Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that by going on record as favoring property tax reform, she can attract additional voters in the northeastern part of the district without alienating voters elsewhere. This is based on the fact that in each election over the past 10 years, the candidate who supported property tax reform received a majority of the votes in the northeastern part of the district. No other part of the district has a detectible voting pattern for or against property tax reform.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the correlation between gaining a majority of votes in the northeastern part of the district and supporting property tax reform is explained by a causal relationship between the support and the votes. But the support for property tax reform might have had nothing to do with why the candidate got votes.
A
would not attempt to enact property tax reform if elected
The conclusion concerns what the author believes will win votes. Whether a candidate would actually attempt to enact reform is not relevant, because the argument concerns the effects of supporting such reforms. One might be able to win votes simply from support.
B
draws opposite conclusions about voting patterns in different parts of the district
There’s nothing flawed about drawing opposite conclusions if the evidence supports those differing conclusion. The evidence shows a discernible pattern in the northeast, but no discernible pattern elsewhere. So there’s nothing flawed about drawing different conclusions.
C
draws a general conclusion about patterns of voting based on a small sample
We have no reason to think the conclusion is based on a “small” sample. The sample includes the results of votes over elections in the past 10 years. This could be dozens of elections. We have no idea whether the sample is too small.
D
surmises from the fact that two phenomena are correlated that one causes the other
There’s a correlation between winning more votes in the northeast and supporting tax reform. The author assumes that the support for tax reform is what caused candidates to win more votes. This doesn’t have to be true. So we can’t conclude that supporting tax reform will attract additional voters.
E
draws a conclusion based solely on data that are ten years old
There’s nothing inherently flawed about drawing a conclusion from data that’s ten years old. In any case, the argument isn’t based “solely” on data that’s ten years old. The data concerns elections throughout the last 10 years.
Summary
Dairy farmers use BST to boost cow milk production. Some people oppose BST because it puts cows at a higher risk of infection. A higher risk of infections leads to more frequent use of antibiotics, which could appear in milk and be harmful at high levels. Milk from BST and non-BST cows is regularly screened for antibiotics.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If BST milk is not screened, it cannot be regarded as 100% safe.
If it is safe, then the milk has been scanned.
If it is safe, then the milk has been scanned.
A
Consumer groups have no legitimate reasons for opposing the use of BST.
This is anti-supported. The stimulus explains that some groups are opposed due to the presence of antibodies, which can be dangerous to humans.
B
Milk from BST-treated cows is as safe for human consumption as that from untreated cows.
This is anti-supported. The stimulus raises concerns about the potential for high amounts of antibiotics to be in BST milk.
C
There is no advantage to the use of BST on dairy cows.
This is anti-supported. The stimulus details that BST boosts milk production.
D
Milk from BST-treated cows can be presumed safe for humans only if it is successfully screened for high levels of antibiotics.
The stimulus explains that the notable difference between BST and non-BST milk is the potential increased concentration of antibiotics. Thus, if it is safe for humans, it must have been screened for antibiotics.
E
The only threat posed by drinking milk from cows treated with BST is high levels of antibiotics.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus does not claim that a heightened level of antibiotics is the *only* threat posed by BST milk, just that it is one of them.
Summarize Argument
The Legislator concludes that it is a mistake for universities to cut humanities departments when facing budget shortfalls for several reasons:
Teaching and research in the humanities costs less
(Sub-conclusion) So Humanities departments bring in more money than they spend
(Sub-conclusion) So Humanities departments subsidize science departments
Teaching and research in the humanities costs less
(Sub-conclusion) So Humanities departments bring in more money than they spend
(Sub-conclusion) So Humanities departments subsidize science departments
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the first part of the second sentence is a premise offered in support of a sub-conclusion, which is offered as support for the Legislator’s main conclusion.
A
It is offered as support for the accuracy of an alleged stereotype.
There is no support offered for the stereotype in the third sentence.
B
It is an alleged stereotype rejected in the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim is not a stereotype and the claim is not rejected by the Legislator.
C
It is put forward as a component of an explanation for a premise of the argument.
The claim is used as support for a sub-conclusion of the argument which is used to support the Legislator’s main conclusion.
D
It is an intermediate conclusion from which the argument’s overall conclusion is inferred.
The claim is used as support for a sub-conclusion of the argument. The claim itself is not a sub-conclusion.
E
It is one of many claims each presented as independent support for the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim is not independent support for the Legislator’s main conclusion.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Certain changes in North American residential architecture after World War II (low ceilings and thin walls) were mainly due to the increased availability and affordability of air conditioning. This is because air-conditioned houses without high ceilings and thick walls sold well after World War II, even though those features typically kept houses cool during times of extreme heat.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the increased prevalence of low ceilings and thin walls was not due to something else like people changing their preferences/tastes about how they wanted their home to look.
A
High ceilings and thick walls enable houses to withstand many types of severe weather that are common in North America.
This is irrelevant because it does not address the main claim that the changes in architecture were due to the increased affordability and availability of air conditioning.
B
Thin-walled, low-ceilinged houses are more costly to heat in winter than thick-walled, high-ceilinged houses.
Although this provides a weakness for the feasibility of thin-walled, low-ceilinged houses, it does not weaken the argument for the main claim that air conditioning caused these architectural changes
C
Houses with low ceilings and thin walls were prevalent in North America even where there was no demand for residential air-conditioning.
This suggests that thin-walled houses with low ceilings were prevalent *before* the widespread availability of AC. Thus, this weakens the claim that AC was the primary driver of these architectural changes
D
Thin walls allow cool, air-conditioned air to escape more readily from houses than do thick walls.
This does not weaken the author’s argument that the increased availability of air conditioning increased the prevalence of houses with thin walls and low ceilings. It just highlights an inefficiency of the new homes.
E
Soon after World War II, new thermal-insulating technology was widely applied in house building.
While this could explain why these houses became more common, it does not weaken the causal link between the increased availability of AC and thin-walled houses with low ceilings.
Chapman: Heckling is only a long-standing tradition of comedy because it’s tolerated. And it’s usually only fun for the heckler. In most cases, heckling is just a distraction from the performance.
Speaker 1 Summary
McKee thinks that comedy venues shouldn’t prevent heckling. Why? For two reasons. First, heckling is a long-standing tradition in stand-up comedy. Second, comedians are able to give entertaining responses to heckling.
Speaker 2 Summary
Chapman argues toward the implied conclusion that venues should prevent heckling. To support this point, Chapman says that heckling is only a tradition because it’s tolerated, not for any merit of its own. Chapman also claims that heckling is usually a distraction that’s only fun for the heckler, rather than a source of entertainment.
Objective
We need to find the statement that McKee and Chapman do not disagree on. This could be a point of agreement, or something that at least one speaker is neutral about. One such point is that comedians’ responses to hecklers can sometimes be entertaining.
A
Comedy venues should tolerate audience members’ heckling the performers.
McKee agrees with this but Chapman disagrees. McKee states this claim explicitly. Chapman undermines McKee’s argument by pointing out problems with allowing heckling, which supports the unstated conclusion that venues should ban heckling.
B
Stand-up comedians’ responses to heckling should be considered part of their stand-up comedy performance.
McKee agrees with this, but Chapman disagrees. McKee thinks that comedians’ responses to heckling are a source of entertainment for the audience. Chapman calls heckling a “distraction” rather than part of the comedy routine.
C
The best stand-up comedians are able to respond entertainingly when they are heckled by audience members.
McKee agrees and Chapman states no opinion, so this is where the speakers don’t disagree. McKee says comedians in general respond entertainingly. Chapman says heckling is usually distracting, but leaves open the possibility that some skilled comedians can make it entertaining.
D
Many audience members at comedy venues enjoy watching stand-up comedians respond to heckling.
McKee agrees and Chapman disagrees. McKee calls performers’ response to heckling entertaining, which means that audiences are entertained. Chapman, however, says that heckling is distracting and only fun for the heckler, meaning the audience in general is not entertained.
E
It is unwise for comedy venues to disregard long-standing traditions of stand-up comedy.
McKee agrees but Chapman disagrees. McKee thinks it’s unwise for venues to ban heckling, which is a tradition—hence, it’s unwise for venues to ignore a particular tradition. Chapman’s conclusion is the opposite, that venues should ignore the tradition of heckling.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a highly literate society will be a democratic one. This is based on the following facts:
Democracy requires free choices.
Free choices require well-reasononed opinions.
Well-reasoning opinions require reading skills.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses necessary conditions for sufficient conditions. Reading skills are necessary for well-reasoned opinions. But that doesn’t imply reading skills are enough for well-reasoned opinions. In addition, well-reasoned opinions are necessary for free choices, but that doesn’t imply they are sufficient for such choices. And free choices are necessary for democracy, but that doesn’t imply they are sufficient for democracy.
A
mistakes necessary conditions for sufficient conditions
The author confuses all of the necessary conditions described for sufficient conditions. This is why the author thinks a highly literate society (one with lots of reading skills) will be a democratic one.
B
fails to take into account that there are many means of forming well-reasoned opinions
Whether there are many ways to form well-reasoned opinion has no impact on the argument. We know reading skills are necessary for well-formed opinions. The author mistakenly believes having reading skills is sufficient for such opinions.
C
confuses the means of doing something with the reasons for doing it
The “reasons” for doing something — meaning, the motivations for doing something — are irrelevant. The flaw concerns a confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. Why people take certain actions has no impact on the reasoning.
D
generalizes too hastily from one type of case to another
There’s no generalization. The author’s conclusion concerns the Information Age, and the premises also concern the Information Age.
E
takes for granted that a condition under which something occurs is a condition under which all its prerequisites occur
(E) doesn’t describe flawed logic. If X is a condition under which Y occurs, then X is also a condition under which prerequisites for Y occur (because prerequisites are necessary). In other words, if X implies Y, then it also implies everything necessary for Y.