Summary
Sharon heard her favorite author criticize a political candidate that she had supported for years. As a result, Sharon’s opinion of the author declined, while her opinion of the candidate remained the same.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Someone who hears an opinion that counters a long-held belief will doubt the source rather than question their held belief.
A
Artists who speak out on political matters will have influence only among their most dedicated fans.
There is no support for whether an artist’s most dedicated fans will be influenced. The stimulus just says that Sharon was not influenced.
B
A political statement from an artist should be considered only if the artist has established a reputation for being an honest and knowledgeable observer of politics.
There is no justification given for when an artist should give a political statement.
C
Artists should limit their public political statements to issues that are somehow related to the arts.
There is no support for when an artist should or should not give a political statement.
D
Someone who hears testimony that contradicts a long-standing opinion will generally entertain doubts about the source of the testimony rather than the correctness of the opinion.
Sharon’s longstanding support for a political candidate outweighs the opinion of her favorite author. As a result, Sharon’s opinion of the author declines (doubts the testimony of the source) instead of challenging her own beliefs.
E
People are far less likely to renounce an allegiance that they have had for many years than to renounce an allegiance that is new to them.
There is no information about how long Sharon supported her favorite author, so this comparative statement cannot be made.
Summarize Argument
In a study, volunteers were evenly divided into five groups. Each group tasted Sparkle Cola and one of five competing colas, with each group tasting a different one of the competing colas. Most people in the study said they preferred Sparkle compared to the other cola they tasted. The author concludes from this that Sparkle got a more favorable response from people in the study than any of the competing colas tested.
Identify and Describe Flaw
We know most consumers picked Sparkle as tasting better. But this doesn’t mean for every competing cola, most picked Sparkle. For example, perhaps one cola was picked by everyone who tasted it, but the other 4 competing colas lost out to Sparkle. The claim that “most” consumers preferred Sparkle applies to the overall study, not each individual matchup between Sparkle and a competing cola.
A
It overlooks the possibility that a generalization true of the entire group of volunteers was not true of each of the five smaller groups.
“Most” of the volunteers preferred Sparkle is a generalization true of the entire group of volunteers. But it’s not necessarily true of each of the five smaller groups. So one of the groups might have preferred their competing cola over Sparkle.
B
It takes for granted that most of the volunteers would buy Sparkle Cola rather than one of the other colas tasted, at least in situations where Sparkle Cola is not much more expensive.
The conclusion only concerns whether Sparkle elicited a more favorable response during the taste tests in the study. The conclusion doesn’t concern whether people would buy Sparkle.
C
It overlooks the possibility that some cola not tested in the study would have elicited a more favorable response than Sparkle Cola.
The conclusion only concerns the comparison between Sparkle and “the competing colas tested.” It doesn’t assert anything about colas that were not tested in the study.
D
It overlooks the possibility that many people may prefer Sparkle Cola to competing colas for reasons such as the packaging or price of Sparkle Cola, rather than its taste.
The argument only concerns the response of Sparkle Cola vs. the competing colas based on the taste tests in the study. Whether people might prefer Sparkle for reasons besides taste was not part of the study and isn’t part of the conclusion.
E
It is based on a study that does not elicit consumers’ responses to any beverages other than colas.
The conclusion is concerned only with colas. So the fact the study didn’t investigate non-colas is irrelevant.