Summarize Argument
Lie-detector tests that can detect the physiological reactions produced when someone lies are a guaranteed method for determining if someone is lying. This is because when someone lies, corresponding physiological reactions occur.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the physiological reactions produced by lying are not also triggered by other actions or behaviors. In other words, while lying is a sufficient condition for these physiological reactions, the author assumes it is also a necessary condition.
A
Lie-detector tests can measure only some of the physiological reactions that occur when someone is lying.
This does not affect the argument. The stimulus does not assume that lie-detector tests can measure all the physiological reactions—it assumes that, of the reactions the tests can measure, the tests’ ability to detect them is sufficient for determining if someone is lying.
B
People are often unaware that they are having physiological reactions of the sort measured by lie-detector tests.
This does not affect the argument. People being unaware of their physiological reactions should not affect the ability of the tests to detect these reactions.
C
Lying about past criminal behavior does not necessarily produce stronger physiological reactions than does lying about other things.
This does not affect the argument. The stimulus does not differentiate between the strengths of physiological reactions. As long as the lie-detector tests can detect the reactions, the author argues that they are a sure way of detecting if someone is lying.
D
For people who are not lying, the tension of taking a lie-detector test can produce physiological reactions identical to the ones that accompany the act of lying.
This weakens the argument. It attacks the author’s assumption that lying is the only cause of the physiological reactions. (D) suggests that there are other sufficient conditions that can produce the physiological reactions associated with lying.
E
When employers use lie-detector tests as part of their preemployment screening, some candidates tested are highly motivated to lie.
This does not affect the argument. We have no reason to believe that an individual’s motivation to lie (or lack thereof) should influence their physiological reactions when lying.
Summarize Argument
The executive concludes that his company is unlikely to sell 100,000 books this year. Why? Because none of their individual titles will sell 100,00 copies.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a part with the whole. Even if none of the 12 titles individually sells 100,000 copies, their combined sales could easily exceed 100,000. (If, for example, they sold 10,000 copies each.)
A
the publishing company will sell considerably fewer than 100,000 copies of the novel
Poor sales of the novel would support the executive’s conclusion that the company won’t sell 100,000 books, so this can’t be the flaw.
B
the publishing company will not make a profit even if it sells more than 100,000 books
The conclusion is about whether the company will sell 100,000 books, not whether it will be profitable, so this is irrelevant.
C
what is true of the overall profitability of a publishing company is not true of its profitability in a particular year
The conclusion is about whether the company will sell 100,000 books, not whether it will be profitable, so this is irrelevant.
D
what is true of the sales prospects of the publishing company’s individual titles is not true of the sales prospects of the group of titles as a whole
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a part with the whole. The executive does this by failing to realize that the combined sales of all titles could reach 100,000, even if none do so individually.
E
the publishing company will sell even fewer books if it does not advertise its books efficiently
Selling even fewer books would support the executive’s conclusion that the company won’t reach its goal, so this can’t be the flaw.
Cookie Cutter Review
RRE question with correlation phenomenon in stimulus and a set of causation hypothesis in answers.