We start out with two sentences containing two distinct ideas: 1) in order to be intriguing one has to inspire the perpetual curiosity of others and 2) constantly expanding our abilities and expanding our intellectual depth will allow one to inspire said curiosity.
Ok, interesting! Actually I take that back, it’s not very interesting, is it? It’s pretty boring. But, what are you going to do? If I had a nickel for every time an LR stimulus was boring I’d have…an inconvenient quantity of nickels!
Ok back to the task at hand. We’ve got these two ideas that we laid out above. They’re very dry and abstract and it’s pretty hard, at first glance, to see if they support one another. Let’s take a closer look:
They do overlap on this one idea: inspiring the perpetual curiosity of others. The first sentence tells us that inspiring this curiosity is necessary in order to be an intriguing person; the second sentence tells us that broadening our abilities and extending intellectual reach can lead to that curiosity. These are two different facets of “the perpetual curiosity of others,” but there is no support relationship here. The second sentence is not an example of an idea put forward in the first sentence nor is it a reason to believe the first sentence, it is pivoting off a subject introduced in the first sentence (perpetual curiosity of others) and introducing a wholly unique idea.
Side note: I can’t tell if Perpetual Curiosity of Others sounds more like a novel or an indie band? What do you think? Actually, don’t answer that. We have a main conclusion to find!
So far, we have yet to identify support, so we can’t really say yet where we might have a premise or conclusion.
Moving on to the third sentence, we start with the word “for” which indicates that a premise is most likely lying in wait. After that we get the idea that “such a perpetual expansion of one’s mind” (referential for extending one’s intellectual reach) will make you a constant mystery to other. This is describing the mechanism through which the idea in the second sentence occurs. This third sentence is directly supporting our second sentence. What does that mean for us? It means that this third sentence is the premise and our second sentence is the main conclusion. We can therefore label our first sentence as context.
Before we go onto the answer choices let’s revisit our main conclusion: “Constantly broadening one’s abilities and extending one’s intellectual reach will enable one to inspire that curiosity [i.e. the perpetual curiosity of others]” Now let’s look for an answer choice that matches!
Answer Choice (A) This is a verbatim reproduction of our context. There’s not much more to say about this answer choice. If you correctly ID the conclusion, you’ll see that it’s wrong. If you mistakenly ID the first sentence as the conclusion, you’ll almost certainly fall for this trap answer.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is (almost) a word-for-word reproduction of our conclusion. Again, there’s not much more to say about these first two answers. The difficulty for this question lies in correctly identifying the Main Conclusion within the stimulus–if you’ve done that correctly, you’ll almost certainly choose B over A.
Answer Choice (C) This is a description of our final sentence (i.e. our premise). Again, this choice only looks appealing if you’ve misidentified the main conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) This is tempting because it seems to be describing our main conclusion, but we have necessary/sufficient confusion. Our conclusion mapped out conditionally looks like this: broadening abilities + extending intellectual reach → enabled to inspire curiosity
This answer choice mapped out conditionally looks like this: inspire curiosity→BA + EIR. If we understand our conditional logic rules we know that the only way we can flip these conditions is if we negate them both to produce our contrapositive.
Answer Choice (E) The beginning of this AC is spot on: “If one constantly broadens one's abilities and extends one’s intellectual reach…” This is verbatim how our conclusion starts, but unfortunately it’s all downhill from there. We’re then told that one will “always have curiosity.” This argument is about inspiring curiosity in others. Nowhere in the stimulus do we get any information on our own curiosity, so this AC is totally inconsistent with our stimulus.
A
Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
B
Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
C
Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
D
The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients’ health.
E
Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients’ belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.
The question stem reads: The argument does which of the following? This is a Method of Reasoning question.
The argument begins by stating, "When a nation is on the brink of financial collapse, its government does not violate free market principles if, in order to prevent financial collapse, it limits the extent to which foreign investors and lenders can withdraw their money." That was a mouthful, so let's break it down. We can remove the embedded clause "in order to prevent financial collapse" and add it to the end of the premise. Now we have: "The government does not violate free market principles if it limits the extent to which foreign investors and lenders can withdraw their money in order to prevent financial collapse." Ok, that makes more sense. It seems like limiting withdrawals violates the free market, so let's see what evidence they offer us. The author describes how the right to free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater because there might be harm resulting from the "stampede" to exit the theater. The author claims that yelling fire is analogous to allowing investors to withdraw money during a financial collapse. On the author's accounts, the mad dash to withdraw money can cause just as much harm as the stampede to exit the theater. The author has made an argument by analogy. Arguably a poor analogy, but our job is not to evaluate the strength of the author's argument; it is merely to determine how the argument proceeds.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is precisely what we are looking for. When we map the stimulus to (A), we get: "tries to show that a set of principles (the free market) is limited in a specific way (limiting investors ability withdraw money during financial collapse) by using an analogy to a similar principle (free speech) that is limited in a similar way (not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater), precisely what we prephased.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. It would be difficult to map the stimulus onto this answer choice. What facts are we trying to explain? There are none, so we can ignore this answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) can be quickly crossed off because the argument contains no experimental results.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because the argument does not claim that a certain explanation of an observed phenomenon is wrong.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect because there is no empirical generalization. The author makes an analogy to the limits of free speech. However, that would not be considered an empirical generalization.
A
Three-fourths of the Springfield workforce is employed at the same factory outside the city limits.
B
The average number of cars per household is higher in Springfield than in Rorchester.
C
Rorchester has fewer railway lines than Springfield.
D
Buses in Springfield run more frequently and on longer routes than in Rorchester.
E
Springfield has a larger population than Rorchester does.
People who need to reduce their intake of fat and to consume fewer calories often turn to fat substitutes, especially those with zero calories such as N5. But studies indicate that N5 is of no use to such people. Subjects who ate foods prepared with N5 almost invariably reported feeling hungrier afterwards than after eating foods prepared with real fat and consequently they ate more, quickly making up for the calories initially saved by using N5.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that N5 is of no use to people who need to reduce their fat and calorie intake. She supports this by saying that studies show that people who ate foods with N5 felt hungrier afterward and ended up eating more, making up for the calories saved by using N5.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author concludes that N5 is not useful for people who need to reduce fat and calorie intake based on evidence that it doesn’t help lower calorie intake. However, just because the subjects ate more calories doesn’t mean they ate more fat. N5 might still help reduce fat intake, even if it doesn’t lower calories. In this case, it could still be useful for people who need to reduce fat and calories.
A
many foods cannot be prepared with N5
Irrelevant— it doesn’t matter which foods can be prepared with N5 because this doesn’t affect the conclusion that N5 isn’t useful for people who need to reduce their fat and calories.
B
N5 has mild but unpleasant side effects
Irrelevant— it doesn’t matter what side effects N5 causes. The author is only addressing whether or not it helps people who need to reduce their fat and calories. If anything, having unpleasant side effects would likely make N5 even less useful for these people.
C
not everyone who eats foods prepared with N5 pays attention to caloric intake
Irrelevant— the author is only addressing those people who do need to pay attention to fat and calorie intake. Whether some other people also eat N5 doesn’t matter.
D
people who know N5 contains zero calories tend to eat more foods prepared with N5 than do people who are unaware that N5 is calorie-free
Whether people are aware that N5 is calorie-free doesn't change the fact that almost all people who ate it did not reduce their calorie intake in the long run. So (D) doesn't impact the author’s conclusion that N5 isn’t useful for people who need to reduce fat and calories.
E
the total fat intake of people who eat foods prepared with N5 tends to decrease even if their caloric intake does not
The author concludes that N5 isn’t useful for people who need to reduce calories and fat, simply because it doesn’t help people to reduce calories. But it’s possible that N5 does help people to reduce fat and so is still useful.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that the argument fails to consider the possibility that… This is a Flaw question.
The author begins with context, claiming that people who need to decrease their fat intake and consume fewer calories often turn to fat substitutes, especially zero calory sweeteners such as N5. Next, we turn to the author’s argument with the context indicator “but.” The author concludes, “Studies indicate N5 is of no use to such people (people who need to decrease their fat intake and consume fewer calories).” As evidence, the author cites that subjects who ate foods prepared with N5 felt hungrier than those who ate foods prepared with real fat. Because they felt hungrier, those who used N5 consumed more calories, and their extra calories made up for the calories initially saved. So while preparing food with N5 might save you calories for that meal, you do not reduce the total calories consumed.
The study suggests that replacing fat with N5 would not save you calories in the long run. However, if we turn to the author’s conclusion, we see that the author said N5 was useless to both people who needed to save calories and reduce fat intake. While the study claims that subjects who used N5 did not reduce caloric intake, perhaps the subjects reduced total fat intake. They replaced fat with N5, and even though they ate more later, perhaps they ate fat-free foods. The calories that would have been spent on fat instead get spent on carbs and protein. As a result, N5 might be useful to people who need to reduce fat and consumer fewer calories, but only with respect to N5’s ability to reduce fat intake. Now that we have our flaws let’s move to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is arbitrary. What foods can be prepared with N5 does not affect the argument. Additionally, (A) mildly helps the argument. As we increase the number of foods that cannot be prepared with N5, the less useful N5 becomes
Answer Choice (B) is arbitrary. The side effects of N5 are arbitrary to the argument. Similar to (A), (B) would mildly help the argument. As we increase the number of unpleasant side effects of N5, the less useful N5 becomes.
Answer Choice (C) is arbitrary. The argument is only concerned with people who need to reduce fat intake and consume fewer calories.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect. (D) says that of the people who consumed food with N5, those who knew N5 contained zero calories tended to consume more food than those who didn’t know N5 was calorie-free. However, both groups are subsets of a superset: people who eat foods prepared with N5. And we know that people who ate N5 saved no calories in the long run. So while those who did not know N5 contained zero calories ate less food, they still will not have saved any calories.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is what we prephrased. While the N5 subjects might not have saved any calories, they were able to decrease fat intake. So even though they did not accomplish their goal of reducing calories, N5 was able to help them accomplish their other goal: reducing fat.
Music historian: Some critics lament the fact that impoverished postwar recording studios forced early bebop musicians to record extremely short solos, thus leaving a misleading record of their music. But these musicians’ beautifully concise playing makes the recordings superb artistic works instead of mere representations of their live solos. Furthermore, the conciseness characteristic of early bebop musicians’ recordings fostered a compactness in their subsequent live playing, which the playing of the next generation lacks.
Summary
Postwar conditions caused early bebop musicians to record extremely short solos, leaving a misleading record of their music. However, these musicians concise playing makes the recordings superb artistic works instead of mere representations of their live solos. Moreover, the concise recordings resulted in their subsequent live solos to be compact. The next generation of musicians lacked this characteristic.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Postwar conditions had at least one positive effect for bebop musicians.
A
Representations of live solos generally are not valuable artistic works.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus how the music historian would value representations of live solos. It’s possible that both versions are valuable in different aspects.
B
The difficult postwar recording conditions had some beneficial consequences for bebop.
This answer is strongly supported. The music historian praises the conciseness of bebop music caused by postwar recording conditions.
C
Short bebop recordings are always superior to longer ones.
This answer is unsupported. To say that the short recordings are “always” superior is too strong.
D
The music of the generation immediately following early bebop is of lower overall quality than early bebop.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about the quality of the music of the following generation. We only know that this generation’s music lacks conciseness.
E
Musicians will not record extremely short solos unless difficult recording conditions force them to do so.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether difficult recording conditions is a necessary requirement for recording short solos.
Recent studies indicate a correlation between damage to human chromosome number six and adult schizophrenia. We know, however, that there are people without damage to this chromosome who develop adult schizophrenia and that some people with damage to chromosome number six do not develop adult schizophrenia. So there is no causal connection between damage to human chromosome number six and adult schizophrenia.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there is no causal connection between damage to chromosome six and adult schizophrenia. He supports this by pointing out that some people with schizophrenia don't have damage to chromosome six, and some people with chromosome six damage don't develop schizophrenia.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author cites studies that establish a correlation between chromosome six damage and schizophrenia and then concludes that the two aren’t causally connected. But just because there are some exceptions to the correlation doesn’t prove that there is no causal connection between chromosome six damage and schizophrenia at all.
For example, there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer, but some smokers never get lung cancer while some non-smokers do get lung cancer.
A
The argument ignores the possibility that some but not all types of damage to chromosome number six lead to schizophrenia.
The author overlooks the possibility that not all kinds of damage to chromosome six cause schizophrenia. If some types of damage do lead to schizophrenia, then there could still be a causal connection between the two, even if they aren't always linked.
B
The argument presumes, without providing evidence, that schizophrenia is caused solely by chromosomal damage.
The argument actually assumes that schizophrenia is not caused by damage to chromosome six, simply because the two are not perfectly correlated.
C
The argument makes a generalization based on an unrepresentative sample population.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of using unrepresentative samples. However, we have no reason to believe that the recent studies or the author’s argument are based on unrepresentative samples of people with chromosome 6 damage or schizophrenia.
D
The argument mistakes a cause for an effect.
The author doesn’t mistake a cause for an effect. Instead, he assumes that there is no causal connection between chromosome six damage and schizophrenia at all.
E
The argument presumes, without providing warrant, that correlation implies causation.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation implies causation. But the author concludes that there’s no causal connection at all. Instead of (E), he assumes, without providing warrant, that an imperfect correlation implies a lack of causation.