Model student summary:
This question was really subtle and tricky and lends itself best to a lawgic representation.
F –> LT
F –> /LP
_________
Not(LP –> LT)
So this is a flaw, that we need to mirror and there is one really tricky answer choice that comes close.
Answer choice (A) is not correct.
B–> /PB
B –> E
_________
Not(PB some E)
Answer choice (B) is the correct answer.
PWF –> 75+
PWF –> /N
___________
Not(N –> 75+)
Answer choice (C) is incorrect.
OB –> CBTC
OBh
___________
CBTCh
Answer choice (D) is the trick answer choice.
E –> EP
E –> /EM
_________
Not(EP –> /EM)
Answer choice (E) is also incorrect.
PDOC –> CF
CFnn
___________
PDOCnn
While it was once believed that the sort of psychotherapy appropriate for the treatment of neuroses caused by environmental factors is also appropriate for schizophrenia and other psychoses, it is now known that these latter, more serious forms of mental disturbance are best treated by biochemical—that is, medicinal—means. This is conclusive evidence that psychoses, unlike neuroses, have nothing to do with environmental factors but rather are caused by some sort of purely organic condition, such as abnormal brain chemistry or brain malformations.
The author concludes that psychoses have nothing to do with environmental factors and are caused only by organic conditions. She supports this by saying that neuroses that are caused by environmental factors are treated with therapy, but psychoses are more easily treated with medicine.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author believes that psychoses are caused by physical factors (or organic conditions) because they respond better to medicine, while neuroses, caused by environmental factors, are treated with therapy. She overlooks the possibility that both environmental and physical factors could contribute to psychoses, or that environmental factors could lead to the physical conditions that cause psychoses.
A
the organic conditions that result in psychoses can be caused or exacerbated by environmental factors
The author ignores the possibility that environmental factors might cause or worsen the physical conditions that then result in psychoses. She assumes that psychoses “have nothing to do with environmental factors” and are caused only by physical factors.
B
the symptoms of mental disturbance caused by purely organic factors can be alleviated with medicine
The author doesn't ignore this possibility. She argues that psychoses, which she claims are caused by purely organic factors, are best treated with medicine.
C
organic illnesses that are nonpsychological in nature may be treatable without using biochemical methods
The author doesn’t discuss this, but it doesn’t weaken her argument because she’s only addressing psychological illnesses. The treatment of nonpsychological illnesses is irrelevant.
D
the nature of any medical condition can be inferred from the nature of the treatment that cures that condition
The author actually seems to assume that the nature of a medical condition can be inferred from the nature of its treatment. She draws a conclusion about the nature of psychoses based on the nature of their treatment. So, (D) doesn’t describe something that the other ignores.
E
organic factors having little to do with brain chemistry may be at least partially responsible for neuroses
The author’s conclusion is about psychoses, not neuroses. She ignores the possibility that environmental factors may be at least partially responsible for psychoses.
Model student summary:
Okay so I got this one wrong and failed to identify it as a blind review question. Bummer. Going to try and explain this one to really understand why I got it wrong.
It is a necessary assumption question that deals with how we learn to use machines. Parsing out the stimulus we get:
Premise: We learn to use most of the machines in our lives through written instructions, without knowledge of machines’ inner workings, because most machines are specifically designed for use by non-experts.
Conclusion: So, in general, attaining technological expertise would prepare students for tomorrow’s job market no better than would a more traditional a more traditional education stressing verbal and quantitative skills.
Looking back at the question its actually not that difficult, and I don’t quite know what prompted me to choose answer choice (B). In any event, we need to find an assumption upon which the argument depends. Well, at its core the argument is simply saying that a technical education (something that goes over the inner workings of machines) is no better than a traditional education at preparing students for jobs in the future. What does this depend on? It depends on the machine requirements staying the same. If all of a sudden we have to start using machines not designed for non-experts then a technical education would be superior and this argument would fall apart.
Answer choice (A) is incorrect as it has no bearing on the argument. Consider if it were not true, and the number of people receiving a traditional education today has actually increased. Would that invalidate the argument? No. Would it even weaken the argument substantially? No. How many people are receiving each type of education is irrelevant to which type of education is actually better – teachers/policymakers could be making a mistake and teaching the wrong type.
Answer choice (B) is incorrect and based on the answer statistics looks like the most frequently chosen wrong answer choice. But how does this actually change the strength of our argument about the relationship between traditional and technical education? Our argument is that technical education is not better than traditional education at preparing children for the future. This answer might further support the argument, but it is certainly not necessary. Consider if it were negated – facility in operating machines designed for use by non-experts is enhanced by expert knowledge of the machines’ inner workings. The fact that it is enhanced tells us nothing about the relationship between technical and traditional education. For all we know there is something else that enhances the ability to use machines even more that is associated with traditional education.
Answer choice (C) is the correct answer. If most jobs tomorrow require the use of machines designed for experts, then a knowledge of the inner workings of those machines would be critical and this would give a substantial benefit to a technical education. Therefore, this argument must assume that the nature of machine use in jobs will not change in the future.
Answer choice (D) is incorrect. Again, consider if it is negated – students can attain technological expertise and also receive an education that does not neglect verbal and quantitative skills. Does this in any way alter the relationship between which type of education fosters the greatest preparedness? No. The fact that they can be taught together has no impact on which one is superior.
Answer choice (E) is incorrect as well. It may, however, be a sufficient condition. I don’t think its 100% valid, but the superiority of verbal and quantitate knowledge in learning to use a machine (expert & non-expert since it is not specified) goes a long way towards supporting the notion technological education prepares students no better than a traditional one. This is not, however, a necessary condition. The stimulus is limited to discussing machines that are made for non-experts. If we negate this answer choice it tells us that sometimes technological expertise is more important than verbal and quantitive skills. These times could be when the machine in question is designed for experts. The negation of this answer choice is completely consistent with the authors conclusion and is thus not necessary.