Summarize Argument
The scientist concludes that atmospheric pollution caused global temperatures to rise in the 1500s. She supports this by saying that she found several years of heavy pollution in the 1500s that coincided with a period of high global temperatures.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The scientist points out a correlation between atmospheric pollution and high global temperatures in the 1500s and then concludes that the pollution caused the high temperatures. She ignores any other possible explanation for the high temperatures.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that a rise in global temperatures is harmful
The scientist never makes this assumption. She concludes that pollution caused the rise in global temperatures, but she doesn’t assume that the rise in temperatures is harmful.
B
draws a general conclusion based on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative
Like (C), the scientist doesn’t draw a general conclusion. She draws the specific conclusion that “in this case” pollution caused high global temperatures.
C
inappropriately generalizes from facts about a specific period of time to a universal claim
Like (B), the scientist doesn’t draw an inappropriately general conclusion. She draws a specific conclusion about a period of time in the 1500s based on facts about that same specific period of time.
D
takes for granted that the method used for gathering data was reliable
This doesn’t describe why the scientist’s reasoning is vulnerable to criticism. She presents her data in her premises and we have no reason to believe that her methods were unreliable.
E
infers, merely from a claim that two phenomena are associated, that one phenomenon causes the other
The scientist infers that atmospheric pollution caused a rise in global temperatures in the 1500s merely from a claim that atmospheric pollution and high global temperatures both occurred during that time.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the scientist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The scientist claims to have discovered that several years of atmospheric pollution during the 1500s coincided with a period of relatively high global temperatures. The scientist concludes, in this case (the period during the 1500s), that atmospheric pollution caused the global temperature to rise.
Right off the bat, we can see that the scientist has taken a correlation to mean causation. Sure atmospheric pollution coincided with higher global temperature, but perhaps the higher global temperature caused the pollution. Perhaps both were derivative effects of the same cause! As a scientist, they really should know better.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. The scientist has nothing to say about whether or not rising global temperatures are harmful.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. The scientist has not drawn a general rule. He says that atmospheric pollution caused global temperatures to rise in this case. Even if the scientist drew a general rule, we wouldn’t know whether the 1500s were likely or unlikely to be representative.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. (C) is very similar to (B). We can rule (C) out because the scientist did not draw a general rule.
Answer choice (D) is incorrect. Sure, we have to assume that the data methods are reliable, but that is not a flaw in reasoning.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is what we discussed. The author has assumed that the correlation between atmospheric pollution and the rising global temperature of the 1500s implies that atmospheric pollution caused the temperatures to rise.
Sabina: The label is not mistaken. After all, alphahydroxy acids also are found occurring naturally in sugarcane.
Summarize Argument
Sabina concludes that the label is not mistaken. This is because alphahydroxy acids are found naturally in sugarcane.
Notable Assumptions
Sabina assumes that if a substance can occur naturally, then should be considered “natural,” even in instances where that substance has been chemically synthesized.
A
The cookie company has recently dropped alphahydroxy acids from its cookie ingredients.
We care about the cookies in the package with the specific label in question. We don’t care about literally any other cookies.
B
Not all chemicals that are part of the manufacturing process are ingredients of the cookies.
Irrelevant. Alphahydroxy acids are certainly contained in the cookies, so we don’t care if they’re technically an ingredient or not.
C
The label was printed before the cookie company decided to switch from sugarcane alphahydroxy acids to synthesized ones.
We don’t know if the cookies in question use sugarcane alphahydroxy acids or synthesized ones. If it’s the latter, then we need to know how alphahydroxy acids can indeed be called “natural.”
D
Many other foods advertising all natural ingredients also contain some ingredients that are chemically synthesized.
We don’t care about other foods. Besides, these foods may also be making a false claim about whether or not they contain only natural ingredients.
E
All substances except those that do not occur naturally in any source are considered natural.
The only unnatural substances are those that don’t occur naturally anywhere. Since alphahydroxy acids occur in sugarcane, they’re natural. Thus, the cookies were made with all-natural ingredients.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that Jaaks’ negative review of Yancey’s new book is mistaken. He supports this by saying that Jaaks claims the book misrepresents fishery workers, but Yancey used the same research methods in this book as in her other books. He also notes that Yancey’s new book and her previous books are all very popular.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author makes two key assumptions in his argument.
(1) He assumes that since Yancey used the same research methods in this book as in her previous books, she must not be misrepresenting fishery workers. He ignores the possibility that Yancey might just use bad research methods in all her books.
(2) He also assumes that because Yancey’s books are popular, they’re also factually accurate. However, a book’s popularity is not necessarily a reflection of its accuracy.
A
relies on the word of a scholar who is unqualified in the area in question
The author’s argument doesn't rely on the word of a scholar at all. He’s arguing against Jaaks, who is a scholar, but he doesn’t rely on any other scholar to support his argument.
B
attacks the person making the claim at issue rather than addressing the claim
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where an author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. The author doesn't make this mistake. He attacks Jaaks’ argument, not Jaaks herself.
C
takes for granted that the popularity of a book is evidence of its accuracy
The author assumes that because Yancey’s books are all popular, her books and research methods must be accurate. But a book’s popularity does not necessarily reflect its factual accuracy.
D
bases a general conclusion on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The author doesn't make this mistake. He draws a specific conclusion about Jaak’s review.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that the methods used by Yancey are the only methods that would produce accurate results
The author assumes that Yancey’s methods produce accurate results, but he never assumes that hers are the only methods that would produce accurate results.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
A columnist observes that attending a live musical performance is a richer experience than listening to recorded music. He believes there must be a reason other than merely seeing the performers for why attending a live musical performance is a richer experience. He argues that since there's little difference between hearing someone read a story live and hearing it on the radio, there are other factors besides seeing the performer.
Identify Argument Part
This is an observation that some people are attempting to explain. However, the columnist disagrees with other people’s explanations of the phenomenon.
A
It is what the columnist’s argument purports to show.
The Columnist is not trying to demonstrate that this phenomenon exists. His argument is that he does not believe some people’s explanation of why this is the case.
B
It is the reason given for the claim that the columnist’s argument is attempting to undermine.
This is not a reason for a claim. This is a claim for which a reason is *given*. The Columnist then disagrees with that reason being given.
C
It is what the columnist’s argument purports to explain.
This is tricky, but the columnist does not try to explain this phenomenon. He is primarily focused on refuting another explanation for why this phenomenon is present.
D
It is what the columnist’s argument purports to refute.
The columnist is not attempting to refute this. He believes this phenomenon to be true, but does not believe some people’s explanation of why it’s the case.
E
It is what the position that the columnist tries to undermine is purported to explain.
The position that the columnist is trying to undermine (seeing the performer vs. not) is purporting to explain this statement (in-person performances are richer experiences). The columnist tries to show that the explanation is insufficient, so there must be another reason.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that more people are choosing to increase their calcium intake by eating cheddar cheese rather than ice cream. He supports this by pointing out that ice cream sales have sharply declined over the past ten years, while cheddar cheese sales have nearly doubled.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The author shows a correlation between a rise in cheese sales and a drop in ice cream sales, and then concludes that people turning to cheddar cheese for calcium is what caused these changes. But there could be other explanations for why people are buying less ice cream or why they’re buying more cheddar cheese.
A
fails to produce statistical evidence supporting the dairy farmers’ claims
The author doesn’t give statistical evidence for the dairy farmers’ claims, but he doesn’t need to. So (A) doesn’t describe a flaw in his argument.
B
fails to consider alternative explanations of the decline in sales of ice cream
The author concludes that people turning to cheddar cheese for calcium caused the decline in ice cream sales, without considering any alternative explanations for this decline.
C
relies solely on the testimony of individuals who are likely to be biased
The author doesn’t rely solely on the testimony of anyone. He relies partially on reports from dairy farmers, but we have no reason to believe that these farmers are likely to be biased.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that ice cream is a better source of calcium than is cheddar cheese
The author never makes this assumption. He says that ice cream is an excellent source of calcium, but he doesn’t assume that it’s a better source than cheddar cheese.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that people who eat cheddar cheese never eat ice cream
The author never makes this assumption. He concludes that more people are choosing to increase their calcium intake through cheddar cheese, but he doesn’t assume that no cheese eaters ever eat ice cream.
Summarize Argument
Chemical fertilizers should be avoided. They destroy earthworms, which are good for the soil. Earthworms make the soil richer when they ingest and digest it, making gardens with earthworms more fertile.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s warning: “the use of chemical fertilizers should be avoided.”
A
Earthworms are highly beneficial to soil.
This is support for why chemical fertilizers should be avoided, because they destroy those earthworms.
B
Chemical fertilizers destroy earthworms.
This is support for why chemical fertilizers should be avoided because earthworms have significant benefits. Destroying them causes loss of those benefits.
C
The castings that earthworms leave behind are much richer than the soil they ingest.
This is support that explains why earthworms are beneficial to soil. That in turn supports why earthworm-destroying chemical fertilizers should be avoided.
D
The use of chemical fertilizers should be avoided.
This matches the conclusion verbatim. The argument is dedicated to demonstrating why the effects of using these fertilizers are negative and that they should be avoided.
E
A garden rich in earthworms is much more fertile than a garden that is devoid of earthworms.
This is support that shows why earthworms are so beneficial. This then supports why earthworm-destroying chemical fertilizers should be avoided.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do people who follow the Beta Diet for decades suffer from below-average health?
Objective
Any hypothesis resolving this conflict must state new information about the Beta Diet or the people who follow the Beta Diet for decades. That information must result in those who follow it for decades being less healthy than average, either because the diet has a different effect over an extended period or because those people are unhealthy in the first place.
A
On average, people who have followed the Beta Diet for their entire lives are much more likely to have a variety of healthful habits than are people whose diet is more conventional.
This deepens the mystery. If consistent followers of the diet have other healthy habits, their below-average health after an extended period is even more surprising.
B
The Beta Diet is used primarily as a treatment for a condition that adversely affects overall health.
This explains why people who follow the Beta Diet for decades are likely to suffer below-average health. They are unhealthy because of a condition the diet is intended to treat.
C
People of average health who switch from a conventional diet to the Beta Diet generally find that their health improves substantially as a result.
This makes no claim about people who follow the Beta Diet for decades. A short-term health benefit does not explain health problems that occur decades later.
D
The Beta Diet provides dramatic health benefits for some people but only minor benefits for others.
This does not imply that the Beta Diet has negative effects on the health of some people. It claims only that dieters benefit to different degrees.
E
Recent research has shown that a diet high in fruits, vegetables, and skim milk is even healthier than the Beta Diet.
This does not imply that the Beta Diet is unhealthy, or responsible for the poor health of its long-term followers. It allows the possibility that the Beta Diet is healthier than the average diet over the long-term, in which case the conflict remains unresolved.
Summary
A theoretical framework facilitates conceptual organization of material and fruitful expansions of research. Some historians claim historical analysis is done best within a theoretical framework. However, history is too complex for all main trends to be captured within a theoretical framework.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Therefore, historical analysis done within a theoretical framework will fail to capture all of history’s main trends.
A
there is no benefit ever to be gained in recommending to historians that they place their work within a theoretical framework
This answer is unsupported. To say that there is no benefit is too strong here.
B
theoretical frameworks are less useful in history than they are in any other discipline
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about other disciplines from the stimulus to make this comparison with history.
C
even the best historical analysis done within a theoretical framework fails to capture all of history’s main trends
This answer is strongly supported. If history is too complex for all of the main trends to be captured within a theoretical framework, then even the best analysis done with this framework will still fail to capture all of history’s main trends.
D
the value of theoretical work in extending research has been emphasized by historians who recommend doing historical analysis within a theoretical framework
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the value of this work has in fact been emphasized. Moreover, we don’t know from the stimulus if the historians have emphasized this value.
E
there is no difference between historical analysis that is placed within a theoretical framework and historical analysis that is not
This answer is unsupported. To say that there is no difference is too extreme here.