Salesperson: When a salesperson is successful, it is certain that that person has been in sales for at least three years. This is because to succeed as a salesperson, one must first establish a strong client base, and studies have shown that anyone who spends at least three years developing a client base can eventually make a comfortable living in sales.
A
salespeople who have spent three years developing a client base might not yet be successful in sales
The author doesn't fail to consider this possibility. According to his conclusion, spending 3+ years in sales is necessary for being successful, not sufficient. This allows for the possibility of some salespeople spending 3+ years in sales and not yet being successful.
B
some salespeople require fewer than three years in which to develop a strong client base
The author fails to consider this possibility. He never proves that to establish a strong client base, one must spend 3+ years in sales. Some people might establish their client base in less time and so be successful without spending 3+ years in sales.
C
a salesperson who has not spent three years developing a client base may not succeed in sales
The author concludes that someone who hasn’t spent three years in sales will not succeed in sales. Unlike (C), he fails to consider the possibility that a salesperson who hasn’t spent three years developing a client base may succeed in sales.
D
it takes longer than three years for a salesperson to develop a strong client base
The author doesn’t fail to consider this possibility. He mistakenly assumes that a salesperson must spend at least three years developing a strong client base. This allows for the possibility of some people spending longer than three years establishing it.
E
few salespeople can afford to spend three years building a client base
The author may not address this, but it isn’t a flaw in his argument. Just because most salespeople can’t afford to spend three years building their client base doesn’t affect the conclusion that spending three years in sales is necessary for success.
Doctor: Being overweight has long been linked with a variety of health problems, such as high blood pressure and heart disease. But recent research conclusively shows that people who are slightly overweight are healthier than those who are considerably underweight. Therefore, to be healthy, it suffices to be slightly overweight.
Summarize Argument
The doctor concludes that being slightly overweight is sufficient for being healthy. She supports this by citing recent research that shows that slightly overweight people are healthier than those who are very underweight.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the flaw of confusing a relative and an absolute property; the author assumes that a relative relationship proves an absolute property.
In this case, the doctor assumes that being slightly overweight makes one healthy just because it's relatively healthier than being very underweight. But a person could still be slightly overweight and unhealthy, even if they're healthier than someone who's very underweight.
A
ignores medical opinions that tend to lead to a conclusion contrary to the one drawn
The doctor acknowledges the fact that being overweight has long been linked with a variety of health problems. She just goes on to conclude that being slightly overweight is sufficient for being healthy.
B
never adequately defines what is meant by “healthy”
The doctor never defines the term “healthy,” but she doesn’t need to. So (B) doesn’t describe why her reasoning is flawed.
C
does not take into account the fact that appropriate weight varies greatly from person to person
The doctor is talking about being overweight and underweight; she doesn’t address appropriate weight at all. Either way, this doesn’t affect her argument; she’s likely aware that appropriate weight varies from person to person.
D
holds that if a person lacks a property that would suffice to make the person unhealthy, then that person must be healthy
The doctor never makes a claim about “a property that would suffice to make a person unhealthy,” much less claim that lacking such a property would make one healthy. Instead, she makes a claim about a property that would suffice to make one healthy— being slightly overweight.
E
mistakes a merely relative property for one that is absolute
The author mistakes a merely relative property— being healthier than someone else— for one that is absolute— being healthy. But a person could still be slightly overweight and unhealthy, even if they're healthier than someone who's very underweight.
A
People with abnormally low concentrations of the photopigments for perceiving red can perceive fewer shades of red than people with normal concentrations.
B
Questions that ask subjects to distinguish between different shades of the same color are difficult to phrase with complete clarity.
C
Some people are uninterested in fine gradations of color and fail to notice or report differences they do not care about.
D
Some people are unable to distinguish red from green due to an absence in the retina of the photopigment sensitive to green.
E
Some people fail to report distinctions between certain shades of red because they lack the names for those shades.
Occultist: The issue of whether astrology is a science is easily settled: it is both an art and a science. The scientific components are the complicated mathematics and the astronomical knowledge needed to create an astrological chart. The art is in the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols into a coherent statement of their relevance to an individual.
Summarize Argument
The occultist concludes that astrology is both an art and a science. She says that the scientific components come from the math and astronomy used to create an astrological chart, while the art is in combining various factors and symbols to make meaningful statements about a person.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part v. whole, where the author assumes that what’s true about the individual parts of something must also be true about that thing as a whole.
In this case, the occultist assumes that astrology is a science simply because some parts of astrology involve components of science.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that any science must involve complicated mathematics
Like (E), the occultist never makes any claims about any science. She just claims that astrology is a science because it involves complicated mathematical and astronomical knowledge.
B
incorrectly infers that a practice is a science merely from the fact that the practice has some scientific components
The occultist incorrectly infers that the whole practice of astrology is a science merely from the fact that astrology has some scientific components— mathematical and astronomical knowledge.
C
denies the possibility that astrology involves components that are neither artistic nor scientific
The occultist doesn’t deny this possibility. Astrology might involve other components, like religious or spiritual components, that aren’t artistic or scientific. But this doesn’t affect the argument that it’s an art and a science.
D
incorrectly infers that astronomical knowledge is scientific merely from the fact that such knowledge is needed to create an astrological chart
The occultist incorrectly infers that astrological— not astronomical— knowledge is scientific from the fact that astronomical knowledge is needed to create an astrological chart.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that any art must involve the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols
Like (A), the occultist never makes any claims about any art. She just claims that astrology is an art because it involves the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols.
At many electronics retail stores, the consumer has the option of purchasing product warranties that extend beyond the manufacturer’s warranty. However, consumers are generally better off not buying extended warranties. Most problems with electronic goods occur within the period covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.
Summarize Argument
Consumers shouldn’t buy extended warranties for electronics. Most issues with electronics happen within the normal warranty’s coverage period.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the issues which tend to occur after the normal warranty period expires are not far more costly to fix than simply paying for the extended warranty. In extension, the author assumes that there isn’t some other benefit for extended warranties that makes them worth it.
A
Problems with electronic goods that occur after the manufacturer’s warranty expires are generally inexpensive to fix in comparison with the cost of an extended warranty.
This strengthens the argument. It strengthens the author’s assumption that the issues which tend to occur after the normal warranty period expires are not more costly to fix than simply paying for the extended warranty.
B
Because problems are so infrequent after the manufacturer’s warranty expires, extended warranties on electronic goods are generally inexpensive.
This weakens the argument. It says that the extended warranties are not costly, suggesting that purchasing one may not be as big of a loss as the author implies. If extended warranties are cheap, the amount that one is “generally better off” is reduced.
C
Most of those who buy extended warranties on electronic goods do so because special circumstances make their item more likely to break than is usually the case.
This does not affect the argument. The author says that consumers generally should not buy extended warranties—this implies that there may be a small minority of consumers who actually do benefit from the purchase.
D
Some extended warranties on electronic goods cover the product for the period covered by the manufacturer’s warranty as well as subsequent years.
This does not affect the argument. This is not really new information—the argument already describes extended warranties as “warranties that extend beyond the manufacturer’s warranty.”
E
Retail stores sell extended warranties in part because consumers who purchase them are likely to purchase other products from the same store.
This does not affect the argument. Our concern is not with how stores benefit from selling extended warranties, but how consumers benefit from purchasing them.
Detailed Explanation
We’ve got a Strengthen question, which we can tell from the question stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
We start out with a bit of context that introduces us to two types of warranties: standard manufacturer’s warranties and extended warranties (those warranties that extend coverage past the end of a manufacturer’s warranty). We then get a shift word (“however”) that moves us from context into our argument. The argument begins with its conclusion: consumers are better off not buying the extended warranties. That’s followed by our one and only premise: most problems with the covered items occur within the time period covered by the standard manufacturer’s warranty. The implication here is that consumers are less likely to run into issues with their devices after the period that is covered by the standard warranty. Therefore, they should forego the additional expense of an extended warranty. This stimulus is a cost-benefit analysis. We are comparing two options (the warranties) and deciding between them based on the pros (benefits) and cons (costs) associated with each one.
The argument is premised upon a quantitative comparison; that is, our premise is comparing the number of problems that occur during the standard warranty with the number of problems that might occur during the extended warranty. Oftentimes an argument premised upon a quantitative comparison will omit a qualitative comparison thus leaving a fairly large gap in the argument. This is particularly true in questions that involve a cost-benefit analysis like we have here. In cases like these, ask yourself how would a qualitative comparison (in this case something based on the quality of the problems instead of the number of problems) potentially impact the argument. For instance, if you were choosing between two airlines and both tickets cost the same, but Airline A had more delays than Airline B, it probably seems like a no-brainer to choose Airline B. But what if Airline A’s delays lasted 5-10 minutes on average whereas Airline B’s delays clocked it in at around 5 hours. Might this shift your thinking? It would shift mine! This is an example of relevant information that a qualitative comparison can bring to a cost benefit analysis.
In this case, we know that there are more issues during the standard warranty period, but what types of issues are they? What if most issues that occur during the standard warranty period are relatively minor and inconsequential–things that you might not even consider getting repaired if your electronic device wasn’t under warranty. Whereas, issues that arise during the extended period are often major issues that prevent you from using your device and would cost you enormous amounts of money if the device were not under warranty. Now we have a reason why that quantitative comparison might not be the only thing you want to consider. Because this is a strengthening question, we should be on the lookout for an answer choice that might tell us something about the quality of the incidents that occur during the two warranty periods. With this all in mind, let’s move to the answer choices:
Correct Answer Choice (A) Perfect! This answer fills in a potential weakness that we identified in our analysis of the stimulus. It tells us that the problems that occur during extended warranties are on par with those that occur during the extended warranty period. This strengthens the conclusion that consumers ought to forego the extended warranty.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice does nothing to strengthen our argument. If anything it weakens our argument by giving us a reason why we might want to purchase an extended warranty: they aren’t that expensive.
Answer Choice (C) This AC is consistent with our argument. Our conclusion is that consumers would be generally better off without an extended warranty. This gives us a reason why a segment of the population does buy extended warranties—they have extenuating circumstances that increase the likelihood that their devices will break. This neither strengthens or weakens our argument which is directed towards the average consumer.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is playing on the assumption that an extended warranty would be an unnecessary expense because some extended warranties include some time that would already be covered by standard warranties. This doesn’t really do anything to our argument and is ultimately irrelevant.
Answer Choice (E) This is telling us why stores sell extended warranties but we are only concerned with whether or not consumers should buy them. Just because they may be a lucrative service for stores to offer doesn’t make them more or less useful to consumers.
A
attacks the environmentalists themselves instead of their positions
B
presumes, without providing warrant, that only an absence of environmental regulations could prevent environmental degradation
C
fails to consider the possibility that the condition of the environment would have worsened even more without environmental regulations
D
fails to justify its presumption that reducing excessive regulations is more important than preserving the environment
E
fails to consider the views of the environmentalists’ opponents
The question stem reads: The argument's reasoning is flawed because of the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The author describes how since the 1970s, environmentalists have successfully gotten lawmakers to enact extensive environmental regulations. However, the author also notes that the environment has not improved; it has gotten worse. The author concludes that more environmental regulations are not the solution to the problem. The author believes that because the environment is worsening, the regulations must not positively affect the environment. In other words, the regulations are not causing the environment to get better.
However, we do not know all of the problems affecting the environment. It is possible that the regulations positively impact the environment, but the positive impacts are overshadowed by the other events harming the environment. Imagine we enacted environmental regulations to ban disposable straws. At the same time, we doubled the amount of coal-fired electricity plants. The straw regulations have a positive effect, saving many tortoises, but the harm caused by the coal outpaces the positive effects of the straw regulation. The author would argue that more regulations are not the solution, but we could easily say that we need to regulate the coal-fire-powered plants. So the author has failed to consider that there might be other events causing harm to the environment.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect because it is not our identified causation flaw. There is no attack on the environmentalists. In fact, he uses their own words to lend credibility to his argument.
Answer Choice (B) is not presumed the by the author. At no point does the author's argument presume zero regulations are required to prevent environmental degradation can be prevented. The author could say that the regulations are simply ineffective and that whether we have them makes no difference to the environment.
Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we paraphrased. The author does fail to consider the possibility that the regulations are having a positive effect. Without the positive effects of the regulations, the environment could have gotten worse.
Answer Choice (D) is not presumed by the argument. The author does not claim reducing regulation is more important than protecting the environment.
Answer Choice (E) is wrong. While the author does not consider the view of the environmentalist's opponents, that is not the argument's flaw.