Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Joshi’s vote is being influenced by campaign contributions. This is based on the fact that Joshi’s re-election campaign has received more money from property developers than any other city councilor’s campaign. In addition, Joshi’s voting record favors property developers’ interest more than does the voting record of any other city councilor.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that Joshi’s favorable voting record for the property developers is a result of campaign contributions from the developers. But we don’t know which came first. It’s possible the developers contribute to Joshi because of Joshi’s votes. This opens the possibility that Joshi’s votes aren’t influenced by the contributions; he might be voting favorably to the developers for other reasons.
A
takes for granted that because certain events occurred sequentially, the earlier events caused the later events
The author doesn’t argue that Joshi is being influenced by campaign contributions because his votes occurred after the contributions. (In fact, we don’t know whether the votes occurred after the contributions.)
B
confuses one thing’s being necessary for another to occur with its being sufficient to make it occur
The argument isn’t based on conditional reasoning, so there is no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.
C
makes a moral judgment when only a factual judgment can be justified
The conclusion is not a moral judgment. A claim that someone is influenced by campaign contributions is simply a claim about cause and effect. It doesn’t involve a moral judgment.
D
presumes that one thing is the cause of another when it could easily be an effect of it
The author assumes that the contributions are a cause of Joshi’s votes that are favorable to property developers, but these contributions could be a result of Joshi’s votes. Maybe Joshi voted favorably first, and the contributions followed.
E
has a conclusion that is simply a restatement of one of the argument’s stated premises
(E) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion — that contributions influence Joshi’s vote — isn’t restated in the premises. None of the premises assert that Joshi’s vote is affected by contributions.
Summarize Argument
Technology is greatly improving some communities’ quality of life, and this improvement is not only because of the direct application of innovations. The design, production, testing, and marketing of new technology has become a thriving industry revitalizing struggling communities. These companies also boost employment and generate tax revenue, fostering positive morale.
Identify Conclusion
Technology is greatly improving some communities’ quality of life, and this improvement is not just because of the direct application of innovations: “Technology is radically improving the quality of life in some communities, and not only by direct application of innovations.”
A
The direct application of innovations is not the only way in which technology is radically improving the quality of life in some communities.
This rephrases the conclusion.
B
The design, production, testing, and marketing of new technology has itself become a growing industry that is turning around the fortunes of once-ailing communities.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that the direct application of innovations is not the only way technology is improving the quality of life in some communities.
C
Companies involved in the design, production, testing, and marketing of new technology create jobs, add to the tax base, and contribute to an upbeat spirit of renewal.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that the direct application of innovations is not the only way technology is improving the quality of life in some communities.
D
Either the creation or the direct application of technological innovations is radically improving the quality of life in most communities.
(D) makes a claim about “most” communities, when the argument only discusses “some” communities. This is enough to eliminate (D).
E
The only ways in which technology is radically improving the quality of life in some communities are by creating jobs, adding to the tax base, and contributing to an upbeat spirit of renewal.
This is false. The direct application of innovations, as well as the design, production, testing, and marketing of new technology, contributes to radically improving the quality of life in some communities.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that it’s sometimes environmentally preferable to buy non-locally produced food than to buy locally produced food. This is because the distance that food travels makes up only a small part of the food’s environmental impact. And, some locations allow production of certain foods with far less environmental impact. For example, maybe coffee production in South America causes less damage to the environment than coffee production in North America. In this case, getting coffee from South America might be less damaging than getting it from North America, even if North American coffee is local.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is the view that the author rejects.
A
It is a principle upon which the reasoning in the argument is based.
The referenced text does not support the author’s conclusion. It’s the view the conclusion rejects.
B
It is a general principle that is used to support a particular activity that falls under it.
The author does not describe any particular activity supported by the first sentence. The referenced text is a view that the author rejects.
C
It is a general principle that is used to reject a particular activity that is not compatible with it.
The author does not use the referenced text to reject an activity. It describes the activity that the author rejects.
D
It is a view that is rejected by the argument.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. Some think it’s environmentally better to buy local food whenever possible. The author concludes that this is not true.
E
It is the conclusion of the argument.
The referenced text is the view the author rejects. The conclusion is the rejection of this view.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the newspaper does not provide coverage of the high school’s most popular sports. This is based on the fact that track gets no coverage, while basketball gets full-page coverage. In addition, 15% of the school’s students compete on the track team, while only 5% compete on the basketball team. The author takes this to imply that track is far more popular than basketball.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author interpret’s the newspaper’s claim of providing coverage of the most “popular” sports as a reference to the most-participated in sports. But “popular,” as the newspaper used it, means of high interest to the public or to the school’s students, or to the newspaper’s readers.
A
infers a cause from a mere correlation
The author does not conclude or assume a causal relationship. The argument concerns whether the school covers the most “popular” sports, not about cause and effect.
B
bases its conclusion on a sample that is too small
The argument doesn’t generalize from a sample. The citation to track and basketball statistics are intended to show that basketball is more popular than track. Also, we have no indication that the number of track participants or basketball participants are too small.
C
misinterprets a key word in the newspaper’s advertisement
The author misinterprets the word “popular.” The author thinks it refers to the most-participated in sports, but it actually refers to popularity as in the level of interest.
D
employs as a premise the contention it purports to show
(D) describes circular reasoning. The conclusion — that the newspapers does not cover the most popular sports — does not restate a premise.
E
criticizes the source of a claim rather than the claim itself
The author doesn’t criticize the newspaper as part of proving that the newspaper’s claim is false.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that some of the scientific stories that would be the most interesting to readers are unlikely to be covered in popular magazines. The author supports the conclusion by explaining that stories about complex scientific topics, which are likely to be super interesting, are not easily understood by readers. We need to fill in a missing premise to complete the argument.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a story not being easily understood by popular magazine readers means that it will not be covered in a popular magazine.
A
editors of popular magazines generally do not approve stories about issues that cannot be well understood by those magazines’ readers
This strengthens the argument by giving us a direct reason to believe that stories that cannot be well understood by readers are not likely to be covered in magazines. This in turn supports the author’s conclusion that interesting but difficult topics will not be covered.
B
popular magazines cannot stay in business unless they regularly publish stories that their readers find interesting
This is irrelevant. The author isn’t making such sweeping claims about whether popular magazines do or don’t publish interesting stories, just claiming that some particular stories that would probably be interesting are not published.
C
highly complex and counterintuitive theories are increasingly common in almost all branches of science
This is irrelevant, since the author is only claiming that complex scientific issues would usually make for some of the most interesting stories to readers of popular science magazines. How common or uncommon those issues are doesn’t matter to the argument.
D
readers of popular magazines are generally unable to accurately assess their own understanding of complex scientific issues
It doesn’t matter to the argument whether readers are able to assess their understanding of complex scientific issues, only whether they actually do or don’t understand those issues.
E
most readers of popular magazines are unwilling to seek out other sources in order to read about scientific issues that they find interesting
Whether or not readers find other sources to read about scientific issues is irrelevant, as the author is only making claims about what scientific issues are likely to be covered in popular magazines.