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice brings our second speaker into the mix. But without a reference to Althea’s position in Thomas’s argument, we can eliminate this answer choice as descriptively incorrect.