Economist: Many of my colleagues are arguing that interest rates should be further lowered in order to stimulate economic growth. However, no such stimulation is needed: the economy is already growing at a sustainable rate. So, currently there is no reason to lower interest rates further.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The economist concludes that there is no reason to lower interest rates. She supports this by saying that it’s not necessary to stimulate economic growth because the economy is already growing at a sustainable rate.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The economist undermines one reason for lowering interest rates and then concludes that there is no reason to lower them at all. In other words, her reasoning is questionable because she ignores other possible reasons for lowering interest rates, assuming that economic stimulation is the only one.
A
relies solely on the testimony of experts
The economist doesn’t rely on the testimony of experts at all. If anything, she opposes the testimony of experts by countering her colleagues’ position that interest rates should be lowered.
B
confuses economic growth with what stimulates it
The economist doesn’t confuse economic growth with what stimulates it; she never argues that lower interest rates are economic growth. She distinguishes between these ideas in her argument, saying that interest rates shouldn’t be lowered and that economic growth is stable.
C
presumes that a need to stimulate economic growth is the only possible reason to lower interest rates now
The economist concludes that there is no reason to lower interest rates simply because she weakened one reason. She ignores other possible reasons for lowering interest rates, assuming that economic stimulation is the only one.
D
takes what is merely one way of stimulating economic growth to be the only way of stimulating economic growth
The economist says that economic stimulation isn’t needed because the economy is stable. She never assumes that lowering interest rates is the only way of stimulating the economy. Instead, she assumes that stimulating the economy is the only reason to lower interest rates.
E
concludes that a further reduction of interest rates would lead to unsustainable economic growth merely from the fact that the economy is already growing at a sustainable rate
The economist’s conclusion is that there’s no reason to lower interest rates. She doesn’t conclude that further lowering them will cause unstable economic growth. She simply says that further lowering interest rates is unnecessary because economic growth is already stable.
This is based on the fact that Caravaggio’s realism and use of light and shadow broke with contemporary styles and influenced Baroque painting.
To prove that at least one of these must be true, we must show that if (1) is NOT true, then (2) must be true. Or, that if (2) is NOT true, then (1) must be true.
Let’s say that (1) is NOT true — in other words, that Caravaggio’s paintings WERE Baroque. On the current premises, would we be allowed to infer that Mather’s definition of Baroque painting is wrong? Not necessarily — Mather says that Baroque paintings must have opulence, heroic sweep, and extravagance. Who’s to say that Caravaggio’s paintings don’t have these qualities? The author is *assuming* that Caravaggio’s paintings don’t have these qualities. This is why the author believes that if we accept Caravaggio’s paintings as Baroque, then Mather’s definition of Baroque must be wrong.
A
Paintings that belong to a single historical period typically share many of the same stylistic features.
B
A painter who makes use of the interplay of light and shadow need not for that reason be considered a nonrealistic painter.
C
Realism was not widely used by painters prior to the seventeenth century.
D
A realistic painting usually does not depict the world as opulent, heroic, or extravagant.
E
Opulence, heroic sweep, and extravagance are not present in Caravaggio’s paintings.
A
attacking the motives of the proponents of the doctrine
B
identifying an inconsistency within the reasoning used to support the position
C
attempting to show that a premise put forward in support of the position is false
D
presenting a purported counterexample to a general claim made by the doctrine’s proponents
E
arguing that the application of the doctrine has undesirable consequences
A university professor researching sleep disorders occasionally taught class after spending whole nights working in a laboratory. She found lecturing after such nights difficult: she reported that she felt worn out and humorless, and she had difficulty concentrating and finding the appropriate words. After several weeks of lectures, she asked her students to guess which lectures had been given after nights without sleep. Interestingly, very few students were able to correctly identify them.
Summary
A university professor studying sleep disorders sometimes taught after staying up all night in the lab. She found these lectures difficult, feeling tired, humorless, and unable to concentrate or find the right words. After several weeks, she asked her students to guess which lectures followed sleepless nights, but very few could guess correctly.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The effects of occasional sleep deprivation may feel stronger than how they actually appear in behavior.
Internal feelings of tiredness, humorlessness, and inability to find the right words may not always translate into noticeable performance issues.
In some situations, fatigue may be less noticeable to others than it is to the fatigued person.
A
The subjective effects of occasional sleep deprivation are more pronounced than are its effects on overt behavior.
Strongly supported. The professor noticed the subjective effects of her own sleep deprivation- feeling tired, humorless, and unable to concentrate. These were more pronounced than the effects on her outward, observable behavior, which her students did not notice.
B
No one can assess the overall effects of sleep deprivation on a particular person as well as that sleep-deprived person can.
Unsupported. It may be true that the professor’s students did not notice the overall effects of her sleep deprivation, but we do not know that no one can assess those effects as well as the sleep-deprived person can.
C
Sleep deprivation has less effect on professors’ job performance than it does on the job performance of others.
Unsupported. We do not know how the effects of sleep deprivation on the professor’s job performance might compare to the effects of sleep deprivation on the job performance of others. No information is given about the effects of sleep deprivation across different jobs.
D
Occasional sleep deprivation is not as debilitating as extended sleep deprivation.
Unsupported. The stimulus does not compare occasional and extended sleep deprivation, so we do not know which one might be more or less debilitating.
E
University students in a lecture audience tend to be astute observers of human behavior.
Anti-supported. The students were unable to observe the effects of sleep deprivation on their professor’s lectures, so we can assume that most of them are not astute observers of human behavior in this setting.
Prime minister: Our nation’s government should give priority to satisfying the needs of our nation’s people over satisfying the needs of people of any other nation. This is despite the fact that the people of other nations are equal in worth to the people of our nation, which means that it is objectively no more important to satisfy the needs of our nation’s people than to satisfy those of other nations’ people.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why does the prime minister claim that his government should prioritize the needs of his nation’s people over those of any other nation’s people, even though the needs of all people are equally worth prioritizing?
Objective
The correct answer will be a principle that helps to explain why the prime minister’s nation should prioritize the needs of its own people, even though the needs of all people are equally worth prioritizing.
A
A nation’s government should not attempt to satisfy the needs of a group of people unless the satisfaction of those people’s needs is objectively more important than that of any other group’s needs.
This furthers the conflict in the prime minister’s claims. Because his nation’s people’s needs are not objectively more important than any other group’s needs, (A) argues that his nation should not prioritize the needs of its own people. We need an explanation for why it should.
B
A nation’s government should give priority to satisfying the needs of its own people over satisfying the needs of another nation’s people only if its own people are more worthy than the other nation’s people.
This furthers the conflict. Because the prime minister’s nation’s people are not more worthy than any other nation’s people, (B) argues that his government should not prioritize the needs of its own people. We need an explanation for why it should prioritize their needs.
C
The priority a nation’s government should place on satisfying the needs of a group of people depends mainly on how objectively important it is for the needs of those people to be satisfied.
This doesn’t resolve the conflict in the prime minister’s claims. We know it’s not objectively more important to meet the needs of his nation’s people than those of any other nation. So, the question remains: why should the prime minister’s government prioritize its own people?
D
When the people of two nations are equally worthy, the needs of the people of each of those nations should be satisfied primarily by the people’s own governments.
This helps to resolve the conflict in the prime minister’s claims. According to this principle, since the needs of all nations are equally important and all people are equally worthy, the prime minister’s government should prioritize the needs of its own people.
E
A nation’s government should give priority to the satisfaction of the needs of a group of people if, but only if, there is no other way for that group’s needs to be satisfied.
We don’t know if there are other ways for the prime minister’s nation’s needs to be satisfied. Instead, our questions is whether his nation’s government should prioritize its own people’s needs, given the fact that all people’s needs are equally important.