Summarize Argument
The economist concludes that some attempts to increase productivity are not beneficial to the business as a whole. As support for this, the economist says that attempts to increase productivity often result in a decrease in the number of employees. This is harmful both for the employees who lose their jobs, and also for the employees who stick around, because they lose their sense of security in their jobs.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that efforts to increase productivity are not always beneficial for the overall company: “Not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole.”
A
If an action taken to secure the survival of a business fails to enhance the welfare of the business’s employees, that action cannot be good for the business as a whole.
The argument simply concludes that not all efforts to increase productivity have an overall beneficial effect; this conditional relationship in answer choice A is not the main conclusion.
B
Some measures taken by a business to increase productivity fail to be beneficial to the business as a whole.
This is the main conclusion. This is an excellent paraphrase of the sentence identified as the conclusion in the argument. The sentence following this idea in the argument is a premise that provides support for this idea.
C
Only if the employees of a business are also its owners will the interests of the employees and owners coincide, enabling measures that will be beneficial to the business as a whole.
This answer says that the employees also being the owners of a business is a necessary condition for aligning the interests of owners and employees; this conditional relationship is not mentioned or supported in the argument, so this is not the main conclusion.
D
There is no business that does not make efforts to increase its productivity.
This is information given as context for the argument: business→ efforts to increase productivity
/efforts to increase productivity→/business
/efforts to increase productivity→/business
E
Decreasing the number of employees in a business undermines the sense of security of retained employees.
This information is offered as support for the main conclusion, so this is a premise of the argument.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The local citizen claims that the measure to ban spectators from the courtroom was inconsistent with the stated reasoning for taking the measure. Since the court stirred up public interest with requests for help, the citizen claims that it’s hypocritical for public interest to be invoked as the reason for restricting courtroom attendance.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is an “equivocation fallacy”, meaning that the local citizen uses different meanings of a word interchangeably in an invalid way. In the argument’s premises, the term “public interest” refers to the fact that the public cared about the case. Later, however, the term refers to what would be good for the public. There’s no contradiction because those two concepts are very different.
A
generalizes from an atypical case
The citizen never generalized. The argument was only concerned with this one particular turn of events.
B
trades on an ambiguity with respect to the term “public interest”
This describes the way the term “public interest” was treated as though it referred to the same concept even though the term’s meaning shifted throughout the argument.
C
overlooks the fact that the judge might not be the one who made the plea to the public for help
The central flaw with the argument was the inconsistent use of a term. No matter who specifically made the plea for help, the supposed contraction could still stand.
D
attempts to support its conclusion by making sensationalistic appeals
The citizen refers to events that actually happened, so the premises weren’t merely sensationalistic appeals. Employing rhetoric isn’t a logical flaw in and of itself.
E
presumes that the public’s right to know is obviously more important than the defendant’s right to a fair trial
This is irrelevant. Actions could still be inconsistent regardless of what the defendant’s rights are. Also, there’s no reason to believe that allowing spectators would infringe on the defendant's rights.
Summary
If one effect of a genetic mutation contributes substantially to survival of a species, that mutation will be favored in natural selection. In addition, if a mutation is favored in natural selection, that means at least one effect of that mutation contributes substantially to survival of a species.
The rules above are subject to one exception — when the effect of traits that are carried along with the genetic mutation are so negative that they cancel out the benefits of a mutation, the mutation won’t be favored.
The rules above are subject to one exception — when the effect of traits that are carried along with the genetic mutation are so negative that they cancel out the benefits of a mutation, the mutation won’t be favored.
Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference to draw. We just need to understand the complicated rules in the stimulus accurately.
A
A species possesses a trait whose effects are all neutral for the survival of that species.
Could be true. A species can have a trait with only neutral effects. This just implies the trait won’t be favored by natural selection.
B
All the effects of some genetic mutations contribute substantially to the survival of a species.
Could be true. There could be some mutations that only do very helpful things for survival. These mutations will be favored.
C
A species possesses a trait that reduces the species’ survival potential.
Could be true. A species can have a trait that reduces survival potential. This trait won’t be favored.
D
A genetic mutation that carries along several negative traits is favored in natural selection.
Could be true. A genetic mutation can carry several negative traits. And that mutation can still be favored as long as the negative traits aren’t so negative as to outweigh the benefits of the mutation.
E
A genetic mutation whose effects are all neutral to a species is favored in natural selection.
Must be false. If the effects are all neutral, then the mutation won’t be favored. One requirement to be favored is that one effect contributes substantially to survival.