Summarize Argument
The author concludes that human behavior can’t be fully understood without inquiring into nonphysical aspects of humans. This is based on the following line of reasoning: If we had a complete account of physical aspects of a human action, we still wouldn’t comprehend the action or why it occurred.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author uses circular reasoning. The premise — the idea that if we had a complete physical account of a human action, we still wouldn’t comprehend the action — assumes that human behavior can’t be fully understood without investigating nonphysical aspects. Nobody would accept the premise unless they already accept the conclusion.
A
No support is offered for its conclusion other than an analogy that relates only superficially to the issue at hand.
The author doesn’t point to similarities between two things in order to conclude another similarity. Also, the premise is not just superficially related to the conclusion. It assumes the conclusion is true. This isn’t good reasoning, but that doesn’t make the premise irrelevant.
B
The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true.
The purported evidence (the idea that a complete understanding of physical aspects of a human action still wouldn’t constitute comprehension of the action) assumes that understanding human actions requires something beyond an understanding of physical aspects.
C
It concludes that a proposition must be true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false.
The premise does not assert that there’s no evidence against the idea that understanding human behavior requires inquiry into nonphysical aspects.
D
It fails to indicate whether the speaker is aware of any evidence that could undermine the conclusion.
Arguments do not have to mention anything about the author’s awareness of potential counterevidence. Although the existence of counterevidence could hurt an argument, it’s not a flaw to omit whether you’re aware of counterevidence.
E
It presumes, without providing justification, that science can provide a complete account of any physical phenomenon.
The author asks us to “suppose” that we had a complete scientific account of physical aspects. This doesn’t mean the author thinks science actually can provide such an account. We’re just considering this hypothetical for the sake of following a line of reasoning.
Cookie Cutter Review
Flaw - (B) circular reasoning
(A) bad analogy
(C) failure to prove not X confused for proof of X
A
presumes, without providing justification, that the government is at least partly responsible for the improvement in the employment situation
The author never makes any claims or assumptions about whether the government is responsible for the improvement in unemployment. In fact, she doesn’t say anything about the government at all.
B
relies on data from a period that is too short to justify an inference about a general trend
The author relies on data from a two-year period to support her conclusion about that same two-year period. She doesn’t use it to justify an overly broad conclusion.
C
fails to take into account the possibility that many unemployed workers who still desire jobs may have stopped looking for jobs
This points out an alternative explanation for the decrease in the number of unemployed people actively looking for jobs. Perhaps there are still many unemployed people who want jobs, they just stopped actively looking.
D
fails to take into account that the sorts of governmental efforts that reduce unemployment may not be effective in creating more high-paying jobs
The argument doesn’t address governmental efforts at all, nor does it address whether certain jobs are high-paying.
E
ignores other economic indicators, which may not have improved during the past two years
The author may not discuss other economic indicators, but her conclusion is specifically about unemployment in the city, not about the economy in general. (E) fails to address why the author’s cited study doesn’t support the conclusion that unemployment is improving.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that eating garlic reduces cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood, thus reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. As evidence, she cites a study showing that people who took a garlic tablet had a larger reduction in cholesterol and triglycerides than people who took a medically inert tablet.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that cholesterol and triglycerides levels in the blood are causally related to the risk of cardiovascular disease. She also assumes that the people who took the garlic tablet derived some benefit from the garlic rather than from the fact they knew they were taking a medication, which itself relies on the assumption the other group knew they were taking a medically inert tablet. Finally, the author assumes garlic and not some third factor caused the reduction in cholesterol and triglycerides levels.
A
whether the garlic tablets are readily available to the public
We don’t care if most people are able to easily access garlic tablets. We care about the link between garlic and a reduction in cholesterol and triglycerides levels in the blood.
B
what the diets of the two groups were during the period
If the two groups ate similar diets, that would strengthen the author’s argument by ruling out a possible cause of the reduction in cholesterol and triglycerides levels. If not, then perhaps the garlic-tablet group was eating something that lowered those levels.
C
what effect taking the garlic tablets each day for a period of less than four months had on the levels of cholesterol and triglycerides
Even if the effects of garlic don’t kick in until four months, those effects still exist and can contribute to a reduction in the risk of heart disease. The author never claims those effects have to be immediate.
D
whether large amounts of garlic are well tolerated by all patients
The author isn’t recommending garlic for all patients. She’s simply claiming a causal connection between garlic and lower cholesterol and triglycerides levels in the blood.
E
whether the manufacturer of the garlic tablets cites the study in its advertising
Irrelevant. Even if they cite the study, that study may still be accurate.
Educator: If there is a crisis in education today, it is one of maintaining quality. People love to reduce serious learning to degrees and certificates. But one also can obtain these credentials by plodding through courses without ever learning much of value. When that happens, the credentials one receives are almost meaningless.
Summary
Crisis in education today→ crisis of maintaining quality
People love to reduce serious learning to degrees and certificates
It is possible to obtain degrees and certificates without learning much of value.
Earned certificates or degrees by plodding through courses without learning→ those credentials or degrees are almost meaningless.
Notable Valid Inferences
It is possible to obtain degrees and certificates without learning much of value.
A
Increasingly, institutions are granting meaningless degrees and certificates.
This could be false. We are given criteria to describe meaningless credentials; we don’t know how many meaningless credentials are granted or if the rate of granting meaningless credentials is increasing.
B
It has become easier for students to complete their coursework without learning anything of importance.
This could be false. It is possible that plodding through courses is difficult––the stimulus gives no information on how easy something is.
C
Educational institutions should cease to grant degrees and certificates.
This could be false. The stimulus does not contain any recommendation for the actions that educational institutions should take.
D
Degrees and certificates do not guarantee that a person has acquired much worthwhile knowledge.
This must be true. From the stimulus, we know that it is possible to obtain degrees and certificates without learning much of value.
E
A person benefits from an education only to the extent that he or she invests effort in it.
This could be false. The stimulus does not specify under what conditions one benefits from an education.