Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the natural world is a work of art. She supports this by saying that all works of art are beautiful and instructive and the natural world is both beautiful and instructive.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency and necessity. The author treats “beautiful and instructive” as sufficient for “art.” But according to her premises, “beautiful and instructive” is necessary, not sufficient.
In other words, just because the natural world is both beautiful and instructive isn’t sufficient to conclude that it’s a work of art.
A
uses the inherently vague term “beautiful” without providing an explicit definition of that term
The author doesn't provide an explicit definition of the term “beautiful,” but this isn’t why her argument is flawed. Even if she did define “beautiful,” her argument would still be flawed because she assumes that all beautiful and instructive things are works of art.
B
attempts to establish an evaluative conclusion solely on the basis of claims about factual matters
The author attempts to establish a conclusion about beauty and art based on claims that are also about beauty and art. She isn’t switching between evaluative and factual statements.
C
concludes, simply because an object possesses two qualities that are each common to all works of art, that the object is a work of art
The author concludes, simply because the natural world is beautiful and instructive, that the natural world is art. But “beautiful and instructive” is necessary for “art,” not sufficient. So it’s possible that the natural world is beautiful and instructive but not a work of art.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that only objects that are beautiful are instructive
The author never assumes that only beautiful things are instructive. She just argues that art must be both beautiful and instructive.
E
fails to consider the possibility that there are many things that are both beautiful and instructive but are not part of the natural world
The author only addresses the beauty and instructiveness of art and of the natural world. Whether many other things are also beautiful and instructive is irrelevant.
Summary
History is full of people making breakthroughs by changing the way they thought about a particular topic. For example, Copernicus made advancements by looking differently at information already available. Jenner discovered the smallpox vaccine when he focused on disease prevention rather than the more common perspective of curing disease.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Scientific advancement can result in part from taking a new perspective.
A
Many valuable intellectual accomplishments occur by chance.
Unsupported. We don’t know that the examples discussed in the stimulus involved discoveries by “chance.” There might not have been anything random about these discoveries.
B
Shifting from earlier modes of thought can result in important advances.
Strongly supported. The stimulus provides several examples of scientific advances that came after scientists changed the way they thought about a topic. This is evidence that such changed perspectives can result in advances.
C
The ability to look at information from a different point of view is rare.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest anything about the frequency of the ability to take a different point of view. Maybe the vast majority of people have this ability.
D
Understanding is advanced less often by better organization of available information than it is by the accumulation of new information.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t compare the likelihood of advancement through new information vs. organization of existing information.
E
Dramatic intellectual breakthroughs are more easily accomplished in fields in which the amount of information available is relatively small.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t compare the ease of making breakthroughs in different fields. We don’t know that the fields involved in the examples in the stimulus involve different amounts of information available.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The politician concludes that censorship is not wrong in itself. He supports this by saying that if censorship were wrong, then it would be wrong for an actor to refuse a role in a film that promotes a viewpoint she finds unacceptable, which is an absurd conclusion.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The politician claims that censorship is not wrong because an actor refusing to participate in a film is not wrong. He conflates the actor’s refusal with censorship, assuming that refusing to participate in a film is in fact censorship. But if refusing to participate in a film does not amount to censorship, then the politician’s argument falls apart.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that actors would subscribe to any tenet of modern liberalism
The politician never assumes that actors would fully subscribe to modern liberalism. Instead, he concludes that modern liberals’ views on censorship are incorrect based on an assumption that an actor refusing to participate in a film is censorship.
B
uses the term “liberal” in order to discredit opponents’ point of view
The politician calls his opponents "modern liberals," but he doesn't do so to discredit their views. Instead, he tries to discredit their point of view with an example he says is absurd.
C
takes for granted that there is a moral obligation to practice one’s profession
The researcher never assumes that actors have a moral obligation to participate in certain films. Instead, he assumes that actors’ refusal to participate in certain films amounts to censorship.
D
draws a conclusion that is inconsistent with a premise it accepts
The politician’s premise may not support his conclusion well, but the two are not inconsistent or contradictory.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that declining a film role constitutes censorship in the relevant sense
The politician assumes, without providing justification, that actors refusing to participate in certain films is an example of censorship. But if this refusal is not actually censorship, then the politician’s argument falls apart.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes cheaper oil brands are superior to more expensive oil brands. This is because, according to a study, all oils perform their basic function with equal effectiveness.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that one brand of oil is better than another if it performs the same job at a lower price. This means the author believes there are only two variables—price and ability to retard engine wear—that affect oil comparisons for most potential buyers. The author must therefore believe that motor oil doesn’t serve some other purpose.
A
Cheaper brands of motor oil are often used by knowledgeable automobile mechanics for their own cars.
Knowledgeable mechanics like cheap motor oil. This seems to support the author’s argument that cheaper oils are better buys.
B
Tests other than of the ability to reduce engine wear also can reliably gauge the quality of motor oil.
Without knowing how those other tests judge cheap oils, we can’t draw any conclusions.
C
The lubricating properties of all motor oils deteriorate over time, and the rate of deterioration is accelerated by heat.
We don’t care about things that are true of all oils. We need something to differentiate cheap oils from more expensive oils.
D
The engines of some individual cars that have had their oil changed every 3,000 miles, using only a certain brand of oil, have lasted an extraordinarily long time.
We don’t know which brand of oil was used.
E
Ability to retard engine wear is not the only property of motor oil important to the running of an engine.
By focusing only on retarding engine wear, the author overlooks an important factor in motor oil performance. We therefore can’t say cheaper oils are “better buys” without knowing how they perform other important functions.