Summarize Argument
The author concludes that aspiring ancient-history scholars no longer need to learn ancient languages, even though ancient languages are necessary to read original ancient documents. This is because most ancient documents have been translated into modern languages, making them readable even by people who don’t know an ancient language.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author draws a general conclusion based only on what is most usually the case. The conclusion that ancient-history scholars don’t need to learn ancient languages is broad and absolute. However, even though “most” ancient documents have been translated, some may still require an ancient language. It’s also possible that reading a document in its original language could be valuable even if a translation is available.
A
It concludes that something is never necessary on the grounds that it is not always necessary.
The author concludes that it is never necessary for ancient-history scholars to know ancient languages, on the grounds that “most” ancient documents have been translated. However, it’s still possible that ancient languages are necessary to read some untranslated documents.
B
A statement of fact is treated as if it were merely a statement of opinion.
The author doesn’t treat any factual statements as though they are just opinions.
C
The conclusion is no more than a restatement of the evidence provided as support of that conclusion.
The author’s conclusion (that ancient-history scholars don’t need to know ancient languages) is different from the supporting evidence (that most ancient documents have been translated).
D
The judgment of experts is applied to a matter in which their expertise is irrelevant.
The author doesn’t bring up the judgment of experts.
E
Some of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other evidence provided.
The author doesn’t use inconsistent supporting evidence. The only point of support is that most ancient documents have been translated, which isn’t inconsistent with anything else stated.
Summarize Argument
Zimbabwe objects to a total ban on the ivory trade. Zimbabwe insists that poaching isn’t caused by the ivory trade, which Zimbabwe participates in, but rather by conservation policies other countries employ.
Notable Assumptions
Zimbabwe assumes that though the ban would remedy the poaching problem, it shouldn’t be enacted since Zimbabwe has solved the poaching problem without such a ban. Zimbabwe therefore believes that bans shouldn’t be enacted in situations where they would provide no benefit, or worse yet damage local economies.
A
International measures to correct a problem should not adversely affect countries that are not responsible for the problem.
Since Zimbabwe has eliminated poaching, it shouldn’t be negatively affected by a ban against poaching. This is precisely what Zimbabwe argues.
B
Freedom of trade is not a right but a consequence of agreements among nations.
We don’t care about freedom of trade. We’re interested in why the ban shouldn’t be enacted.
C
Respecting a country’s sovereignty is more important than preventing the extinction of a species.
Zimbabwe isn’t arguing that it should be able to determine its own laws. It’s saying that it shouldn’t be subject to a ban that will harm its economy while creating no difference in the poaching situation.
D
Prohibitions affecting several countries should be enforced by a supranational agency.
We have no idea who should enforce this ban. Zimbabwe thinks no one should.
E
Effective conservation cannot be achieved without eliminating poaching.
Zimbabwe is arguing about how the ban shouldn’t be enacted. We have no idea if Zimbabwe agrees with this.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The columnist concludes that we must defeat a piece of legislation that would improve workers’ rights. Why? Because some supporters of the legislation belong to unsavory groups, or are facing tax-eviction charges.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the argument attacks the source of a position rather than the position itself. In this case, the columnist is casting doubt on the character of the legislation’s supporters, instead of addressing the merits of the legislation.
A
attacks legislation by calling into question the integrity of the originators of the legislation
The columnist isn’t calling into question the character of the “originators” who introduced this legislation, but rather that of its supporters.
B
assails legislation on the basis of the questionable character of supporters of the legislation
The columnist concludes that we should reject legislation just because some of its supporters belong to violent groups or may have evaded taxes—in other words, because of the supporters’ questionable character.
C
attempts to discredit legislation by appealing to public sentiment for those who would be adversely affected
The columnist doesn’t bring up the possibility that anyone would be adversely affected by the legislation.
D
presupposes that legislation is bad legislation whenever it has only a small number of supporters outside the country’s national legislative body
The columnist never proposes a rule of when legislation is bad legislation. The argument also doesn’t ever mention how many or how few supporters the legislation has, whether inside or outside the legislative body.
E
rejects legislation on the grounds that its supporters act inconsistently in seeking to place burdens on manufacturers upon whose business success the supporters depend
The columnist doesn’t accuse the legislation’s supporters of acting inconsistently. The argument also never mentions the issue of burdening manufacturers, or whether the manufacturers’ success is important to anyone.
Summary
20 pro income-tax advisors were given identical records to prepare an income-tax return. None of the completed tax returns were the exact same as each other. Only 1 out of the 20 returns was correct.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
Not every pro income-tax advisor will produce the same tax return from the same records.
Being a pro income-tax advisor does not guarantee that one will always produce a correct tax return.
Being a pro income-tax advisor does not guarantee that one will always produce a correct tax return.
A
Only one out of every twenty income-tax returns prepared by any given professional income-tax advisor will be correct.
We only know about one tax return prepared by each of the 20 advisors. We don’t have any information about how advisors would perform across multiple different tax returns.
B
The fact that a tax return has been prepared by a professional income-tax advisor provides no guarantee that the tax return has been correctly prepared.
This is supported by the fact that only 1 out of the 20 returns was correct. So the other 19 returns, even though they were prepared by a pro income-tax advisor, were wrong. This shows being prepared by a pro advisor does not guarantee a return will be correct.
C
In order to ensure that tax returns are correct, it is necessary to hire professional income-tax advisors to prepare them.
The stimulus doesn’t give us any evidence about what’s required for being correct.
D
All professional income-tax advisors make mistakes on at least some of the tax returns they prepare.
We don’t have evidence that every pro advisor makes mistakes. All we know is that 19 out of the 20 made a mistake on one tax return. But the one advisor who got the return correct might never make mistakes.
E
People are more likely to have an incorrectly prepared tax return if they prepare their own tax returns than if they hire a professional income-tax advisor.
The stimulus doesn’t present evidence concerning a comparison between self-prepared returns and pro-prepared returns.
Summary
The author concludes that we should still sell to X the agricultural equipment it ordered, despite the fact that country X deserves economic retribution for its protectionism.
Why?
Because there is high demand in our country for agricultural imports from X. And these considerations override the fact that country X deserves retribution.
Why?
Because there is high demand in our country for agricultural imports from X. And these considerations override the fact that country X deserves retribution.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that backing out of our sale of equipment to X might result in X’s selling a decreased amount of agricultural products to our own country.
The author also assumes that the value of the agricultural imports we get from country X is higher than the value of enacting retribution on country X by refusing to sell our agricultural equipment to it.
The author also assumes that the value of the agricultural imports we get from country X is higher than the value of enacting retribution on country X by refusing to sell our agricultural equipment to it.
A
Agricultural components of international trade are more important than nonagricultural commodities.
Nonagricultural commodities have nothing to do with the reasoning of the argument, which concerns agricultural equipment and agricultural imports.
B
The ability to keep popular products available domestically is less important than our being able to enter international markets.
The ability to “enter international markets” is not what’s at stake. What’s at stake is the potential for country X to not be able to supply us with enough agricultural imports if we decide not to sell the agricultural equipment to it. So the author doesn’t have to assume anything about the ability to enter international markets.
C
We should never jeopardize the interests of our people to punish a protectionist country.
“Never” is too extreme. The author doesn’t assume that we should never allow our interests to be threatened to punish a protectionist country. It’s just that in this specific situation — where our country demands a product that could be produced by the other country — we shouldn’t hurt the ability of that other country to produce the product just for retribution. But in other cirumstances, the author might agree that it’s OK to jeopardize our own interests to punish a protectionist country.
D
In most cases, punishing a protectionist country should have priority over the interests of our people.
Not necessary, because the author is advocating that in this circumstance, we should take an action that doesn’t involve punishing a protectionist country. So it wouldn’t undermine the author’s reasoning if (D) were not true.
E
We should balance the justice of an action with the consequences for our interests of undertaking that action.
Necessary, because if it were not true — if there is no reason to balance the justice of an action with the consequences to our own interests — then we would have no reason to refrain from punishing country X. The author’s reasoning is based on withholding punishment in this case because of how the punishment will affect our interest in getting agricultural imports from X.