Summary
Creativity requires one to make changes to an existing theme. Every new idea/theme/discovery is built on existing themes.
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
This is a MBT Except question. This means all the wrong answers can be logically inferred from the stimulus. The right answer cannot be logically inferred from the stimulus.
Some examples of valid logical inferences from the stimulus are: there are no new themes which are not built on existing themes, and if one lacks the ability to modify a theme, they lack creativity.
Some examples of valid logical inferences from the stimulus are: there are no new themes which are not built on existing themes, and if one lacks the ability to modify a theme, they lack creativity.
A
A lack of ability to manufacture a variation on a previous theme connotes a lack of creativity.
This must be true. We know the ability to manufacture variations on a theme is required for creativity. A lack of the latter implies a lack of the former. We can see this by taking the contrapositive of the first conditional statement.
B
No scientific idea is entirely independent of all other ideas.
This must be true. The stimulus tells us that every idea in science “is built upon a thousand related ideas.” Therefore, no idea can be entirely independent of all others.
C
Careful analysis of a specific variation can reveal previous themes of which it is a variation.
This must be true. The stimulus says that by carefully analyzing a new theme, we can see the previous themes from which it is derived. This is also what (C) is saying.
D
All great scientific discoverers have been able to manufacture a variation on a theme.
This must be true. All great scientific discoverers must have made at least one discovery, and we know all discoveries are variations of existing themes. Therefore, the discoverers must have been able to manufacture at least one variation on an existing theme.
E
Some new scientific discoveries do not represent, on a deep level, a variation on previous themes.
This must be false. (E) contradicts the final sentence of the stimulus (which is represented in the second conditional statement): all discoveries are a variation on a previous theme.
Q: But any regulations that can potentially prevent money from being wasted are useful. If obeyed, the new safety regulations will prevent some accidents, and whenever there is an accident here at the laboratory, money is wasted even if no one is injured.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to P’s claim that complying with the new safety regulations is useless, Q concludes any regulations that potentially prevent money from being wasted are useful. As evidence, Q states that the new safety regulations would prevent some accidents, and money is wasted whenever there is an accident.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Q counters a position held by P. Q does this by expanding the scope of P’s argument. Instead of only narrowly considering whether the new safety regulations would have prevented last year’s fire, Q considers what effect the regulations could have upon all potential accidents.
A
extending the basis for assessing the utility of complying with the new regulations
P’s basis for assessing the utility of compliance is whether the new regulations would have prevented last year’s laboratory fire. Q extends this basis to assessing whether the new regulations would prevent some accidents.
B
citing additional evidence that undermines P’s assessment of the extent to which the new regulations would have prevented injuries in last year’s laboratory fire
Q does not state a position on whether he believes the new regulations would have prevented injuries in last year’s laboratory fire. Q’s argument addresses accidents generally.
C
giving examples to show that the uselessness of all regulations cannot validly be inferred from the uselessness of one particular set of regulations
P’s argument does not conclude that all regulations are useless. P only concludes that the new safety regulations are useless, and Q responds to this narrow conclusion.
D
showing that P’s argument depends on the false assumption that compliance with any regulations that would have prevented last year’s fire would be useful
Q does not point out any false assumptions in P’s argument. Moreover, Q does not state a position on whether he believes the new regulations would have prevented last year’s laboratory fire.
E
pointing out a crucial distinction, overlooked by P, between potential benefits and actual benefits
Q does not explicitly point out a distinction overlooked by P. Rather, Q expands the scope of argument to all regulations instead of just the new safety regulations.
Summarize Argument
Premise 1:
Understand architecture of PC → computer scientist (”only” introduces necessary condition)
Premise 2:
Appreciate tech advances → understand architecture of PC (”only” introduces necessary condition)
Conclusion:
Computer scientist → Appreciate tech advances (”only” introduces necessary condition)
Identify and Describe Flaw
The premises allow us to conclude that appreciating tech advances requires that one be a computer scientist. But the author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions of this inference. The author mistakenly thinks that being a computer scientist requires appreciating the tech advances. This overlooks the possibility that there might be some computer scientists that don’t appreciate the tech advances.
(The conclusion would have been valid if it had said “only computer scientists appreciate the tech advances.”)
A
The argument contains no stated or implied relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advances in technology in the last decade.
This is false. The argument allows us to infer that appreciating the advances requires being a computer scientist.
B
The argument ignores the fact that some computer scientists may not appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade.
The possibility described in (B) undermines the argument by showing that one can be a computer scientists without needing to appreciate the tech advances; this shows why the conclusion doesn’t have to be true.
C
The argument ignores the fact that computer scientists may appreciate other things besides the advances in technology made in the last decade.
The author never argued that computer scientists never appreciate anything else besides technology advances. So the fact allegedly ignored has no impact on the reasoning.
D
The premises of the argument are stated in such a way that they exclude the possibility of drawing any logical conclusion.
We can draw a logical conclusion — appreciating the tech advances requires being a computer scientist. The flaw isn’t that the author drew a conclusion when he shouldn’t have drawn any conclusion, it’s that the author drew an improper conclusion.
E
The premises of the argument presuppose that everyone understands the architecture of personal computers.
The first premise states that only computer scientists understand the architecture of PCs. So the argument does not assume that “everyone” (including non-computer scientists) understands the architecture of PCs.
Anna: That plan would fail. Cacao, like cloudberries, was once harvested from wild plants. When chocolate became popular in Europe, the cacao gatherers could not supply enough to meet the increased demand, and farmers began to grow large quantities of it at low cost. Now all cacao used in commercial chocolate production is grown on farms. Likewise, if the demand for cloudberries increases, domesticated berries grown on farms will completely supplant berries gathered in the wild.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Anna concludes if demand for cloudberries increases, then domesticated berries would completely replace wild berries. As evidence, Anna points to what happened in the past with cacao. Cacao was harvested from wild plants until it became popular in Europe. As a result, cacao gatherers could not meet demand and farms began growing large quantities at low cost. Now all cacao used in commercial chocolate production comes from farms, not wild plants.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Anna concludes a cause-and-effect relationship based on what happened in an analogous case. She does this by showing what happened in the past with cacao, and suggests if demand increases for cloudberries in a similar way to cacao the same effect would occur.
A
giving a reason why a proposed course of action would be beneficial to all those affected by it
Anna does not claim Frankie’s proposed course of action would be beneficial to everyone. She believes that Frankie’s proposal would hurt cloudberry gatherers because increased demand would cause the berries to strictly be grown on domestic farms.
B
reinterpreting evidence presented in support of a proposal as a reason to reject the proposal
Anna does not reinterpret any evidence. In fact, Frankie does not provide any evidence for Anna to reinterpret. Anna is the only one who gave evidence in support of her conclusion.
C
projecting the result of following a proposal in a given situation by comparing that situation with a past situation
The past situation being compared is what happened with cacao. The projected result is Anna’s predicted consequence of increasing the demand for cloudberries, resulting in domesticated berries completely replacing wild berries.
D
proposing a general theory as a way of explaining a specific market situation
Anna does not propose a general theory. She cites specific evidence of a past situation in order to make comparisons.
E
contending that the uses for one product are similar to the uses for another product
Anna does not address the subject of use.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author looks to the disappearance of Norse settlements and concludes, contrary to what some people claim, that the Norse settlements did not disappear as a result of decreasing temperatures. As evidence, the author points out that Inuit settlers inhabiting Greenland during the same time continued to thrive long after the Norse settlers disappeared.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author counters a position held by others. She does this by providing evidence that is inconsistent with what others claim. Decreasing temperatures could not have been what caused Norse settlements to disappear because Inuit settlements during the same time period were not wiped out.
A
denying the relevance of an analogy
The author does not describe any analogy. The author’s mention of Inuit settlements is a counterexample meant to attack the claim that the Norse settlements were wiped out by decreasing temperatures.
B
producing evidence that is inconsistent with the claim being opposed
The evidence the author produces is that of the Inuit settlements in existence at the same time as the Norse settlements. The claim being opposed is that Greenland became too cold for human habitation.
C
presenting an alternative explanation that purports to account for more of the known facts
The author does not present an alternative explanation. She does not attempt to explain why the Norse settlements in Greenland disappeared.
D
citing a general rule that undermines the claim being opposed
The author does not provide a general rule in order to counter other’s claims. Rather, the author provides the specific instance of Inuit settlements to oppose these claims.
E
redefining a term in a way that is favorable to the argument’s conclusion
The author does not redefine a term, or define any term used.