Derek won this year's school science fair and is a star on both the school's football and basketball teams. Outside of school, he runs his own successful business and is an accomplished musician. Obviously, Derek is good at everything he does. Therefore, he will undoubtedly make an excellent Student Government President if elected.
The argument above is suspect, because it overlooks the possibility that
A. Derek participates only in those activities at which he knows he will excel.
B. being Student Government President requires different skills than those needed to become an accomplished musician.
C. school, sports, music and business are the only activities in which Derek is engaged.
D. there may be other students who are just as qualified as Derek to be Student Government President.
E. Derek has no time in his schedule to devote to Student Government.
November 30, 2009
November 24, 2009
Homework #33 Answer
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument in Homework #32?
A. Most people who use slang expressions in conversation understand what they mean.
(A) is incorrect because it does not weaken the argument so much as offer a possible reason why the author's point may not matter to the speaker even if it is valid. It's a non sequitur, really. The author's argument is that the use of slang expressions degrades the language, i.e., reduces its overall quality. The example he cites, which "translates" the slang into English, suggests an acknowledgment on his part that people typically know what slang expressions mean. The author is therefore concerned with the quality of the language, not with the ability of those who speak it to understand each other in conversation. Even if it's true that people can communicate using slang expressions, it is no less arguable that such expressions degrade and devalue the language. Therefore (A) is not as good an answer as (E).
B. Many slang expressions that appeared in earlier forms of the English language disappeared over time, as the people who used them were assimilated into larger groups that used different expressions.
(B) is incorrect because it does not undermine the argument in any way. Whether any particular slang expressions endure or not, or whether slang expressions in general tend to pass in and out of usage, they still have the capacity to degrade the language, as the author suggests.
C. Whether a new word or phrase is widely used in the media and entertainment is an important factor in whether the word or phrase will become common slang.
(C) is incorrect because the author is not concerned with where slang expressions come from, or in what venues they tend to be used. Regardless of where they originate or how they are disseminated, they still have the capacity to degrade the language.
D. Slang expressions are more likely to be invented by children and adolescents than by any other segment of the population.
(D) is incorrect for the same reason as (C). Indeed, if it is true that children and adolescents tend to invent slang terms, that makes the author's argument even stronger, since those young people will not grow up with an adequate knowledge of or appreciation for the English language and thereby degrade it even further.
E. Languages of the highest quality often evolve over time out of a collection of slang expressions woven into the formal dialect of a given people.
(E) is correct. Unlike (A), which is a non sequitur, (E) directly addresses the author's argument that slang usage degrades the English language by suggesting that such expressions actually increase the quality of the language over the long term. The author argues that slang expressions make the language less formal and less precise, whereas (E) states that such expressions eventually develop into formal speech and result in high-quality languages. Therefore (E) is the best answer.
A. Most people who use slang expressions in conversation understand what they mean.
(A) is incorrect because it does not weaken the argument so much as offer a possible reason why the author's point may not matter to the speaker even if it is valid. It's a non sequitur, really. The author's argument is that the use of slang expressions degrades the language, i.e., reduces its overall quality. The example he cites, which "translates" the slang into English, suggests an acknowledgment on his part that people typically know what slang expressions mean. The author is therefore concerned with the quality of the language, not with the ability of those who speak it to understand each other in conversation. Even if it's true that people can communicate using slang expressions, it is no less arguable that such expressions degrade and devalue the language. Therefore (A) is not as good an answer as (E).
B. Many slang expressions that appeared in earlier forms of the English language disappeared over time, as the people who used them were assimilated into larger groups that used different expressions.
(B) is incorrect because it does not undermine the argument in any way. Whether any particular slang expressions endure or not, or whether slang expressions in general tend to pass in and out of usage, they still have the capacity to degrade the language, as the author suggests.
C. Whether a new word or phrase is widely used in the media and entertainment is an important factor in whether the word or phrase will become common slang.
(C) is incorrect because the author is not concerned with where slang expressions come from, or in what venues they tend to be used. Regardless of where they originate or how they are disseminated, they still have the capacity to degrade the language.
D. Slang expressions are more likely to be invented by children and adolescents than by any other segment of the population.
(D) is incorrect for the same reason as (C). Indeed, if it is true that children and adolescents tend to invent slang terms, that makes the author's argument even stronger, since those young people will not grow up with an adequate knowledge of or appreciation for the English language and thereby degrade it even further.
E. Languages of the highest quality often evolve over time out of a collection of slang expressions woven into the formal dialect of a given people.
(E) is correct. Unlike (A), which is a non sequitur, (E) directly addresses the author's argument that slang usage degrades the English language by suggesting that such expressions actually increase the quality of the language over the long term. The author argues that slang expressions make the language less formal and less precise, whereas (E) states that such expressions eventually develop into formal speech and result in high-quality languages. Therefore (E) is the best answer.
Homework #34
Until 1990, the results of the Reading Level Assessment Test (RLAT) given in middle schools of Brooklyn and Queens indicated that the reading ability of students in the two boroughs was nearly identical. Since 1990, however, the average score on the test has been markedly higher in Brooklyn than in Queens. The Superintendent of the Brooklyn schools believes that his students did better on the test because all Brooklyn middle schools reinstated minimum reading level requirements. Under these requirements, all students in Brooklyn reading below grade level are required to attend after-school reading workshops once a week.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?
A. The average score on the RLAT in Brooklyn has increased the minimum reading level requirement.
B. There was a minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point before 1990.
C. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Brooklyn middle schools at some point before 1990.
D. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point after 1990.
E. Since 1990, the RLAT score of every student in Brooklyn has been higher than the RLAT score of every student in Queens.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?
A. The average score on the RLAT in Brooklyn has increased the minimum reading level requirement.
B. There was a minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point before 1990.
C. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Brooklyn middle schools at some point before 1990.
D. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point after 1990.
E. Since 1990, the RLAT score of every student in Brooklyn has been higher than the RLAT score of every student in Queens.
November 23, 2009
Homework #32 Answer
The increasing use of colloquialisms (slang expressions) is degrading the English language. A phrase such as "she was like, 'No way!', you know?" - a meaningless collection of English words just a few decades ago - is commonly understood today to mean "she was doubtful." No language can have such imprecise word usage without a corresponding decrease in the quality of expression.
The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?
A. Colloqualisms (slang expressions) always evolve out of a meaningless collection of words.
(A) is incorrect because the source of colloquial or slang expressions is not germane to the argument; the argument concerns their effect on the language, not where they come from or the reasons why they are used. The example provided in the stimulus arose out of "a meaningless collection of words," but even if they come from other sources as well, the claim that they degrade the language is still viable.
B. The slang expressions in common use today make the English language imprecise on a large scale.
(B) is correct. The argument makes a very broad statement with far-reaching implications, based on what appears to be a very small sample. The only way the argument holds water is if this is a large-scale problem; that slang usage is so pervasive that it degrades the language itself, not just the people who speak or write using slang.
C. The Russian, French and German languages do not contain as many colloquialisms as English.
(C) is incorrect because the author makes no attempt to compare English to any other language, let alone these three specific ones, nor indeed to other languages in general. The quantity of colloquialisms in other languages has no bearing on the effect colloquial usage has on English.
D. The English language would not lose any of its quality or precision if there were no alternative, informal way to say "she was doubtful."
(D) is incorrect because the author implies that widespread and insidious use of slang expressions is degrading the language, not this example alone. Even if one could argue that the language would not be degraded if there were no colloquialisms at all, the author is certainly not assuming that this one expression alone degrades the language all by itself, or that the problem could be fixed by limiting this expression to those three words.
E. The widespread use of slang expressions is the worst thing that could possibly happen to the English language.
(E) is incorrect because it's an opinion, and an opinion cannot be an underlying assumption.
The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?
A. Colloqualisms (slang expressions) always evolve out of a meaningless collection of words.
(A) is incorrect because the source of colloquial or slang expressions is not germane to the argument; the argument concerns their effect on the language, not where they come from or the reasons why they are used. The example provided in the stimulus arose out of "a meaningless collection of words," but even if they come from other sources as well, the claim that they degrade the language is still viable.
B. The slang expressions in common use today make the English language imprecise on a large scale.
(B) is correct. The argument makes a very broad statement with far-reaching implications, based on what appears to be a very small sample. The only way the argument holds water is if this is a large-scale problem; that slang usage is so pervasive that it degrades the language itself, not just the people who speak or write using slang.
C. The Russian, French and German languages do not contain as many colloquialisms as English.
(C) is incorrect because the author makes no attempt to compare English to any other language, let alone these three specific ones, nor indeed to other languages in general. The quantity of colloquialisms in other languages has no bearing on the effect colloquial usage has on English.
D. The English language would not lose any of its quality or precision if there were no alternative, informal way to say "she was doubtful."
(D) is incorrect because the author implies that widespread and insidious use of slang expressions is degrading the language, not this example alone. Even if one could argue that the language would not be degraded if there were no colloquialisms at all, the author is certainly not assuming that this one expression alone degrades the language all by itself, or that the problem could be fixed by limiting this expression to those three words.
E. The widespread use of slang expressions is the worst thing that could possibly happen to the English language.
(E) is incorrect because it's an opinion, and an opinion cannot be an underlying assumption.
Homework #33
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument in Homework #32?
A. Most people who use slang expressions in conversation understand what they mean.
B. Many slang expressions that appeared in earlier forms of the English language disappeared over time, as the people who used them were assimilated into larger groups that used different expressions.
C. Whether a new word or phrase is widely used in the media and entertainment is an important factor in whether the word or phrase will become common slang.
D. Slang expressions are more likely to be invented by children and adolescents than by any other segment of the population.
E. Languages of the highest quality often evolve over time out of a collection of slang expressions woven into the formal dialect of a given people.
A. Most people who use slang expressions in conversation understand what they mean.
B. Many slang expressions that appeared in earlier forms of the English language disappeared over time, as the people who used them were assimilated into larger groups that used different expressions.
C. Whether a new word or phrase is widely used in the media and entertainment is an important factor in whether the word or phrase will become common slang.
D. Slang expressions are more likely to be invented by children and adolescents than by any other segment of the population.
E. Languages of the highest quality often evolve over time out of a collection of slang expressions woven into the formal dialect of a given people.
November 21, 2009
Homework #31 Answer
Albert: The CEO's proposal to conduct free career seminars for high school students doesn't make much sense. Teenagers do not use our products, since they don't have enough extra spending money to buy luxury items.
Bill: I disagree. Anything we do to make the company look better can lead to us making more money in the long run. The good publicity we'll get from having these seminars will make us look very good to the general public. Good publicity, it has been proven, increases sales significantly.
Albert and Bill disagree about whether
A. the business has suffered from recent bad publicity.
(A) is incorrect. Neither Albert nor Bill expressed this idea. The key to a question like this is to read the answer choice, and ask whether one of the speakers would say yes while the other would say no; whether one speaker would agree with the statement and the other would disagree. Here, the stimulus doesn't indicate whether either Albert or Bill would agree with this statement. Bill thinks the seminars will generate good publicity, but nothing he says indicates that the company's recent publicity has been bad. Albert does not mention publicity at all.
B. the CEO's plan to offer career seminars to high school students makes financial sense for the company.
(B) is correct. Bill would agree with this statement, while Albert would disagree. Albert thinks that the company would be wasting its time providing seminars for teenagers who don't buy the company's products; Bill thinks the positive publicity will generate long-term business. Therefore Albert does not think the seminars make financial sense, and Bill does.
C. the publicity they get from the seminars will be good.
(C) is incorrect because while Bill would agree with it, we cannot say that Albert would disagree with it based on what he says in the stimulus. Albert doesn't seem to have an opinion one way or another about whether the publicity generated by the seminars will be good or bad.
D. the advice given in the seminars will enable teenagers to buy the company's products.
(D) is incorrect because while Albert might disagree with it, Bill doesn't have an opinion one way or another. Albert is concerned that teenagers don't buy the company's products, so the seminars would be a waste of time and money; this implies that he doesn't think the seminars will get the teenagers to buy the products. Bill likes the seminar idea not because he thinks teenagers will buy the products after the seminars, but that the seminars will be beneficial to the company in other ways over the long term.
E. teenagers would be more likely to buy the company's products if the company improved its public image.
(E) is incorrect because neither Albert nor Bill expresses an opinion on either the need for the company to "improve" its public image, or whether doing so would make teenagers more likely to buy the company's products. Bill might agree with this, although the benefits he foresees are more generalized, but it does not appear that Albert would disagree with it. Albert's statement does not indicate or imply any connection between the company's public image and the likelihood that teenagers will buy its products.
Bill: I disagree. Anything we do to make the company look better can lead to us making more money in the long run. The good publicity we'll get from having these seminars will make us look very good to the general public. Good publicity, it has been proven, increases sales significantly.
Albert and Bill disagree about whether
A. the business has suffered from recent bad publicity.
(A) is incorrect. Neither Albert nor Bill expressed this idea. The key to a question like this is to read the answer choice, and ask whether one of the speakers would say yes while the other would say no; whether one speaker would agree with the statement and the other would disagree. Here, the stimulus doesn't indicate whether either Albert or Bill would agree with this statement. Bill thinks the seminars will generate good publicity, but nothing he says indicates that the company's recent publicity has been bad. Albert does not mention publicity at all.
B. the CEO's plan to offer career seminars to high school students makes financial sense for the company.
(B) is correct. Bill would agree with this statement, while Albert would disagree. Albert thinks that the company would be wasting its time providing seminars for teenagers who don't buy the company's products; Bill thinks the positive publicity will generate long-term business. Therefore Albert does not think the seminars make financial sense, and Bill does.
C. the publicity they get from the seminars will be good.
(C) is incorrect because while Bill would agree with it, we cannot say that Albert would disagree with it based on what he says in the stimulus. Albert doesn't seem to have an opinion one way or another about whether the publicity generated by the seminars will be good or bad.
D. the advice given in the seminars will enable teenagers to buy the company's products.
(D) is incorrect because while Albert might disagree with it, Bill doesn't have an opinion one way or another. Albert is concerned that teenagers don't buy the company's products, so the seminars would be a waste of time and money; this implies that he doesn't think the seminars will get the teenagers to buy the products. Bill likes the seminar idea not because he thinks teenagers will buy the products after the seminars, but that the seminars will be beneficial to the company in other ways over the long term.
E. teenagers would be more likely to buy the company's products if the company improved its public image.
(E) is incorrect because neither Albert nor Bill expresses an opinion on either the need for the company to "improve" its public image, or whether doing so would make teenagers more likely to buy the company's products. Bill might agree with this, although the benefits he foresees are more generalized, but it does not appear that Albert would disagree with it. Albert's statement does not indicate or imply any connection between the company's public image and the likelihood that teenagers will buy its products.
November 20, 2009
Homework #32
The increasing use of colloquialisms (slang expressions) is degrading the English language. A phrase such as "she was like, 'No way!', you know?" - a meaningless collection of English words just a few decades ago - is commonly understood today to mean "she was doubtful." No language can have such imprecise word usage without a corresponding decrease in the quality of expression.
The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?
A. Colloqualisms (slang expressions) always evolve out of a meaningless collection of words.
B. The slang expressions in common use today make the English language imprecise on a large scale.
C. The Russian, French and German languages do not contain as many colloquialisms as English.
D. The English language would not lose any of its quality or precision if there were no alternative, informal way to say "she was doubtful."
E. The widespread use of slang expressions is the worst thing that could possibly happen to the English language.
The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?
A. Colloqualisms (slang expressions) always evolve out of a meaningless collection of words.
B. The slang expressions in common use today make the English language imprecise on a large scale.
C. The Russian, French and German languages do not contain as many colloquialisms as English.
D. The English language would not lose any of its quality or precision if there were no alternative, informal way to say "she was doubtful."
E. The widespread use of slang expressions is the worst thing that could possibly happen to the English language.
November 19, 2009
Homework #30 Answer
Jacques Dessens, the food critic who writes for the magazine Dining Today, was wrong in his review of Fabri's restaurant. He criticized the cold strawberry soup because it contained cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes. But Fabri's roasted chicken dish contains cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes, and Mr. Dessens awarded that dish the highest rating possible. Clearly, such blatant inconsistency proves that Mr. Dessens is not qualified to be a food critic.
The argument above is based upon which of the following assumptions?
A. Some of Fabri's customers don't like the roasted chicken dish.
(A) is incorrect because whether it is true or not it does not affect the author's argument. Remember, any choice whose subject is "some," "most," "many" or "few" of something, and not "all" or "none," is probably not the correct answer to an assumption question. The same is true if the verb is qualified by "sometimes," "often," "rarely" or "seldom," as opposed to "always" or "never." Even if every single one of Fabri's customers likes the roasted chicken dish, it is still possible that Mr. Dessens' criticism of the strawberry soup was unfair.
B. The evaluation of the cold strawberry soup should not suffer just because Mr. Dessens does not like some of the ingredients.
(B) is incorrect because it's an opinion, and therefore cannot be an underlying assumption. It's also an idiotic statement; this is exactly what food critics do, so if Mr. Dessens does not like the soup or its ingredients then of course it will receive a poor evaluation, as it should. That is the whole point of his job. This choice reminds me of a student who once said to me, in response to my criticism of then-President George W. Bush's language skills (or lack thereof), in these exact words: "Just because he doesn't speak well doesn't mean he's a bad speaker." Actually, I replied, it means precisely that.
C. As flavor-enhancing ingredients, cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes are better for main courses than for appetizers.
(C) is also incorrect because it's also an opinion, and also tends to support the substance of Mr. Dessens' review and refute the author's criticism thereof. The argument is that Mr. Dessens' review of the strawberry soup was "wrong," because it was "blatant[ly] inconsisten[t]" for him to dislike the strawberry soup but like the roasted chicken when they both contained the same flavor-enhancing ingredients. If those ingredients are better for main courses than for appetizers, then his review was not inconsistent at all. Many students chose this answer because it supports Mr. Dessens' review; however, the substance of his review is NOT the argument being made by the stimulus, and further, this is an assumption question.
D. Cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes enhance the flavor of the roasted chicken and the cold strawberry soup in essentially the same way.
(D) is correct. The argument is that Mr. Dessens' review of the restaurant contained a "blatant inconsistency," i.e., a criticism of the strawberry soup based on its containing cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes, alongside praise for the roasted chicken dish containing the same ingredients. The argument assumes that these ingredients have the same essential effect on the flavor of each dish in question. If the ingredients effect the flavors of different dishes in different ways, then there is nothing inconsistent or "wrong" about Mr. Dessens' review.
E. Cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes are best used in chicken dishes that are not roasted.
(E) is incorrect because it's an opinion, and does not affect the validity of the argument whether it is true or false. The argument is not concerned with the appropriateness of using these ingredients in any particular dish, let alone one outside the scope of the argument.
The argument above is based upon which of the following assumptions?
A. Some of Fabri's customers don't like the roasted chicken dish.
(A) is incorrect because whether it is true or not it does not affect the author's argument. Remember, any choice whose subject is "some," "most," "many" or "few" of something, and not "all" or "none," is probably not the correct answer to an assumption question. The same is true if the verb is qualified by "sometimes," "often," "rarely" or "seldom," as opposed to "always" or "never." Even if every single one of Fabri's customers likes the roasted chicken dish, it is still possible that Mr. Dessens' criticism of the strawberry soup was unfair.
B. The evaluation of the cold strawberry soup should not suffer just because Mr. Dessens does not like some of the ingredients.
(B) is incorrect because it's an opinion, and therefore cannot be an underlying assumption. It's also an idiotic statement; this is exactly what food critics do, so if Mr. Dessens does not like the soup or its ingredients then of course it will receive a poor evaluation, as it should. That is the whole point of his job. This choice reminds me of a student who once said to me, in response to my criticism of then-President George W. Bush's language skills (or lack thereof), in these exact words: "Just because he doesn't speak well doesn't mean he's a bad speaker." Actually, I replied, it means precisely that.
C. As flavor-enhancing ingredients, cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes are better for main courses than for appetizers.
(C) is also incorrect because it's also an opinion, and also tends to support the substance of Mr. Dessens' review and refute the author's criticism thereof. The argument is that Mr. Dessens' review of the strawberry soup was "wrong," because it was "blatant[ly] inconsisten[t]" for him to dislike the strawberry soup but like the roasted chicken when they both contained the same flavor-enhancing ingredients. If those ingredients are better for main courses than for appetizers, then his review was not inconsistent at all. Many students chose this answer because it supports Mr. Dessens' review; however, the substance of his review is NOT the argument being made by the stimulus, and further, this is an assumption question.
D. Cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes enhance the flavor of the roasted chicken and the cold strawberry soup in essentially the same way.
(D) is correct. The argument is that Mr. Dessens' review of the restaurant contained a "blatant inconsistency," i.e., a criticism of the strawberry soup based on its containing cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes, alongside praise for the roasted chicken dish containing the same ingredients. The argument assumes that these ingredients have the same essential effect on the flavor of each dish in question. If the ingredients effect the flavors of different dishes in different ways, then there is nothing inconsistent or "wrong" about Mr. Dessens' review.
E. Cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes are best used in chicken dishes that are not roasted.
(E) is incorrect because it's an opinion, and does not affect the validity of the argument whether it is true or false. The argument is not concerned with the appropriateness of using these ingredients in any particular dish, let alone one outside the scope of the argument.
Homework #31
Albert: The CEO's proposal to conduct free career seminars for high school students doesn't make much sense. Teenagers do not use our products, since they don't have enough extra spending money to buy luxury items.
Bill: I disagree. Anything we do to make the company look better can lead to us making more money in the long run. The good publicity we'll get from having these seminars will make us look very good to the general public. Good publicity, it has been proven, increases sales significantly.
Albert and Bill disagree about whether
A. the business has suffered from recent bad publicity.
B. the CEO's plan to offer career seminars to high school students makes financial sense for the company.
C. the publicity they get from the seminars will be good.
D. the advice given in the seminars will enable teenagers to buy the company's products.
E. teenagers would be more likely to buy the company's products if the company improved its public image.
Bill: I disagree. Anything we do to make the company look better can lead to us making more money in the long run. The good publicity we'll get from having these seminars will make us look very good to the general public. Good publicity, it has been proven, increases sales significantly.
Albert and Bill disagree about whether
A. the business has suffered from recent bad publicity.
B. the CEO's plan to offer career seminars to high school students makes financial sense for the company.
C. the publicity they get from the seminars will be good.
D. the advice given in the seminars will enable teenagers to buy the company's products.
E. teenagers would be more likely to buy the company's products if the company improved its public image.
November 18, 2009
Homework #29 Answer
Six months ago, a blight destroyed the cattle population in the town of Cebra, destroying the town's beef supply. Since that time, the only meat available to eat in Cebra has been poultry, fish, lamb and pork.
If the above statements are true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?
A. Villagers in the town of Cebra consume only beef raised by Cebra farmers.
(A) is incorrect, even though it could be true. The key is that the argument concerns the availability of beef, not the consumption of beef. Whether Cebra villagers are partial to Cebra beef, i.e., whether they are willing to eat non-Cebra beef, has no bearing on its availability. It still could be available even if they're not willing to eat it. Therefore this does not HAVE to be true.
B. Cebra villagers like lamb and poultry better than beef.
(B) is incorrect because it also does not have to be true (or false) based on the argument presented in the stimulus. As with (A), the villagers' dietary preferences and culinary tastes have no bearing on the availability of any particular food product. Whether they like it or not has no bearing on whether they can or can't get it.
C. The town of Cebra has not imported any beef from other towns in the past six months.
(C) is correct. At issue is the availability of beef in the wake of the blight. The argument claims that no beef has been available in Cebra for six months, but this can only be true if they had no other source of beef besides their own cattle that were destroyed in the blight. If they imported beef from elsewhere, then it WAS available.
D. Most of the residents of Cebra are meat eaters.
(D) is incorrect because it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. In addition, the fact that the condition is attributed to "most" Cebra residents, instead of "all" or "none," indicates that it likely cannot be the correct answer to an assumption question.
E. Before the blight occurred, Cebra villagers ate more beef than any other type of meat.
(E) is incorrect because it doesn't have to be true. Based on the way the facts are presented in the stimulus it seems likely, but what Cebra residents tended to eat before the blight is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument is concerned only with the availability of beef AFTER the blight.
If the above statements are true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?
A. Villagers in the town of Cebra consume only beef raised by Cebra farmers.
(A) is incorrect, even though it could be true. The key is that the argument concerns the availability of beef, not the consumption of beef. Whether Cebra villagers are partial to Cebra beef, i.e., whether they are willing to eat non-Cebra beef, has no bearing on its availability. It still could be available even if they're not willing to eat it. Therefore this does not HAVE to be true.
B. Cebra villagers like lamb and poultry better than beef.
(B) is incorrect because it also does not have to be true (or false) based on the argument presented in the stimulus. As with (A), the villagers' dietary preferences and culinary tastes have no bearing on the availability of any particular food product. Whether they like it or not has no bearing on whether they can or can't get it.
C. The town of Cebra has not imported any beef from other towns in the past six months.
(C) is correct. At issue is the availability of beef in the wake of the blight. The argument claims that no beef has been available in Cebra for six months, but this can only be true if they had no other source of beef besides their own cattle that were destroyed in the blight. If they imported beef from elsewhere, then it WAS available.
D. Most of the residents of Cebra are meat eaters.
(D) is incorrect because it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. In addition, the fact that the condition is attributed to "most" Cebra residents, instead of "all" or "none," indicates that it likely cannot be the correct answer to an assumption question.
E. Before the blight occurred, Cebra villagers ate more beef than any other type of meat.
(E) is incorrect because it doesn't have to be true. Based on the way the facts are presented in the stimulus it seems likely, but what Cebra residents tended to eat before the blight is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument is concerned only with the availability of beef AFTER the blight.
Homework #30
Jacques Dessens, the food critic who writes for the magazine Dining Today, was wrong in his review of Fabri's restaurant. He criticized the cold strawberry soup because it contained cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes. But Fabri's roasted chicken dish contains cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes, and Mr. Dessens awarded that dish the highest rating possible. Clearly, such blatant inconsistency proves that Mr. Dessens is not qualified to be a food critic.
The argument above is based upon which of the following assumptions?
A. Some of Fabri's customers don't like the roasted chicken dish.
B. The evaluation of the cold strawberry soup should not suffer just because Mr. Dessens does not like some of the ingredients.
C. As flavor-enhancing ingredients, cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes are better for main courses than for appetizers.
D. Cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes enhance the flavor of the roasted chicken and the cold strawberry soup in essentially the same way.
E. Cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes are best used in chicken dishes that are not roasted.
The argument above is based upon which of the following assumptions?
A. Some of Fabri's customers don't like the roasted chicken dish.
B. The evaluation of the cold strawberry soup should not suffer just because Mr. Dessens does not like some of the ingredients.
C. As flavor-enhancing ingredients, cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes are better for main courses than for appetizers.
D. Cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes enhance the flavor of the roasted chicken and the cold strawberry soup in essentially the same way.
E. Cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes are best used in chicken dishes that are not roasted.
Homework #28 Answer
The Brooklyn Museum has a totem pole that was too tall to be stored in the museum's temperature-controlled storage vault. Fortunately, the totem pole can now be stored in the temperature-controlled vault thanks to the efforts of restoration artists, who have discovered a way to separate the pole into two parts for storage purposes. The artists' method allows the totem pole to be reassembled later without any noticeable change in its appearance.
The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. Neither of the two separated parts of the totem pole is too tall to fit into the vault.
(A) is correct. The argument is concerned primarily with the totem pole being too tall to fit into the vault, a problem which could be corrected by separating the pole into two or more segments. However, if those segments are themselves too tall to fit into the vault, or even if one of them is, then separating the pole into segments won't solve the problem.
B. The totem pole can be separated into two equal-sized parts.
(B) is incorrect because the segments do not have to be equal-sized in order to fit into the vault. For example, if the vault ceiling is 10 feet high and the pole is 12 feet high, a pair of 6-foot segments would fit, but so would an 8-foot segment and a 4-foot segment.
C. The procedure for separating the two parts of the totem pole will not cost more than it would cost to replace the totem pole if it deteriorated.
(C) is incorrect because it is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument is only concerned with how to fit the totem pole into the vault. Whether the procedure for separating the pole into segments is cost-effective is a separate question. Even if the procedure does cost more than the totem pole is worth, it is still possible that separating the pole into segments will allow it to fit into the vault.
D. Placing the two parts of the totem pole into the vault would not require them to remove other key artifacts from the vault.
(D) is also incorrect for the same reason as (C); it is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument is not concerned for the well-being of other key artifacts, and again, whether removing such artifacts from the vault is worthwhile in the interests of preserving the totem pole is a separate question. Even if they do have to remove other artifacts from the vault, it is still possible that separating the pole into segments will allow it to fit into the vault.
E. The vault can be set to the proper temperature required to preserve totem pole.
(E) is incorrect because the argument is concerned only with the size of the vault, not any other characteristics. While this is an important consideration, the stimulus is proposing a solution to the height problem, nothing more. Even if the vault can't be set to the proper temperature, it is still possible that separating the pole into segments will allow it to fit into the vault.
The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. Neither of the two separated parts of the totem pole is too tall to fit into the vault.
(A) is correct. The argument is concerned primarily with the totem pole being too tall to fit into the vault, a problem which could be corrected by separating the pole into two or more segments. However, if those segments are themselves too tall to fit into the vault, or even if one of them is, then separating the pole into segments won't solve the problem.
B. The totem pole can be separated into two equal-sized parts.
(B) is incorrect because the segments do not have to be equal-sized in order to fit into the vault. For example, if the vault ceiling is 10 feet high and the pole is 12 feet high, a pair of 6-foot segments would fit, but so would an 8-foot segment and a 4-foot segment.
C. The procedure for separating the two parts of the totem pole will not cost more than it would cost to replace the totem pole if it deteriorated.
(C) is incorrect because it is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument is only concerned with how to fit the totem pole into the vault. Whether the procedure for separating the pole into segments is cost-effective is a separate question. Even if the procedure does cost more than the totem pole is worth, it is still possible that separating the pole into segments will allow it to fit into the vault.
D. Placing the two parts of the totem pole into the vault would not require them to remove other key artifacts from the vault.
(D) is also incorrect for the same reason as (C); it is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument is not concerned for the well-being of other key artifacts, and again, whether removing such artifacts from the vault is worthwhile in the interests of preserving the totem pole is a separate question. Even if they do have to remove other artifacts from the vault, it is still possible that separating the pole into segments will allow it to fit into the vault.
E. The vault can be set to the proper temperature required to preserve totem pole.
(E) is incorrect because the argument is concerned only with the size of the vault, not any other characteristics. While this is an important consideration, the stimulus is proposing a solution to the height problem, nothing more. Even if the vault can't be set to the proper temperature, it is still possible that separating the pole into segments will allow it to fit into the vault.
November 17, 2009
Homework #29
Six months ago, a blight destroyed the cattle population in the town of Cebra, destroying the town's beef supply. Since that time, the only meat available to eat in Cebra has been poultry, fish, lamb and pork.
If the above statements are true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?
A. Villagers in the town of Cebra consume only beef raised by Cebra farmers.
B. Cebra villagers like lamb and poultry better than beef.
C. The town of Cebra has not imported any beef from other towns in the past six months.
D. Most of the residents of Cebra are meat eaters.
E. Before the blight occurred, Cebra villagers ate more beef than any other type of meat.
If the above statements are true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?
A. Villagers in the town of Cebra consume only beef raised by Cebra farmers.
B. Cebra villagers like lamb and poultry better than beef.
C. The town of Cebra has not imported any beef from other towns in the past six months.
D. Most of the residents of Cebra are meat eaters.
E. Before the blight occurred, Cebra villagers ate more beef than any other type of meat.
November 12, 2009
Homework #27 Answer
Chocolate is made from the beans of the cacao tree, which grows in tropical regions of the New World (i.e., North, Central and South America). When chocolate arrived in Europe around 1500, it was only consumed as a hot drink. In the mid-1800s, however, the Swiss invented a way to make chocolate into solid candy that people could eat. Today, millions more pounds of chocolate are produced for eating than for drinking.
Which of the following can be inferred from the statements above?
A. Today, the cacao tree cannot be grown anywhere else in the world besides the tropical regions of the Americas.
(A) is incorrect because there is nothing in the stimulus suggesting that the cacao tree ONLY grows in the American tropics. Even if it only grew there at the time it was discovered, it could be cultivated elsewhere today. Nothing in the stimulus suggests otherwise.
B. When chocolate was introduced to Europe, it was most commonly used in solid form.
(B) is incorrect because it directly contradicts the stimulus' claim that chocolate was only used as a hot drink in Europe until the 1800s.
C. The number of pounds of chocolate used to make solid candy today is greater than the number of pounds used to make chocolate drinks during the 1800s.
(C) is incorrect because there is not enough information in the stimulus to support this claim. We are told that more chocolate is made into solid candy than drinks TODAY, but we have no idea exactly how many pounds are made into candy today, nor do we know exactly how many pounds were made into drinks during the 1800s. No comparisons are made between the quantity of chocolate used for specific purposes then, versus now.
D. Chocolate was not eaten as solid candy in the New World during the 1500s.
(D) is correct because the stimulus suggests that solid chocolate candy was not invented until the 1800s by the Swiss. It can therefore be inferred that the North, Central and South American Indians of the 1500s did not know how to make it.
E. If the Swiss had not invented a way to make solid chocolate candy, chocolate would not have become as popular as it is today.
(E) is incorrect because the stimulus does not attribute chocolate's popularity to the invention of solid chocolate candy. Even though the candy is more popular today than the drinks, the drinks were made and consumed by Europeans for 300 years before the candy was invented. There is no reason to believe that chocolate drinks would not be just as popular today as the candy had the latter never been invented.
Which of the following can be inferred from the statements above?
A. Today, the cacao tree cannot be grown anywhere else in the world besides the tropical regions of the Americas.
(A) is incorrect because there is nothing in the stimulus suggesting that the cacao tree ONLY grows in the American tropics. Even if it only grew there at the time it was discovered, it could be cultivated elsewhere today. Nothing in the stimulus suggests otherwise.
B. When chocolate was introduced to Europe, it was most commonly used in solid form.
(B) is incorrect because it directly contradicts the stimulus' claim that chocolate was only used as a hot drink in Europe until the 1800s.
C. The number of pounds of chocolate used to make solid candy today is greater than the number of pounds used to make chocolate drinks during the 1800s.
(C) is incorrect because there is not enough information in the stimulus to support this claim. We are told that more chocolate is made into solid candy than drinks TODAY, but we have no idea exactly how many pounds are made into candy today, nor do we know exactly how many pounds were made into drinks during the 1800s. No comparisons are made between the quantity of chocolate used for specific purposes then, versus now.
D. Chocolate was not eaten as solid candy in the New World during the 1500s.
(D) is correct because the stimulus suggests that solid chocolate candy was not invented until the 1800s by the Swiss. It can therefore be inferred that the North, Central and South American Indians of the 1500s did not know how to make it.
E. If the Swiss had not invented a way to make solid chocolate candy, chocolate would not have become as popular as it is today.
(E) is incorrect because the stimulus does not attribute chocolate's popularity to the invention of solid chocolate candy. Even though the candy is more popular today than the drinks, the drinks were made and consumed by Europeans for 300 years before the candy was invented. There is no reason to believe that chocolate drinks would not be just as popular today as the candy had the latter never been invented.
Homework #28
The Brooklyn Museum has a totem pole that was too tall to be stored in the museum's temperature-controlled storage vault. Fortunately, the totem pole can now be stored in the temperature-controlled vault thanks to the efforts of restoration artists, who have discovered a way to separate the pole into two parts for storage purposes. The artists' method allows the totem pole to be reassembled later without any noticeable change in its appearance.
The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. Neither of the two separated parts of the totem pole is too tall to fit into the vault.
B. The totem pole can be separated into two equal-sized parts.
C. The procedure for separating the two parts of the totem pole will not cost more than it would cost to replace the totem pole if it deteriorated.
D. Placing the two parts of the totem pole into the vault would not require them to remove other key artifacts from the vault.
E. The vault can be set to the proper temperature required to preserve totem pole.
The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. Neither of the two separated parts of the totem pole is too tall to fit into the vault.
B. The totem pole can be separated into two equal-sized parts.
C. The procedure for separating the two parts of the totem pole will not cost more than it would cost to replace the totem pole if it deteriorated.
D. Placing the two parts of the totem pole into the vault would not require them to remove other key artifacts from the vault.
E. The vault can be set to the proper temperature required to preserve totem pole.
November 10, 2009
Homework #26 Answer
Judges in the Kingsborough Student Essay Contest disqualified Sam's entry because it broke one of the contest rules. The rules specified that students should place their name ONLY on the cover page of the essay, which the judges would not see, to make sure they judged it fairly and without bias against the individual student. Sam, however, put his name on each and every page of his essay. Nevertheless, Sam's entry should be allowed to qualify, because Sam's parents recently got divorced, and it's been very hard for him.
Which one of the following explains why this is a flawed response to the judges' decision?
A. It presents a conclusion without providing supporting evidence.
(A) is incorrect because the conclusion is supported by evidence, even though that evidence is completely irrelevant. The conclusion is that Sam's essay should be allowed to qualify; the "evidence" is that his parents recently got divorced and he is struggling with that. The reasons why Sam broke the rule are irrelevant, because the rule regarding the placement of the student's name does not take the student's reasons for doing it wrong into account. This is true for most rules. The best example is traffic violations. If you speed, or run a stop sign, it doesn't matter why you did it; you're guilty unless you can prove that you did not actually speed, or that you did not actually run the stop sign. Why you did it is of no consequence, even if you had a really good reason. You're still guilty and still have to pay the fine.
B. It treats a factor that may cause a particular outcome as the only possible cause of that outcome.
(B) is incorrect whether the "outcome" refers to Sam's mistake or the resulting disqualification. In the case of Sam's mistake, the cause is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why he wrote his name on every page of the essay. In the case of the disqualification, again it doesn't matter that there are other reasons why he could have been disqualified. The fact that he was disqualified because he wrote his name on every page is the only thing that matters.
C. It focuses on a trivial, unimportant aspect of the judges' argument.
(C) is incorrect because there is nothing trivial or unimportant about any aspect of the judges' argument. There was a rule, Sam broke the rule, and he broke it in such a way as to completely defeat the purpose of having the rule in the first place.
D. It incorrectly states the facts that formed the basis of the judges' decision.
(D) is incorrect because there is nothing in the stimulus to suggest that Sam did not actually break the rule, or that the judges are mistaken (or lying) about his name being on every page.
E. It appeals to the judges' emotions instead of addressing their reason for disqualifying the essay.
(E) is correct. The argument is an appeal for sympathy, nothing more. It suggests that the judges should ignore the fact that Sam broke the rule and admit his essay anyway because they feel sorry for him. Whether you agree with this or not, the fact remains that Sam broke the rule and defeated its purpose; there is no logical reason or rational basis for admitting his essay under these circumstances.
Which one of the following explains why this is a flawed response to the judges' decision?
A. It presents a conclusion without providing supporting evidence.
(A) is incorrect because the conclusion is supported by evidence, even though that evidence is completely irrelevant. The conclusion is that Sam's essay should be allowed to qualify; the "evidence" is that his parents recently got divorced and he is struggling with that. The reasons why Sam broke the rule are irrelevant, because the rule regarding the placement of the student's name does not take the student's reasons for doing it wrong into account. This is true for most rules. The best example is traffic violations. If you speed, or run a stop sign, it doesn't matter why you did it; you're guilty unless you can prove that you did not actually speed, or that you did not actually run the stop sign. Why you did it is of no consequence, even if you had a really good reason. You're still guilty and still have to pay the fine.
B. It treats a factor that may cause a particular outcome as the only possible cause of that outcome.
(B) is incorrect whether the "outcome" refers to Sam's mistake or the resulting disqualification. In the case of Sam's mistake, the cause is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why he wrote his name on every page of the essay. In the case of the disqualification, again it doesn't matter that there are other reasons why he could have been disqualified. The fact that he was disqualified because he wrote his name on every page is the only thing that matters.
C. It focuses on a trivial, unimportant aspect of the judges' argument.
(C) is incorrect because there is nothing trivial or unimportant about any aspect of the judges' argument. There was a rule, Sam broke the rule, and he broke it in such a way as to completely defeat the purpose of having the rule in the first place.
D. It incorrectly states the facts that formed the basis of the judges' decision.
(D) is incorrect because there is nothing in the stimulus to suggest that Sam did not actually break the rule, or that the judges are mistaken (or lying) about his name being on every page.
E. It appeals to the judges' emotions instead of addressing their reason for disqualifying the essay.
(E) is correct. The argument is an appeal for sympathy, nothing more. It suggests that the judges should ignore the fact that Sam broke the rule and admit his essay anyway because they feel sorry for him. Whether you agree with this or not, the fact remains that Sam broke the rule and defeated its purpose; there is no logical reason or rational basis for admitting his essay under these circumstances.
Homework #27
Chocolate is made from the beans of the cacao tree, which grows in tropical regions of the New World (i.e., North, Central and South America). When chocolate arrived in Europe around 1500, it was only consumed as a hot drink. In the mid-1800s, however, the Swiss invented a way to make chocolate into solid candy that people could eat. Today, millions more pounds of chocolate are produced for eating than for drinking.
Which of the following can be inferred from the statements above?
A. Today, the cacao tree cannot be grown anywhere else in the world besides the tropical regions of the Americas.
B. When chocolate was introduced to Europe, it was most commonly used in solid form.
C. The number of pounds of chocolate used to make solid candy today is greater than the number of pounds used to make chocolate drinks during the 1800s.
D. Chocolate was not eaten as solid candy in the New World during the 1500s.
E. If the Swiss had not invented a way to make solid chocolate candy, chocolate would not have become as popular as it is today.
Which of the following can be inferred from the statements above?
A. Today, the cacao tree cannot be grown anywhere else in the world besides the tropical regions of the Americas.
B. When chocolate was introduced to Europe, it was most commonly used in solid form.
C. The number of pounds of chocolate used to make solid candy today is greater than the number of pounds used to make chocolate drinks during the 1800s.
D. Chocolate was not eaten as solid candy in the New World during the 1500s.
E. If the Swiss had not invented a way to make solid chocolate candy, chocolate would not have become as popular as it is today.
Homework #25 Answer
If someone puts too much pressure on the bottom shelf of a bookcase, the entire bookcase will collapse. Shelly's bookcase has collapsed. Therefore, someone must have put too much pressure on the bottom shelf.
Which one of the following criticisms best describes a weakness in the argument above?
A. It supports its conclusion with irrelevant evidence.
(A) is incorrect because the evidence, while inadequate to support the conclusion, is nonetheless relevant. The evidence here is that the bookcase collapsed, and that putting too much pressure on the bottom shelf of any bookcase will cause that bookcase to collapse. The conclusion is that the collapse of Shelly's bookcase must have happened because someone put too much pressure on the bottom shelf. The evidence is relevant because it makes the conclusion more likely to be true; if the bookcase collapsed, and too much pressure on the bottom shelf can cause it, then the collapse of the bookcase could suggest that someone put too much pressure on the bottom shelf. The problem is that the evidence does not by itself prove that the conclusion must be true.
B. It changes the meaning of the word "collapse" from "partial collapse" to "full collapse."
(B) is incorrect because the argument does not hinge on the definition of "collapse." This is a simple reverse cause-and-effect argument; it doesn't matter whether the collapse was "partial" or "full," or whether the author meant "partial" or "full" when he wrote the word "collapse." At issue is the cause of the collapse, not the extent of it.
C. It concludes that an outcome must have been caused by one particular factor, which may be only one of many possible causes of that outcome.
(C) is correct. As discussed above, the flaw in the argument is that the author has assumed the cause based only on the outcome and nothing more. This classic logical fallacy came up in Homework #23 and #24 as well. Just because X can cause Y, or has a tendency to cause Y, does not mean that if Y occurs it must (or could only) have been caused by X. Only if we know that there is no other possible cause can we assume the cause from the outcome alone.
D. It overlooks the possibility that some bookshelves have only one shelf.
(D) is incorrect because "the possibility that some bookshelves have only one shelf" does not make it more or less likely that the collapse of this particular bookcase was caused by pressure on the bottom shelf. Therefore the fact that the possibility was "overlooked" is not a weakness, because there is nothing wrong with ignoring irrelevant factors when making an argument. Indeed, ignoring irrelevancies actually strengthens the argument.
E. It draws an overly broad conclusion from small, insignificant pieces of evidence.
(E) is incorrect because the conclusion is not "overly broad;" it is in fact overly narrow, assuming only one of many possible causes for a specific outcome. Neither is the evidence (i.e., the collapse of the bookcase) "small" or "insignificant."
Which one of the following criticisms best describes a weakness in the argument above?
A. It supports its conclusion with irrelevant evidence.
(A) is incorrect because the evidence, while inadequate to support the conclusion, is nonetheless relevant. The evidence here is that the bookcase collapsed, and that putting too much pressure on the bottom shelf of any bookcase will cause that bookcase to collapse. The conclusion is that the collapse of Shelly's bookcase must have happened because someone put too much pressure on the bottom shelf. The evidence is relevant because it makes the conclusion more likely to be true; if the bookcase collapsed, and too much pressure on the bottom shelf can cause it, then the collapse of the bookcase could suggest that someone put too much pressure on the bottom shelf. The problem is that the evidence does not by itself prove that the conclusion must be true.
B. It changes the meaning of the word "collapse" from "partial collapse" to "full collapse."
(B) is incorrect because the argument does not hinge on the definition of "collapse." This is a simple reverse cause-and-effect argument; it doesn't matter whether the collapse was "partial" or "full," or whether the author meant "partial" or "full" when he wrote the word "collapse." At issue is the cause of the collapse, not the extent of it.
C. It concludes that an outcome must have been caused by one particular factor, which may be only one of many possible causes of that outcome.
(C) is correct. As discussed above, the flaw in the argument is that the author has assumed the cause based only on the outcome and nothing more. This classic logical fallacy came up in Homework #23 and #24 as well. Just because X can cause Y, or has a tendency to cause Y, does not mean that if Y occurs it must (or could only) have been caused by X. Only if we know that there is no other possible cause can we assume the cause from the outcome alone.
D. It overlooks the possibility that some bookshelves have only one shelf.
(D) is incorrect because "the possibility that some bookshelves have only one shelf" does not make it more or less likely that the collapse of this particular bookcase was caused by pressure on the bottom shelf. Therefore the fact that the possibility was "overlooked" is not a weakness, because there is nothing wrong with ignoring irrelevant factors when making an argument. Indeed, ignoring irrelevancies actually strengthens the argument.
E. It draws an overly broad conclusion from small, insignificant pieces of evidence.
(E) is incorrect because the conclusion is not "overly broad;" it is in fact overly narrow, assuming only one of many possible causes for a specific outcome. Neither is the evidence (i.e., the collapse of the bookcase) "small" or "insignificant."
November 9, 2009
Homework #26
Judges in the Kingsborough Student Essay Contest disqualified Sam's entry because it broke one of the contest rules. The rules specified that students should place their name ONLY on the cover page of the essay, which the judges would not see, to make sure they judged it fairly and without bias against the individual student. Sam, however, put his name on each and every page of his essay. Nevertheless, Sam's entry should be allowed to qualify, because Sam's parents recently got divorced, and it's been very hard for him.
Which one of the following explains why this is a flawed response to the judges' decision?
A. It presents a conclusion without providing supporting evidence.
B. It treats a factor that may cause a particular outcome as the only possible cause of that outcome.
C. It focuses on a trivial, unimportant aspect of the judges' argument.
D. It incorrectly states the facts that formed the basis of the judges' decision.
E. It appeals to the judges' emotions instead of addressing their reason for disqualifying the essay.
Which one of the following explains why this is a flawed response to the judges' decision?
A. It presents a conclusion without providing supporting evidence.
B. It treats a factor that may cause a particular outcome as the only possible cause of that outcome.
C. It focuses on a trivial, unimportant aspect of the judges' argument.
D. It incorrectly states the facts that formed the basis of the judges' decision.
E. It appeals to the judges' emotions instead of addressing their reason for disqualifying the essay.
Homework #24 Answer
The advantages of a college education are much too precious to waste on students who are not seriously dedicated to learning and studying. Administrators should strictly enforce the idea that students must earn the privilege of enrolling in college, and then must earn the privilege of staying there. Any student who fails a course should be immediately dismissed from the university, so that a more deserving student may take his place.
Which one of the following is the best rebuttal of the argument above?
A. A student should not be expected to fulfill college requirements unless he gets to choose the courses he wants to take.
(A) is incorrect because it's an excuse that's unrelated to the author's premise. The author argues that students who fail courses should be summarily thrown out of college, because the failure indicates that they are not "seriously dedicated to learning and studying." This, of course, is a faulty assumption. However, the flaw in the argument is not that a student should get to choose his own courses, because choice of courses has no direct bearing on dedication and seriousness. This choice addresses only the author's conclusion, not the reasons behind it.
B. The university may not have made the student fully aware of the demands of its curriculum and the intensity of study required.
(B) is also incorrect because it's also an excuse that has no bearing on the student's dedication and seriousness, which are the crux of the author's argument. Like (A), it only addresses the author's conclusion, not the reasons behind it. The author's point is that students who are not dedicated and serious should not be in college; shifting the blame to a third party based on unrelated factors does not undermine the original premise.
C. To dismiss a student who fails a course is to place achievement over the student's individual right to an education.
(C) is incorrect because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. To the extent that a student has an "individual right to an education," that right is to the opportunity, not the outcome. In other words, a student has a right to be educated but does not have a right to receive high grades, or even to pass his courses. However, even if such a right does exist, it ends with secondary school; going to college is not a right. Further, like all other rights, it can be forfeited if one does not live up to one's responsibilities. Therefore there is nothing wrong with "plac[ing] achievement over the student's individual right to an education," especially in the college context. This idea is not incompatible with the author's argument, therefore (C) does not undermine it.
D. Scholarship is only one of the possible contributions that a student might make to the university community.
(D) is incorrect because it is also not incompatible with the author's argument. "Scholarship" here refers to a student's academic ability and performance, as opposed to "a scholarship" which would refer to a monetary grant of assistance based thereon. The idea that a student might contribute to a university community in non-academic ways, such as by playing football or having his family donate a building, does not undermine the author's argument about seriousness and dedication. It's a weak rebuttal.
E. A highly dedicated student may still fail a course for other reasons, which are unrelated to his dedication.
(E) is the best rebuttal to the author's argument because of the author's faulty assumption. The author assumes that if a student fails a course, it must mean that he is not serious or dedicated to his studies and should therefore be expelled, so someone who is serious and dedicated can take his place. The author fails to consider that serious, dedicated students may nonetheless fail courses for other reasons. Whether those reasons constitute mere excuses is beside the point; this choice undermines the author's flawed assumption, and is therefore the best rebuttal.
Which one of the following is the best rebuttal of the argument above?
A. A student should not be expected to fulfill college requirements unless he gets to choose the courses he wants to take.
(A) is incorrect because it's an excuse that's unrelated to the author's premise. The author argues that students who fail courses should be summarily thrown out of college, because the failure indicates that they are not "seriously dedicated to learning and studying." This, of course, is a faulty assumption. However, the flaw in the argument is not that a student should get to choose his own courses, because choice of courses has no direct bearing on dedication and seriousness. This choice addresses only the author's conclusion, not the reasons behind it.
B. The university may not have made the student fully aware of the demands of its curriculum and the intensity of study required.
(B) is also incorrect because it's also an excuse that has no bearing on the student's dedication and seriousness, which are the crux of the author's argument. Like (A), it only addresses the author's conclusion, not the reasons behind it. The author's point is that students who are not dedicated and serious should not be in college; shifting the blame to a third party based on unrelated factors does not undermine the original premise.
C. To dismiss a student who fails a course is to place achievement over the student's individual right to an education.
(C) is incorrect because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. To the extent that a student has an "individual right to an education," that right is to the opportunity, not the outcome. In other words, a student has a right to be educated but does not have a right to receive high grades, or even to pass his courses. However, even if such a right does exist, it ends with secondary school; going to college is not a right. Further, like all other rights, it can be forfeited if one does not live up to one's responsibilities. Therefore there is nothing wrong with "plac[ing] achievement over the student's individual right to an education," especially in the college context. This idea is not incompatible with the author's argument, therefore (C) does not undermine it.
D. Scholarship is only one of the possible contributions that a student might make to the university community.
(D) is incorrect because it is also not incompatible with the author's argument. "Scholarship" here refers to a student's academic ability and performance, as opposed to "a scholarship" which would refer to a monetary grant of assistance based thereon. The idea that a student might contribute to a university community in non-academic ways, such as by playing football or having his family donate a building, does not undermine the author's argument about seriousness and dedication. It's a weak rebuttal.
E. A highly dedicated student may still fail a course for other reasons, which are unrelated to his dedication.
(E) is the best rebuttal to the author's argument because of the author's faulty assumption. The author assumes that if a student fails a course, it must mean that he is not serious or dedicated to his studies and should therefore be expelled, so someone who is serious and dedicated can take his place. The author fails to consider that serious, dedicated students may nonetheless fail courses for other reasons. Whether those reasons constitute mere excuses is beside the point; this choice undermines the author's flawed assumption, and is therefore the best rebuttal.
November 4, 2009
Homework #25
If someone puts too much pressure on the bottom shelf of a bookcase, the entire bookcase will collapse. Shelly's bookcase has collapsed. Therefore, someone must have put too much pressure on the bottom shelf.
Which one of the following criticisms best describes a weakness in the argument above?
A. It supports its conclusion with irrelevant evidence.
B. It changes the meaning of the word "collapse" from "partial collapse" to "full collapse."
C. It concludes that an outcome must have been caused by one particular factor, which may be only one of many possible causes of that outcome.
D. It overlooks the possibility that some bookshelves have only one shelf.
E. It draws an overly broad conclusion from small, insignificant pieces of evidence.
Which one of the following criticisms best describes a weakness in the argument above?
A. It supports its conclusion with irrelevant evidence.
B. It changes the meaning of the word "collapse" from "partial collapse" to "full collapse."
C. It concludes that an outcome must have been caused by one particular factor, which may be only one of many possible causes of that outcome.
D. It overlooks the possibility that some bookshelves have only one shelf.
E. It draws an overly broad conclusion from small, insignificant pieces of evidence.
November 3, 2009
Homework #23 Answer
Children never develop strong self-esteem if they are guided by adults who criticize them. Therefore, if children are guided by adults who never criticize them, they will develop strong self-esteem.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar to the flawed pattern of reasoning used in the argument above?
This was a very difficult question. Parallel reasoning questions are probably the hardest, because you have to completely ignore the subject matter and substance of the stimulus and only consider its structure. Whether the argument in the answer choice is true, valid, believable or reasonable is entirely irrelevant. In this case, the question stem actually tells you that the argument in the stimulus is wrong because it depends on flawed reasoning, which means you already know it's not a reasonable argument. The question is not which of the following arguments seems reasonable, or likely to be correct. The question is which of the following arguments makes the same mistake of logic that the stimulus does, and is unreasonable for the same reason.
Completely ignoring the subject matter, and looking only at the structure of the argument, the stimulus is suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship where the occurrence of one event (X) causes the non-occurrence of another (Y). On other words, if X happens, Y will not happen. The flaw in the logic is the conclusion the author draws based on this relationship, i.e., the idea that if X does not happen, Y will happen, which is not logically sound. Just because X prevents Y from occurring, doesn't necessarily mean that the absence of X will cause Y to occur. Another example:
If you buy a sprinkler system, your house won't burn down. Therefore, if you don't buy a sprinkler system, your house will burn down.
This is flawed reasoning. The absence of a sprinkler system cannot by itself cause your house to burn down, nor does it guarantee by itself that your house will burn down. Of course, if your house catches fire, that's something else, but it's not part of the equation. The absence of a sprinkler system cannot cause it to catch fire, even though it might prevent you from putting that fire out. Just like in the stimulus; the absence of criticism from adults does not by itself guarantee that a child will develop high self-esteem, although it might contribute to that result.
The flawed logic can be formulated thusly: If X, then not Y; therefore, if not X, then Y.
A. Even though Hannah studies hard, she does not get good grades. Therefore, Hannah should not try to get good grades by studying hard.
(A) is incorrect because even though it is unreasonable, it is not so for the same reason as the stimulus. What's missing with respect to the stimulus is that the second sentence does not purport to guarantee that Hannah will get good grades if she does not study hard. (A) suggests not so much a cause-and-effect relationship but a method-and-goal relationship, specifically that the method has not thus far worked to achieve the goal, therefore Hannah should not continue to try this method. It's not entirely unreasonable; if a method doesn't work, try another method. In the context of this subject matter, though, it's bad advice.
B. Telephone salesmen who have bad phone manners do not sell any products. Therefore, telephone salesmen with low sales records must have bad phone manners.
(B) is also unreasonable but it's also incorrect. The flaw in the logic here is not that the non-occurrence of X guarantees the occurrence of Y. It's that X tends to cause Y, so if Y occurs, then X must be the cause. It's a simple cause-and-effect equation, simpler than the stimulus in that it merely inverts the cause and effect. Even though Y is a negative event ("...do not sell any products"), it's in the negative on both sides of the equation. The stimulus' pattern reverses the negations between X and Y (If X, then NOT Y; therefore if NOT X, then Y). This choice does not (If X, then NOT Y; therefore if NOT Y, then X).
C. Using the store's new knitting machine, the knitting store owner made twice as many sweaters yesterday as she did the day before. Therefore, if she uses the knitting machine again tomorrow, she will make twice as many sweaters as she did today.
(C) is incorrect because it also does not match the pattern of the stimulus' argument. For one thing, there are no negative events here. The statement is flawed because it assumes that because one event caused a changed outcome, a repetition of that event must cause the change (not the event itself) to occur again. The statement is absurd because the change in the outcome was attributable to a changed condition. If the new condition subsequently remains the same and does not change again, then the change in the outcome will not recur.
D. Puppies who are not used to being with people do not interact comfortably with a large group of people. Therefore, the more a puppy is used to being with people, the more comfortable he will be with a large group of people.
(D) is incorrect because it's not flawed; it's a perfectly reasonable statement.
E. People who take calcium supplements do not increase their risk of heart disease. Therefore, people who do not take calcium supplements will increase their risk of heart disease.
(E) is correct because it's the only choice that matches the pattern of the stimulus (If X, then not Y; therefore, if not X, then Y). In this case, X is the taking of calcium supplements, and Y is an increased risk of heart disease.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar to the flawed pattern of reasoning used in the argument above?
This was a very difficult question. Parallel reasoning questions are probably the hardest, because you have to completely ignore the subject matter and substance of the stimulus and only consider its structure. Whether the argument in the answer choice is true, valid, believable or reasonable is entirely irrelevant. In this case, the question stem actually tells you that the argument in the stimulus is wrong because it depends on flawed reasoning, which means you already know it's not a reasonable argument. The question is not which of the following arguments seems reasonable, or likely to be correct. The question is which of the following arguments makes the same mistake of logic that the stimulus does, and is unreasonable for the same reason.
Completely ignoring the subject matter, and looking only at the structure of the argument, the stimulus is suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship where the occurrence of one event (X) causes the non-occurrence of another (Y). On other words, if X happens, Y will not happen. The flaw in the logic is the conclusion the author draws based on this relationship, i.e., the idea that if X does not happen, Y will happen, which is not logically sound. Just because X prevents Y from occurring, doesn't necessarily mean that the absence of X will cause Y to occur. Another example:
If you buy a sprinkler system, your house won't burn down. Therefore, if you don't buy a sprinkler system, your house will burn down.
This is flawed reasoning. The absence of a sprinkler system cannot by itself cause your house to burn down, nor does it guarantee by itself that your house will burn down. Of course, if your house catches fire, that's something else, but it's not part of the equation. The absence of a sprinkler system cannot cause it to catch fire, even though it might prevent you from putting that fire out. Just like in the stimulus; the absence of criticism from adults does not by itself guarantee that a child will develop high self-esteem, although it might contribute to that result.
The flawed logic can be formulated thusly: If X, then not Y; therefore, if not X, then Y.
A. Even though Hannah studies hard, she does not get good grades. Therefore, Hannah should not try to get good grades by studying hard.
(A) is incorrect because even though it is unreasonable, it is not so for the same reason as the stimulus. What's missing with respect to the stimulus is that the second sentence does not purport to guarantee that Hannah will get good grades if she does not study hard. (A) suggests not so much a cause-and-effect relationship but a method-and-goal relationship, specifically that the method has not thus far worked to achieve the goal, therefore Hannah should not continue to try this method. It's not entirely unreasonable; if a method doesn't work, try another method. In the context of this subject matter, though, it's bad advice.
B. Telephone salesmen who have bad phone manners do not sell any products. Therefore, telephone salesmen with low sales records must have bad phone manners.
(B) is also unreasonable but it's also incorrect. The flaw in the logic here is not that the non-occurrence of X guarantees the occurrence of Y. It's that X tends to cause Y, so if Y occurs, then X must be the cause. It's a simple cause-and-effect equation, simpler than the stimulus in that it merely inverts the cause and effect. Even though Y is a negative event ("...do not sell any products"), it's in the negative on both sides of the equation. The stimulus' pattern reverses the negations between X and Y (If X, then NOT Y; therefore if NOT X, then Y). This choice does not (If X, then NOT Y; therefore if NOT Y, then X).
C. Using the store's new knitting machine, the knitting store owner made twice as many sweaters yesterday as she did the day before. Therefore, if she uses the knitting machine again tomorrow, she will make twice as many sweaters as she did today.
(C) is incorrect because it also does not match the pattern of the stimulus' argument. For one thing, there are no negative events here. The statement is flawed because it assumes that because one event caused a changed outcome, a repetition of that event must cause the change (not the event itself) to occur again. The statement is absurd because the change in the outcome was attributable to a changed condition. If the new condition subsequently remains the same and does not change again, then the change in the outcome will not recur.
D. Puppies who are not used to being with people do not interact comfortably with a large group of people. Therefore, the more a puppy is used to being with people, the more comfortable he will be with a large group of people.
(D) is incorrect because it's not flawed; it's a perfectly reasonable statement.
E. People who take calcium supplements do not increase their risk of heart disease. Therefore, people who do not take calcium supplements will increase their risk of heart disease.
(E) is correct because it's the only choice that matches the pattern of the stimulus (If X, then not Y; therefore, if not X, then Y). In this case, X is the taking of calcium supplements, and Y is an increased risk of heart disease.
November 2, 2009
Homework #24
The advantages of a college education are much too precious to waste on students who are not seriously dedicated to learning and studying. Administrators should strictly enforce the idea that students must earn the privilege of enrolling in college, and then must earn the privilege of staying there. Any student who fails a course should be immediately dismissed from the university, so that a more deserving student may take his place.
Which one of the following is the best rebuttal of the argument above?
A. A student should not be expected to fulfill college requirements unless he gets to choose the courses he wants to take.
B. The university may not have made the student fully aware of the demands of its curriculum and the intensity of study required.
C. To dismiss a student who fails a course is to place achievement over the student's individual right to an education.
D. Scholarship is only one of the possible contributions that a student might make to the university community.
E. A highly dedicated student may still fail a course for other reasons, which are unrelated to his dedication.
Which one of the following is the best rebuttal of the argument above?
A. A student should not be expected to fulfill college requirements unless he gets to choose the courses he wants to take.
B. The university may not have made the student fully aware of the demands of its curriculum and the intensity of study required.
C. To dismiss a student who fails a course is to place achievement over the student's individual right to an education.
D. Scholarship is only one of the possible contributions that a student might make to the university community.
E. A highly dedicated student may still fail a course for other reasons, which are unrelated to his dedication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)