Editorialist: In all cultures, it is almost universally accepted that one has a moral duty to prevent members of one’s family from being harmed. Thus, few would deny that if a person is known by the person’s parents to be falsely accused of a crime, it would be morally right for the parents to hide the accused from the police. Hence, it is also likely to be widely accepted that it is sometimes morally right to obstruct the police in their work.

A
utilizes a single type of example for the purpose of justifying a broad generalization

The editorialist uses an example to support a generalization, but it’s not an overly broad or flawed generalization. She gives one case where it may be considered morally right to obstruct police and then concludes that it’s sometimes considered morally right to obstruct police.

B
fails to consider the possibility that other moral principles would be widely recognized as overriding any obligation to protect a family member from harm

Perhaps most people would not agree that it’s sometimes morally right to obstruct police work because most people believe that some other moral principles, like the duty to follow the law, override the obligation to protect family members.

C
presumes, without providing justification, that allowing the police to arrest an innocent person assists rather than obstructs justice

The editorialist assumes that hiding a wrongfully convicted person obstructs rather than assists police work. She never actually makes any claims about obstructing justice, which may not be the same thing as obstructing police work.

D
takes for granted that there is no moral obligation to obey the law

The editorialist doesn’t assume that there is no obligation to obey the law. She just assumes that the moral duty to protect one’s family sometimes overrides any obligation to obey the law.

E
takes for granted that the parents mentioned in the example are not mistaken about their child’s innocence

The editorialist argues that most people would agree that it’s morally right for parents to hide a child who is known to the parents to be falsely accused of a crime from the police. Whether the child is actually innocent is irrelevant.


67 comments

A person is more likely to become disabled as that person ages. Among adults in the country of East Wendell, however, the proportion receiving disability benefit payments shrinks from 4 percent among 55 to 64 year olds to 2 percent for those aged 65 to 74 and 1 percent for those aged 75 and older. The explanation of this discrepancy is that the proportion of jobs offering such a disability benefit has greatly increased in recent years.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Older people are more likely to have a disability, yet adults over 55 are less likely to receive disability benefits the older they are. The author believes this is because jobs have recently become more likely to offer disability benefits.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes no other explanations account for older people being less likely to receive disability benefits, either in addition to or as an alternative for the phenomenon described.

A
The treatment of newly incurred disabilities is more successful now than in the past in restoring partial function in the affected area within six months.
This is irrelevant without knowing when most people incur their disabilities. If most people over 75 developed their disabilities before age 65, for example, then this makes the phenomenon more surprising, rather than explain it.
B
Some people receive disability benefit payments under employers’ insurance plans, and some receive them from the government.
This states no difference between the government and employers’ insurance plans that would explain why older people are less likely to receive disability benefits. It doesn’t say that either payer is less generous and more likely to serve older people.
C
Medical advances have prolonged the average lifespan beyond what it was 20 years ago.
This would explain more people living past 75, but not why fewer of them receive disability benefits. It doesn’t say those medical advances have made older people less likely to suffer a disability.
D
For persons receiving disability benefit payments, those payments on average represent a smaller share of their predisability income now than was the case 20 years ago.
This doesn’t offer an alternative explanation. The author does not say a person’s predisability income impacts their chances of receiving disability payments.
E
Under most employers’ plans, disability benefit payments stop when an employee with a disability reaches the usual retirement age of 65.
This offers an alternative explanation. Older people are less likely to receive payments because they are more likely to have lived past the retirement age.

12 comments

As part of a survey, approximately 10,000 randomly selected individuals were telephoned and asked a number of questions about their income and savings. Those conducting the survey observed that the older the person being queried, the more likely it was that he or she would refuse to answer any of the questions. This finding clearly demonstrates that, in general, people are more willing when they are younger than when they are older to reveal personal financial information to strangers over the telephone.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The argument concludes that people become more unwilling to discuss personal finances with strangers over the phone throughout their lifetime. The author bases his conclusion on a survey that found that older people are more unwilling to discuss their personal finances with a surveyor over the phone than younger people are.

Identify and Describe Flaw
Our argument uses survey results about different generations of people to support a claim about how people change as they age. This conclusion doesn’t follow; if you want to make a claim about how people’s behaviors change throughout their lives, you should interview the same people at different points in their lives. All that the survey results tell us is how different generations differ behaviorally, not how one generation will change in the future.

A
offers no evidence that the individuals queried would have responded differently had they been asked the same questions in years prior to the survey
This addresses the issue of change over time. If we don’t know how the answers of the people surveyed would change over time, we cannot draw the conclusion about how anyone’s behavior from earlier in their life to later.
B
fails to specify the exact number of people who were telephoned as part of the survey
Knowing the exact number of people telephoned does not help our argument—it would not help us establish a connection between the older and younger people surveyed and how people change throughout their lives.
C
assumes without warrant that age is the main determinant of personal income and savings levels
Even if it were untrue that age was the main determinant of these factors, that would not damage the argument. Our argument is not focused on the level of income or savings, but rather on how forthcoming people of certain ages are with this information.
D
assumes from the outset what it purports to establish on the basis of a body of statistical evidence
This “cookie-cutter” answer choice refers to circular reasoning, which is not present in this argument. The study would have had to assume that people become less likely to share this information as they age. Since this was not the case, we can reject this answer choice.
E
provides no reason to believe that what is true of a given age group in general is also true of all individuals within that age group
Our argument is concerned with the difference between different age groups and how people change throughout their lives, not with whether or not generalizations are universally true within a group. This answer choice misses the mark.

36 comments