Summary
The argument concludes that predictions of the future are particularly unreliable when they relate to societies with frequent scientific and technological discoveries. This is supported by the claim that scientific and technological discoveries have significant effects on how a society develops.
Notable Assumptions
The argument’s inference between discoveries impacting the future and the future being harder to predict when there are frequent discoveries only makes sense if discoveries make the future harder to predict. This means the argument must assume either that the discoveries themselves are difficult to predict, or that their effects are difficult to predict.
A
Predictions of scientific and technological discoveries, or predictions of their effects, have harmful consequences in some societies.
The argument doesn’t depend on whether predictions are harmful or not—the conclusion is just about how reliable predictions are, not their consequences.
B
The development of a society requires scientific and technological discoveries.
The argument isn’t concerned with what it takes for a society to develop, only how reliable predictions are under certain conditions.
C
Forecasts of scientific and technological discoveries, or forecasts of their effects, are not entirely reliable.
In other words, it is difficult to predict discoveries, or to predict their effects. Without this assumption, there would be no link between frequent discoveries and difficulty predicting the future, so this assumption is necessary for the argument to hold up.
D
An advanced scientific and technological society frequently benefits from new discoveries.
The consequences of discoveries are irrelevant to the argument, which is just focused on how discoveries impact the accuracy of future predictions.
E
It is not as difficult to predict scientific and technological discoveries in a technologically more advanced society as it is in a technologically less advanced society.
Whether discoveries are easier or harder to predict in certain societies has no impact on the argument, which just generally claims that discoveries make predictions less accurate.
Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that introducing predators to eradicate rodents on dirt embankments will prevent the embankments from eroding. Why? Because the rodents, which are attracted by grass clippings that cause plant roots to rot, burrow into the ground and further damage the roots. These roots are what prevent erosion.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument concludes that eliminating rodents would stop erosion, because rodents are one factor in causing the erosion. However, this overlooks the other cause of erosion: the clippings causing plant roots to rot.
A
Two events that merely co-occur are treated as if one caused the other.
The argument doesn’t mistake a correlation for a causal relationship: the cause-and-effect relationships discussed are genuine.
B
A highly general proposal is based only on an unrepresentative set of facts.
The argument doesn’t make a general proposal based on unrepresentative facts. The facts offered are about a specific set of embankments, and the proposal is about those same embankments.
C
The conclusion is no more than a restatement of one of the pieces of evidence provided to support it.
The conclusion, that bringing in predators to eliminate rodents would prevent erosion, is not a restatement of any of the supporting evidence.
D
One possible solution to a problem is claimed to be the only possible solution to that problem.
The argument never claims that bringing in predators to eliminate rodents is the only possible solution to erosion.
E
An action that would eliminate one cause of a problem is treated as if it would solve the entire problem.
The argument concludes that eliminating rodents would solve the entire problem of erosion, but rodents are only one cause. This conclusion doesn’t address the other cause of root rot.
Second legislator: Considerations of male/female balance such as this are inappropriate with respect to research; they have no place in science.
Summarize Argument
The second legislator concludes that considerations of male/female balance have no place in science, since such considerations are inappropriate in research.
Notable Assumptions
The second legislator assumes that what’s inappropriate in research (considerations of male/female balance) have no place in science. He also assumes that considerations of male/female balance wouldn’t helpfully affect the outcomes of the research in question, which may deal with physiological factors that differ between male and female participants.
A
Government-sponsored research is supported by all taxpayers, both male and female.
We would need a principle telling us that taxpayers should be equally represented in scientific research for this to be true. As it is, the second legislator simply argues that concerns about a male/female balance has no place in science.
B
Serving as a subject for medical research can provide a patient access to new treatments but also can subject the patient to risks.
We don’t care about the individual participants. We need to weaken the second legislator’s argument about male/female balance considerations.
C
Government-sponsored medical research is often done in military hospitals or prisons that hold only male residents.
This explains why research is often done only on male participants. We need to know why male/female balance considerations may in fact have a place in science.
D
The training of male and female scientists does not differ according to their sex.
We’re not interested in scientists. We need to know whether the participants’ sex is relevant to research.
E
Restriction to males of the patient base on which data are collected results in inadequate science.
Studying on males produces data that falls short of proper science. Thus, considerations about the male/female balance are in fact justified.
Company representative: We have distributed nearly 3,000 copies of the upgrade and we have received fewer than 100 calls saying that it has caused problems. So it is very unlikely that you will experience any problems with the upgrade.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The company representative concludes that the consumer is very unlikely to encounter problems with a software upgrade. As support, the representative cites the fact that the company has distributed many copies of the upgrade but has received only a few calls from users who had problems.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The representative draws a conclusion about the likelihood of a problem based on evidence about how many people have called the company about that problem. This fails to consider the possibility that more users may have had problems with the upgrade, but did not call the company about their problems.
A
the company will issue another upgrade that corrects the problems with the current upgrade
Whether the company plans to correct any problems is irrelevant to the argument, which is about whether problems are likely to occur in the first place.
B
some of the problems people have experienced with the upgrade have been quite serious
The representative’s argument isn’t about how serious people’s problems may have been, only about how likely people are to encounter problems at all—so this is irrelevant.
C
a significant number of people have experienced problems with the upgrade but have not reported them
The representative’s conclusion is that a problem is unlikely, based on how many people have reported problems to the company. The possibility that many people may have had problems without reporting them undermines the representative’s ability to support that conclusion.
D
the consumer will experience software problems if the upgrade is not installed
The likelihood of a problem if the consumer doesn’t install the upgrade is irrelevant, because the representative’s argument is only about the likelihood of a problem if the upgrade is installed.
E
some of the reported problems were a result of users failing to follow instructions
The reasons that users may have encountered problems are irrelevant. The argument is about the overall likelihood of a problem, no matter what the reason.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
How did the Inuit settlers in Greenland survive the temperature drop that occurred around 1500, while the Norse settlers were killed?
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference between the Norse settlements and the Inuit settlements. That difference will provide insight into why the former group disappeared and the latter survived following the temperature drop that occurred around 1500 in Greenland.
A
The drop in average yearly temperature was smaller in Greenland than it was in the world as a whole.
This does not explain why the Inuit and Norse settlements were affected differently by the temperature drop in Greenland.
B
The Norse settlers’ diet, unlike that of the Inuit, was based primarily on livestock and crops that were unable to survive the temperature drop.
(B) offers a key difference that helps explain the phenomenon. Because the Norse settlers lost their food sources due to the temperature drop while the Inuit did not, it’s understandable why the Norse settlers were unable to survive the cold.
C
There were settlements in North America during the fifteenth century that were most likely founded by Norse settlers who had come from Greenland.
(C) does not offer information that is relevant to explaining the phenomenon described in the stimulus.
D
The Inuit and the Norse settlements were typically established in coastal areas.
(D) offers a similarity between the Norse and Inuit settlements. The correct answer will offer a difference that explains why the latter group survived the temperature drop while the former group did not.
E
The Norse community in Norway continued to thrive long after 1500.
The stimulus is concerned with Greenland, not Norway.