"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why hasn’t there been a decline in the number of people killed in home fires that corresponds to the significant decline in cigarette smoking over the past two decades, even though smoking in bed has been the main cause of home fires?
Objective
This is an EXCEPT question. The four wrong answers should give us a reason to think a decline in cigarette smoking would not necessarily lead to a decline in the number of people killed in home fires.
A
Compared to other types of home fires, home fires caused by smoking in bed usually cause relatively little damage before they are extinguished.
This minimizes the significance of home fires caused by smoking, which suggests that home fires caused by smoking were not a significant source of home fire deaths. This could be why a decline in smoking would not necessarily lead to significantly fewer home fire deaths.
B
Home fires caused by smoking in bed often break out after the home’s occupants have fallen asleep.
If these fires often break out after people in the house fall asleep, that increases the danger posed by these home fires. This makes the discrepancy harder to explain, because we’d expect a reduction in home fires caused by smoking to lead to a comparable decline in deaths.
C
Smokers who smoke in bed tend to be heavy smokers who are less likely to quit smoking than are smokers who do not smoke in bed.
This suggests that the general decline in smoking is not occurring among the kind of person who smokes in bed. This could be why there hasn’t been a corresponding decline in deaths from home fires.
D
An increasing number of people have been killed in home fires that started in the kitchen.
More deaths from home fires that began outside of bed increased, which could explain why overall deaths from home fires didn’t go down as much as we’d expect from a reduction in home fires caused by smoking in bed.
E
Population densities have increased, with the result that one home fire can cause more deaths than in previous decades.
This explains how, even if home fires from smoking went down, because deaths per home fire have gone up, overall deaths from home fires might not have declined as much as expected.
Summarize Argument
Marianne argues she shouldn’t be disqualified for humming during her chess matches. Why? Because she didn’t know she was humming, meaning it was involuntary.
Notable Assumptions
Marianne assumes she can’t be held responsible for any involuntary humming. She also assumes there’s no way she could both be unaware of her humming and have chosen to do it.
A
Chess players who hum audibly while playing their matches should not protest if their opponents also hum.
This is irrelevant. There’s no indication Marianne’s opponents also hum, and this principle only applies if they do.
B
Of a player’s actions, only those that are voluntary should be used as justification for disqualifying that player from professional chess.
This offers support for Marianne’s argument. It bolsters her assumption that she could only be punished for humming if she had chosen to hum.
C
A person should be held responsible for those involuntary actions that serve that person’s interests.
This weakens Marianne’s argument. Since her humming advances her interests and is involuntary, this principle advances the opposite conclusion—that she should, in fact, be held responsible.
D
Types of behavior that are not considered voluntary in everyday circumstances should be considered voluntary if they occur in the context of a professional chess match.
This weakens Marianne’s argument. Since the humming occurs during a professional chess match, this principle suggests it should be treated as voluntary, destroying Marianne’s basis for arguing it should be allowed.
E
Chess players should be disqualified from professional chess matches if they regularly attempt to distract their opponents.
This could only weaken Marianne’s argument. If it’s determined her humming is an attempt to distract, this principle would lead to Marianne’s disqualification. Otherwise, it doesn’t apply to her situation.
Chang: I do not dispute your evidence, but I take issue with your conclusion. Many of the researchers you refer to have found evidence that a set of several genes is involved and that complex interactions among these genes produce a predisposition to manic-depression.
Speaker 1 Summary
Wirth claims that if researchers are correct in their findings, it must be false that some people are predisposed to manic-depression. As support, Wirth explains that no “manic-depression gene” has been identified, and that most researchers agree that no such gene exists.
Speaker 2 Summary
Chang disagrees with Wirth’s conclusion, meaning Chang believes that the researchers’ results are compatible with a predisposition to manic-depression. How so? Because although researchers haven’t found a single gene responsible, they have identified multiple genes whose interactions can predispose someone to manic-depression.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. One disagreement between Wirth and Chang is whether current research findings indicate that people can be predisposed to manic-depression or not.
A
efforts to identify a gene or set of several genes responsible for predisposing people to manic-depression have all failed
Both speakers agree with this claim. Similar to (C), Wirth states this as a fact, and Chang accepts the evidence used by Wirth.
B
it is likely that researchers will ever be able to find a single gene that predisposes people to manic-depression
Neither speaker explicitly speculates about the future change of finding a single “manic-depression gene.” If anything, both speakers likely disagree with this claim: each seems to take for granted that no single “manic-depression gene” exists.
C
nearly all researchers now agree that there is no manic-depression gene
Like (A), the speakers both agree with this claim. This is one of the facts Wirth uses as support, and Chang accepts that Wirth’s support is true. The disagreement is about the conclusion, not the evidence.
D
current research supports the claim that no one is genetically predisposed to manic-depression
Wirth agrees with this claim but Chang disagrees, making it the point at issue. Wirth believes that the absence of a single “manic-depression gene” means there can be no predisposition; Chang thinks a predisposition can still exist due to the interaction between multiple genes.
E
the efforts made to find a gene that can produce a predisposition to manic-depression were thorough
Neither speaker explicitly discusses the thoroughness of researchers’ attempts to find a “manic-depression gene,” but both seem to accept that no such gene exists. The rigor of scientists’ approach is not an issue between Wirth and Chang.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Dobson concludes that the people who built the ring of stones in Britain were not knowledgeable about celestial events. He supports this by saying that, because there are many stones in the ring, there’s a good chance that one pair of stones would point in a celestially significant direction.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a rejection of someone’s argument with a rejection of their conclusion. Dobson concludes that the historians’ conclusion is false, simply because their evidence doesn’t establish their conclusion. But just because someone’s evidence is insufficient doesn’t mean you can assume that the opposite of their conclusion is true.
A
The failure of cited evidence to establish a statement is taken as evidence that that statement is false.
Dobson concludes that the people who built the stone ring didn’t understand celestial events, just because the historians’ evidence fails to establish their conclusion. But a lack of evidence doesn’t mean you can automatically assume the opposite of someone’s conclusion.
B
Dobson’s conclusion logically contradicts some of the evidence presented in support of it.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of internal contradiction. Dobson doesn’t make this mistake. His argument is flawed, but it isn’t contradictory.
C
Statements that absolutely establish Dobson’s conclusion are treated as if they merely give some support to that conclusion.
Actually, Dobson treats his evidence as if it absolutely establishes his conclusion, even though it doesn’t establish it at all.
D
Something that is merely a matter of opinion is treated as if it were subject to verification as a matter of fact.
The builders of the ring were either knowledgeable about celestial events or they were not; this isn’t a matter of opinion. It may be Dobson’s opinion that there’s a high chance that a pair of stones would point to something significant, but this isn’t the flaw in his argument.
E
Dobson’s drawing the conclusion relies on interpreting a key term in two different ways.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation. Dobson never makes this mistake in his argument.