A
Scientists are better able to preserve the habitats of endangered species now than ever before.
B
Species that would have become extinct have been saved due to the establishment of animal refuges.
C
Scientists estimate that at least 2000 species become extinct every year.
D
Many countries do not recognize the increased economic benefit of tourism associated with preserved natural habitats.
E
Programs have been proposed that will transfer endangered species out of habitats that are in danger of being destroyed.
Belinda: I find it natural and an admirable display of candor. Letting people know of the damage their negligence causes is responsible behavior.
A
ill-prepared lawyers damage their clients’ causes
B
the judge’s criticism of lawyers is irresponsible
C
a lawyer’s being ill-prepared to argue a client’s case constitutes negligence
D
famous lawyers have a greater responsibility to be well prepared than do lawyers who are not famous
E
it is to be expected that ill-prepared lawyers would offend the court in which they appear
A
Displacement pulses travel longer distances than other types of seismic shock.
B
Scientific predictions based on computer models often fail when tested in the field.
C
While displacement pulses have only recently been discovered, they have accompanied all earthquakes that have ever occurred.
D
The displacement pulses made by low- and medium-intensity earthquakes are much less powerful than those made by the strongest earthquakes.
E
Computer models have been very successful in predicting the effects of other types of seismic shock.
Terry: Months ago, I submitted a claim for my stolen bicycle to my insurance company. After hearing nothing for several weeks, I contacted the firm and found they had no record of my claim. Since then, I have resubmitted the claim twice and called the firm repeatedly, but I have yet to receive a settlement. Anyone can make mistakes, of course, but the persistence of the error makes me conclude that the company is deliberately avoiding paying up.
Summary
Terry submitted a claim for his stolen bicycle.
Weeks later, the insurance company had no record of the claim.
Terry then submitted the claim two more times, but has not received a settlement.
Anyone can make mistakes.
Because of the persistence of the error, Terry believes that the company is avoiding paying the settlement.
Notable Valid Inferences
Terry believes that the delay in paying the settlement is not an unintentional mistake by the insurance company.
A
Consumers should avoid attributing dishonesty to a corporation when the actions of the corporation might instead be explained by incompetence.
This must be false. Terry has attributed dishonesty to the corporation, even though the corporation’s actions could be explained by incompetence. Terry’s conclusion that the company is deliberately avoiding paying the settlement is a violation of this principle.
B
Consumers should attempt to keep themselves informed of corporate behavior that directly affects their interests.
This could be true. We just don’t have enough information to determine how much Terry has been keeping himself informed.
C
In judging the quality of service of a corporation, a consumer should rely primarily on the consumer’s own experience with the corporation.
This could be true. Terry is relying on his own experience to make his conclusion, so this principle has not been violated.
D
In judging the morality of a corporation’s behavior, as opposed to that of an individual, mitigating circumstances are irrelevant.
This could be true. Terry doesn’t seem to be considering mitigating circumstances, so the information given is consistent with the principle in (D).
E
Corporations ought to make available to a customer any information the customer requests that is relevant to the customer’s interests.
This could be true. The first time Terry reached out, the corporation answered that they had no record of his claim. In further communications, we only know that Terry hasn’t received his settlement; we don’t know if the corporation withheld information.
The question stem reads: The editorialist's reasoning is flawed in that it fails to take into account that… This is a Flaw question.
The editorialist states that a recently passed law limits freedom of speech to silence dissenters. He then describes the claim that those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. In this claim, "doomed" is a necessary condition indicator. So we can rewrite the claim into lawgic: ignorant of history -> repeat history. The editorialist concludes that "If this (ignorant of history -> repeat history) is true, then those responsible for passing the laws must be ignorant of a great deal of history." In lawgic, the conclusion reads:
(ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
The editorialists note that in the past, silencing dissenters have tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes. Let's outline the argument::
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
______________________________________________
C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
Looking at the premises, we can infer that history has been repeated. Dissenters have been silenced in the past, and lawmakers today are trying to silence dissenters now.
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
P3: history has been repeated
______________________________________________
C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
Finally, we can kick up the sufficient condition of the conclusion:
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
P3: history has been repeated
P4: ignorant of history -> repeat history
______________________________________________
C: law passers are ignorant of history
Remember, satisfying the necessary condition yields no information about the sufficient condition. The editorialist has used the fact that history has been repeated (P4's necessary condition) to conclude that the lawmakers are ignorant of history (P4's sufficient condition). The editorialist is affirming the consequent, a classic logical fallacy. Now that we see the error in the editorialist's reasoning let's move the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is irrelevant to the argument. The purpose of the law does not matter. What matters to the argument is that history is repeating itself.
Answer Choice (B) is irrelevant. If you picked (B), you likely got caught up in irrelevant parts of the stimulus, i.e., "limits freedom of speech" and "tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes." But the editorialist's argument is not about what freedoms need or need not be protected.
Answer Choice (C) is actually taken into account by the argument. The stimulus says, "silencing dissenters has tended to promote… the establishment of authoritarian regimes." The fact that you can find some instances of undermining regimes is compatible with the editorialist's claim. Furthermore, what matters is that a law "silencing dissenters" is a repeat of history. Whether or not the law ends up establishing or undermining an authoritarian regime is arbitrary.
Answer Choice (D) is also irrelevant. Whether the law is good or bad has no effect on the argument.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is an illustration of our prephase. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, but it is entirely possible to be aware of history and still repeat it. Maybe these lawmakers intend to establish an authoritarian regime. Maybe not. In either case, (E) is good to go.
This is an MBT question which we know because the question stem reads: If the statements above are true, then which one of the following must also be true?
Our stimulus gives us a set of facts about a plant called “false chicory”--which I can only assume is the sworn enemy of true chicory (kind of like the false chicory Wario to the true chicory’s Mario).
We know that false chicory (why is it false? Does it tell lies?) has a taproot that is half the size of the plant’s height. We also are told that false chicory tends to grow more as it receives more rain. We know that false chicory definitely reaches above average heights if it receives more than twice the average rainfall of its normal habitat.
Notice the shifting from tends to grow taller in sentence two, to always reaches above average heights in sentence three. One happens more often than not, the other always happens.
So what inferences can we make here? Well we know that the taproot is directly proportional to the height of a false chicory (it’s always half the value of the height). We also have some information about what causes the height of a false chicory plant to increase (namely, rain—more specifically twice than average normal rainfall). So can we make some conclusions about what might cause a taproot to grow? I think we can! Anything that makes the false chicory grow taller will also make its taproot grow longer (to exactly one half its height). Therefore rain that contributes to an increase in height would also contribute to a growth in the length of the taproot (that is exactly one half the value of its increase in height).
Cool? Cool!
Now let’s move on to the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) This is tempting because it's playing on what we know about rain contributing to the height of a false chicory. But all we know about false chicory plants that receive more than twice the standard amount of rain is that they are always above average height. Does this mean that plants that don’t receive this much rain can’t be above average height? No! There may be all sorts of things that contribute to the growth of false chicory and rain is just one of them. There’s also the possibility that both of these plants with different heights received greater than average rainfall. This would mean that they both are above average height, but there would still most likely be a difference in height between them.
Answer Choice (B) So we know that if a false chicory plant has above average height, its taproot will be above average length (because it is always exactly one half of the plant’s height). But this AC has the same error that we found in (A). Receiving more than twice the amount of average rain is sufficient to cause above average height, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only thing that can cause it.
Answer Choice (C) Yet another answer choice that is demonstrating the same error we found in (A) and (B). More than twice the average rainfall is the sufficient condition and above average height is the necessary condition. This answer choice flips the two conditions.
Answer Choice (D) A few problems here. First, to reiterate: there are any number of factors that could contribute to the growth of false chicory. Just because these groups are the same height, does not mean that we can determine if they received the same amount of rainfall. Secondly, this question reads “[if] one group [is] not taller than [another] group,” then those groups must have received the same amount of rainfall. What does this mean? It means the first group could be the same size as the second group, or it could be any other size smaller than the second group. The chicory plants in the second group could all be 6 feet tall compared to the plants in the first group coming in at just over 6 inches tall—this would fit within the parameters set by our stimulus. So even if there was a direct correlation between rainfall and height (and no other factors involved in height), this would not be supported.
Correct Answer Choice (E) We know that if a false chicory plant receives greater than twice average rainfall it will be above average height. We also know that taproots are exactly half the size of the plant’s stalk (or whatever you call the vertical section of a false chicory plant–if you can’t tell by now, I am not a botanist!). Therefore, average taproot length would be exactly one half of average taproot height. So we can definitively say that if receiving more than twice the average amount of rainfall will lead to false chicory plants being above average height, it will also lead to them having taproots that are above average length.