Anika: I disagree with your prediction. Our customers already are antiques experts. Furthermore, hiring professional appraisers would push up our costs considerably, thus forcing us to raise the prices on all our antiques.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Anika rejects inez’s prediction. As evidence, Anika points out customers are already antique experts and that hiring antique experts would cause prices to increase.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Anika counters the position held by Inez. She does this by predicting a cause-and-effect relationship: if professional appraisers were hired, this would cause the price of antiques to increase.
A
indicating that a particular plan would have an effect contrary to the anticipated effect
The anticipated effect Inez predicts is that people would be more willing to buy antiques. On the other hand, Anika claims that hiring professional appraisers would cause prices for antiques to increase and thus may not result in people being more willing to buy.
B
claiming that a particular plan should not be adopted because, while effective, it would have at least one undesirable consequence
Anika does not believe that Inez’s plan would be effective. Rather, she believes that Inez’s plan would have an effect directly contrary to the goal of selling antiques.
C
arguing that an alternative plan could achieve a desired result more easily than the plan originally proposed
Anika does not present an alternative plan. Rather, she only addresses the weakness of Inez’s plan.
D
questioning the assumption that authorities are available who have special knowledge of the problem under discussion
Anika does not question the existence of professional appraisers that could authenticate antiques. Rather, she questions the assumption why professional appraisers are needed given that customers are already experts.
E
offering a counterexample in order to show that a particular general claim is too broadly stated
Anika does not present a counterexample. Rather, she makes a general prediction about the unintended consequences of Inez’s plan.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the critics who accuse our team of being unprofessional due to the team’s enthusiasm on the field are wrong. This is based on the fact that the professionals in the sport act in a more enthuasiastic way.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author misinterprets the critics claim that the team is “unprofessional.” “Unprofessional” can mean rude, uncourteous. But the author mistakenly thinks that the critics were claiming the team was not behaving like professional players behave.
A
misleadingly equates enthusiasm with unethical play
The author does not equate enthusiasm with unethical play. Rather, he is responding to the critics’ belief that the enthusiastic repsonses of the team are “unprofessional.” The author believes the responses are not “unprofessional,” in the sense that professionals act similarly.
B
misinterprets the critics’ claim that the team is unprofessional
The author misinterprets the critics’ claim as accusing the team of not acting like professional players. But the critics actually just mean that the team is rude or uncourteous.
C
too quickly generalizes from the sport at one level to the sport at a different level
The author doesn’t try to conclude that something is true of nonprofessionals because it’s true of professionals. The author is trying to show that particular behavior is performed by professionals to rebut the claim that the team is “unprofessional.”
D
shifts the blame for the team’s behavior to professional players
The author does not try to cast blame on anyone. Rather, the author tries to rebut the claim that the team is “unprofessional.”
E
takes everyone on the team to have performed the actions of a few
The author does not assume that everyone on the team acted in a certain way because a few acted in that way. The premises don’t say anything about whether only a few individuals have acted enthusiastically.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that either Ms. Chan or her colleague must not be telling the truth. Ms. Chan said that she retired from Quad Cities corporation. Her colleague said that Ms. Chan will be gone for much of next year on business trips and is working harder than she has ever worked before. To the author, what the colleague describes about Ms. Chan does not sound like “retirement.”
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author interprets “retired from Quad Cities Corporation” as if it means Ms. Chan retired from working generally. But this overlooks the reasonable possibility that it simply means retired from working at that specific company. If this is what the phrase means, then both Ms. Chan and her colleague could be telling the truth.
A
is based in part on hearsay
The author does not argue that something is true because he heard someone say that it is true. Rather, the author mistakenly believes what each person said is contradictory.
B
criticizes Ms. Chan rather than the claims she made
The author does not attack Ms. Chan’s background, character, or behavior. He simply believes what she said contradicts what her colleague said about her.
C
draws a conclusion based on equivocal language
The author’s conclusion is based in part on the the language “retired from Quad Cities Corporation.” The author thinks this means Ms. Chan retired from working completely. But this language is equivocal because it could also mean that she retired only from that specific company.
D
fails to consider that Ms. Chan’s colleague may have been deceived by her
There’s no indication that what the colleague said was based on what Ms. Chan said to the colleague. In any case, even if Ms. Chan lied to the colleague, that doesn’t undermine the conclusion that Ms. Chan or the colleague must not be telling the truth.
E
fails to infer that Ms. Chan must be a person of superior character, given her long loyal service
There’s no reason the author should have concluded that Ms. Chan is of superior character. The failure to make this inference does not help show why both Ms. Chan and her colleague might be telling the truth.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the comet theory is a plausible explanation of the dinosaurs’ extinction. This is based on the idea that a collision of a large enough comet into the Earth could have caused a dust cloud that could have cooled the climate long enough to cause the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a large enough comet existed and could have collided with Earth at the time in question. He also assumes that the impact would cause a dust cloud that would cover the planet, and that this would cool the climate long enough to lead to the dinosaurs’ extinction. (The author says that these events “could” happen––we don’t know their likelihood. It could be a very slim possibility.) The author assumes that, even if these events occurred, the cooling caused by the comet is what led to the dinosaurs’ extinction.
A
One of the various schools of paleontology adheres to an explanation for the disappearance of the dinosaurs that is significantly different from the comet theory.
The author is only arguing that the comet theory is plausible; the fact that other theories differ from the comet theory doesn’t weaken the argument. It doesn’t weaken our argument that other plausible explanations may exist.
B
Various species of animals from the same era as the dinosaurs and similar to them in physiology and habitat did not become extinct when the dinosaurs did.
(B) suggests that the extinction of the dinosaurs was driven by some factor that differentiated dinosaurs from other animals with similar habitat and climate needs. If the comet theory was true, animals with similar physiology and habitat to dinosaurs would have gone extinct too.
C
It cannot be determined from a study of dinosaur skeletons whether the animals died from the effects of a dust cloud.
(C) just says that one specific kind of evidence cannot be used. The inability to use skeletons as evidence does not weaken the argument that the comet theory is plausible. (C) makes the inappropriate assumption that skeletons are the only source of information available.
D
Many other animal species from the era of the dinosaurs did not become extinct at the same time the dinosaurs did.
(D) is too broad. The animal species referenced in (D) could have had vastly different requirements for habitat and climate. It makes sense that some animals survived the incident that killed the dinosaurs.
E
The consequences for vegetation and animals of a comet colliding with Earth are not fully understood.
The argument that the comet theory is plausible doesn’t require a full understanding of the impacts of a comet collision on plants and animals, so (E) does not impact the argument.