Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that car manufacturers likely inflate fuel efficiency numbers. He supports this by saying that, despite manufacturers highlighting their cars' fuel economy under normal driving conditions, he has never gotten close to the advertised fuel economy of any of the three cars that he's owned.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of using too small of a sample. The columnist draws a conclusion about the fuel economy claims of all manufacturers based on his experience with only three cars. But there are dozens of car manufacturers and thousands of car models on the market. Driving three cars isn’t a reliable way to test the fuel economy of every kind of car. Maybe most manufacturers’ claims are accurate and the columnist just purchased three bad cars.
The columnist also assumes that his driving conditions are “normal.”
A
draws a conclusion on the basis of a sample that is too small
The columnist concludes that all manufacturers inflate fuel economy based on his experience with three cars. But with thousands of car models available, three cars is far too small a sample. Maybe most manufacturers’ claims are accurate and the columnist just got three bad cars.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that driving conditions are the same in every geographical region
The columnist never assumes that all driving conditions are the same everywhere— that would be an extreme assumption! He does assume that he drove his three cars in "normal driving conditions," but "normal" doesn't mean the same in every region.
C
overlooks the possibility that the source of a cited claim may be biased and hence unreliable
The columnist doesn’t overlook this. If anything, he actually assumes that the source of fuel economy claims— the manufacturers— is unreliable. But he does so based on a sample that is too small.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that car manufacturers knowingly market cars that fail to meet minimum fuel efficiency standards
The columnist never assumes that car manufacturers market cars that don’t meet minimum fuel efficiency standards. He just says that his three cars didn’t meet their advertised fuel economy; they might still have met the minimum requirements.
E
uses the term “fuel economy” in two different senses
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the author uses the same term in different ways throughout the argument. The columnist doesn't make this mistake; he uses the term “fuel economy” clearly and consistently throughout his argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if more landlords install individual electricity meters on tenant dwellings (thereby giving individuals an incentive save energy), energy will be conserved. This is because tenants who don’t have to pay for their own electricity bills don’t have a financial incentive to conserve electricity.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the financial incentive created by the indvidual electricity meters is powerful enough to cause people to actually change their behavior. The author also assumes that there aren’t other aspects of using individual electricity meters that would cause more energy use that could outweigh whatever savings are created by the individual’s own incentive to use less energy.
A
Tenants who do not have to pay their own electricity bills generally must compensate by paying more rent.
This has no clear impact on how much energy would be used. Tenants would still have an incentive to save on energy. Whether they get to pay less rent doesn’t influence how much energy they use.
B
Many initiatives have been implemented to educate people about how much money they can save through energy conservation.
This suggests people might be aware of how much they can save on energy. If anything, this strengthens the author’s argument by giving another reason to think tenants will start to save on energy use if tenants were responsible for their own electricity bills.
C
Landlords who pay for their tenants’ electricity have a strong incentive to make sure that the appliances they provide for their tenants are energy efficient.
This raises the possibility that by switching to individual meters, landlords won’t be as likely to ensure their appliances are energy-efficient. Thus, even if tenants use the appliances less often, the appliances themselves might use more energy.
D
Some tenant dwellings can only support individual electricity meters if the dwellings are rewired, which would be prohibitively expensive.
This suggests that landlords won’t be able to switch to individual meters in some buildings. The author never said this was possible everywhere. The conclusion is simply about what would result if landlords were able to make this switch.
E
Some people conserve energy for reasons that are not related to cost savings.
This suggests some people might save energy for other reasons. But this doesn’t mean that cost can’t also be a motivating factor for those people. The individual meter can still incentivize them to save on energy. And, the author never assumed every tenant will conserve energy.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The position that criminals should be punished in proportion to the severity of their crimes but that repeat offenders should receive harsher sentences is flawed. It wrongly assumes that past misdeeds are relevant to the seriousness of an offense. This introduces a vague standard that would make almost every other consideration relevant, making it impossible to apply this proportional principle.
Identify Argument Part
This is a undesirable consequence of believing the argument that the author is refuting.
A
It is a statement the argument provides grounds to accept and from which the overall conclusion is inferred.
The statement is not a premise. It does not support any other claim in the stimulus. It is an undesirable consequence that would result from believing the argument that the author rejects.
B
It is a statement inferred from a position the argument seeks to defend.
The author does not want to defend this statement. The author strongly disagrees with this statement.
C
It is the overall conclusion in favor of which the argument offers evidence.
This is not the main conclusion of the argument. The author does not believe in the truth of this statement, so it cannot be the main conclusion.
D
It is an allegedly untenable consequence of a view rejected in the argument’s overall conclusion.
This is an accurate description of the statement. The author argues that considering remote actions (an untenable consequence) is a result of the rejected view that repeat offenders should receive harsher punishments.
E
It is a premise offered in support of an intermediate conclusion of the argument.
This statement is not a premise and there is no sub-conclusion for it to support.
Summary
For any government practice that might facilitate abuse of power:
If there’s no compelling reason to do the practice → don’t do it
Keeping government secrets is a practice that might facilitate abuse of power.
Concealing the keeping of a government secret is another kind of practice that might facilitate abuse of power.
If there’s no compelling reason to do the practice → don’t do it
Keeping government secrets is a practice that might facilitate abuse of power.
Concealing the keeping of a government secret is another kind of practice that might facilitate abuse of power.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
If there’s no compelling reason to keep a government secret, the government should not keep the secret.
If there’s no compelling reason to conceal the fact that the government is keeping a secret, the government should not conceal the fact they are keeping a secret.
Note that keeping a secret and concealing the keeping of a secret are two different actions.
If there’s no compelling reason to conceal the fact that the government is keeping a secret, the government should not conceal the fact they are keeping a secret.
Note that keeping a secret and concealing the keeping of a secret are two different actions.
A
In most cases in which government officials conceal information from the public, they are not justified in doing so.
We know that “too often” the government keeps secrets for reasons that aren’t compelling. And in these cases, the government is unjustified in keeping secrets. But we don’t know that “too often” is “most cases.” “Too often” doesn’t have to mean over half.
B
In those cases in which government officials have a compelling reason to keep a secret, doing so does not facilitate an abuse of power.
Keeping a secret is a practice that might facilitate abuse of power. Even if it’s justified, it still might facilitate abuse of power. It might just be a justified case of doing something that facilitates abuse of power.
C
A government official who justifiably keeps a secret should not conceal its existence without having a compelling reason to do so.
Must be true. We know concealing the existence of a secret might facilitate abuse of power. So if there’s no compelling reason to conceal the keeping of a secret, one should not conceal the keeping of a secret, regardless of whether the keeping of a secret is justified.
D
Government officials who conceal information without a compelling reason are thereby guilty of an abuse of power.
We know concealing a secret without a compelling reason to do so is unjustified. But this doesn’t imply that concealing the secret is an abuse of power. We do not know from the stimulus what constitutes an abuse of power.
E
Government officials should keep information secret only if doing so does not make it easier for those officials to abuse their power.
We don’t have any support for conditioning the keeping of a secret on not making it easier to abuse power. In fact, if there’s a compelling reason to keep a secret, then that might be something that’s justified even if it facilitates abuse of power.