Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The political scientist argues that decreasing voter turnout is entirely explained by people losing faith in the government’s ability to solve problems. This is because people losing faith in government’s ability to change public opinion, which they believe is necessary to solve society’s problems, is an example of something that causes people to lose enthusiasm for voting.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This argument is flawed because it treats a sufficient condition as if it were a necessary condition. In other words, the argument assumes that because a loss of faith in government’s ability to solve problems can cause people to lose interest in voting, that it must be what’s causing voter turnout to decrease in this case. However, there could be other conditions also sufficient to decrease voter turnout. The argument fails to consider possible alternative explanations for falling turnout.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that there is no cause of decreasing voter turnout other than the belief that few important problems can be solved by government action
This describes how the argument fails to consider other possible alternative explanations for decreasing voter turnout, instead assuming that a loss of faith in government must be what’s causing it.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that there are no political solutions to the most important problems
The argument isn’t concerned with whether or not these problems are solvable. It only makes a claim about what’s causing voter turnout to decrease.
C
infers that important problems can be seriously addressed if people’s attitudes do change from the premise that these problems cannot be addressed if people’s attitudes do not change
The argument only makes a claim about what’s causing voter turnout to decrease, not about whether any problems can or can’t be addressed. The flaw is failing to consider other possible causes.
D
undermines its claim that people no longer believe there are political solutions to important problems by suggesting that people are dissatisfied with politicians
People being dissatisfied with politicians does not undermine this claim; it could explain why those people don’t believe in political solutions.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that voter apathy prevents the attitudinal changes that result in finding solutions to important problems
The argument doesn’t presume that voter apathy has any particular effects; it only seeks to explain what’s causing the apathy.
Summarize Argument
The geophysicist concludes that asteroids strike the earth in a highly organized way, not randomly. She supports this by pointing to a unique pattern of impact craters that form a halo across the Northern Hemisphere.
Notable Assumptions
The geophysicist assumes that the unique pattern of impact craters could not have been caused by asteroids striking earth at random locations and are instead evidence of a highly organized natural process.
A
Several asteroid strikes within a short period could produce both volcanic activity that warms the oceans and atmospheric debris that blocks sunlight, and such changes could cause mass extinctions.
Irrelevant. The fact that asteroid strikes could cause mass extinctions tell us nothing about whether those strikes are random or follow a highly organized natural process.
B
If asteroids repeatedly pummel the same spots, the beating may affect the flow of molten rock inside the earth, which would affect the degree to which continents drift around the earth’s surface.
Irrelevant. The fact that asteroid strikes could affect continental drift tells us nothing about whether those strikes are random or follow a highly organized natural process.
C
The impact craters that form a halo-like swath across the Northern Hemisphere were the result of a single cluster of meteors striking the earth.
Irrelevant. This fails to address whether the single cluster of meteors struck randomly or followed a highly organized natural process.
D
Lumpy masses within the earth cause gravitational interactions with approaching asteroids that force them into specific orbits before impact.
This suggests that asteroids do strike earth through a highly organized natural process. If lumpy masses in the earth force asteroids into specific orbits, this determines where they will strike, which suggests that they do not strike at random locations.
E
No similar pattern of impact craters was created during any other period of the earth’s history.
Irrelevant. The fact that this pattern of impact craters is unique tells us nothing about whether it occurred randomly or as the result of a highly organized natural process.
Editorial: Painting involves a sequential application of layers, each of which adheres satisfactorily only if the underlying layer has been properly applied. Education is, in this respect, like the craft of painting. Since the most important steps in painting are preparation of the surface to be painted and application of the primer coat, it makes sense to suppose that _______.
Summary
Painting involves the application of layers. Subsequent layers of paint adhere only when the underlying layer has been properly applied. The most important steps in painting are preparing the surface to be painted and applying the primer coat. Education, in this respect, is similar to painting.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
It makes sense to suppose that the success of a student’s education requires a satisfactory preliminary steps.
A
in the educator’s initial contact with a student, the educator should be as undemanding as possible
We don’t know how an education should act towards students.
B
students who have a secure grasp of the fundamentals of a subject are likely to make progress in that subject
We don’t know whether a student’s grasp of the fundamentals would likely lead to progress in that subject. We only know that the fundamentals are required in order to have a chance at grasping a subject.
C
educators who are not achieving the goals they intended should revise their teaching methods
We don’t know what educators should do. We only know what are the most important factors for a student’s education.
D
teaching new students is rewarding but much more difficult than teaching more advanced students
We don’t know which types of students are more difficult to teach.
E
the success of a student’s overall educational experience depends above all upon that student’s initial educational experience
If the most important factors for the success of painting are preparing and priming the surface, then the most important factors for the success of education is the initial educational experience.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
It’s unlikely that humans will ever colonize the galaxy. Why? Because if humans were to colonize the galaxy, there would be trillions of us. (The galaxy is huge.) If there there were trillions of us, then the overwhelming majority of humans ever to exist would exist during that galaxy-colonized period. We exist. There’s no reason to think we’re unrepresentative of all humans. Yet we do not live in the galaxy-colonized period. Hence, it’s unlikely that humans will ever colonize the galaxy.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Similar to the contrapositive argument. Author reasons that if something were to occur, it would have a consequence. But that consequence is false. Hence, that something is unlikely to occur.
A
reasoning that because an event has not occurred, that event has a low probability of occurring
Descriptively inaccurate. (A) thinks the author’s argument is that because we have not yet colonized the galaxy we will therefore probably not colonize the galaxy. Rather, a main premise is that we’re not alive during a galaxy-colonized period.
B
drawing a conclusion that implicitly contradicts one of the premises that the argument accepts
Descriptively inaccurate. The conclusion contradicts and rejects other people’s prediction that humans will one day colonize the galaxy.
C
taking for granted that dependable predictions about the future cannot ever be made simply on the basis of the present facts
Descriptively inaccurate. In fact, the author assumes just the opposite. His argument attempts to make a prediction about the future on the basis of present facts.
D
inferring that since an event that is taken to be likely on a given hypothesis has not occurred, the hypothesis is probably false
Descriptively accurate. Author infers that since we are not alive during the galaxy-colonized period, that the hypothesis that we will one day colonize the galaxy is probably false.
E
making a prediction far into the future based on established human tendencies
Descriptively inaccurate. Premise descriptor is inaccurate. Author does not base his prediction on “established human tendencies.” Instead, he bases it on probability and the total number of humans .
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Riley argues that the president’s speech was nflammatory, so therefore it’s inappropriate.
The author points out that Riley has had a feud with the president, so we shouldn’t believe that the speech was inflammatory merely because Riley says it was.
Thus, the author concludes that if we don’t have any independent reason to think the speech was inflammatory, the speech was not inappropriate.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that Riley’s long-standing feud with the president constitutes a reason we should not accept Riley’s claim that the speech was inflammatory as conclusive evidence that it was inflammatory.
The author also assumes that being inflammatory is the only way for the speech to have been inappropriate. In other words, the author’s overlooking the possibility that the speech could have been inappropriate even if it was not inflammatory.
A
takes for granted that the speech could not be inappropriate if it was not inflammatory
The author assumes that if the speech wasn’t inflammatory, then it wasn’t inappropriate. This overlooks the possibility that the speech could have been inappropriate for other reasons.
B
fails to adequately address the possibility that inflammatory speeches may be appropriate for some audiences
The author’s position is that we don’t have evidence the speech was inflammatory. So what’s possible in the event the speech was inflammatory doesn’t matter. The argument concerns what a non-inflammatory speech would imply.
C
favors the university president’s side in a dispute simply because of the president’s privileged standing
We don’t know what the president’s side in the dispute is, and we don’t know whether the author favors it. In addition, the author doesn’t rely on the president’s standing as support for the conclusion.
D
concludes that Riley’s claim is false merely on the grounds that Riley has something to gain if the claim is accepted as true
The author does point out that Riley has been in a feud with the president, but that doesn’t imply that Riley has anything to gain from people thinking the speech was inappropriate. So the author’s conclusion is not based on the idea that Riley has something to gain.
E
fails to adequately address the possibility that Riley’s animosity toward the university president is well founded
Whether Riley’s feelings about the president are justified is irrelevant. The issue is whether the president’s speech was inappropriate, and whether there are other ways for it to be inappropriate besides being inflammatory.