LR Flaws and Tips + Vocab

Party spokesperson: The opposition party's proposal to stimulate economic activity in the province by refunding $600 million in provincial taxes to taxpayers, who could be expected to spend the money, envisions an illusory benefit. Since the province's budget is required to be in balance, either new taxes would be needed to make up the shortfall, in which case the purpose of the refund would be defeated, or else workers for the province would be dismissed. So either the province's taxpayers or its workers, who are also residents of the province, will have the $600 million to spend, but there can be no resulting net increase in spending to stimulate the province's economy. The conclusion about whether there would be a resulting net increase in spending would not follow if the (A) taxpayers of the province would spend outside the province at least $300 million of any $600 million refunded to them (B) taxpayers of the province would receive any refund in partial payments during the year rather than in a lump sum (C) province could assess new taxes in a way that would avoid angering taxpayers (D) province could instead of refunding the money, stimulate its economy by redirecting its spending to use the $600 million for construction projects creating jobs around the province (E) province could keep its workers and use them more effectively with a resulting savings of $600 million in its out-of-province expenditures

S: the province needs that extra money that it's going to give back to people in this plan; need to balance budget IC: either they need to have new taxes to make it up (defeats the purpose of the refund) OR they need to fire people who work for the province Conclusion: stimulate economy by refunding is not actually good; either the workers get it (no refund) or the people get it (yes refund) but workers get fired, therefore no economic stimulation is happening either way Flaw: What if there's a third option?? False Dichotomy! ANSWER: E A - Then the province still isn't getting any money back and once again, as the spokesperson concluded, there's no stimulation to the economy because they're spending OUTSIDE the economy. STRENGTHENS B - who cares about the method of payments to people. C - normative statement doesn't do anything here; also taxpayers' anger is irrelevant right now D - this goes with one of the options in the conclusion. option 1 was refund, which means people get fired. option 2 is no refund, workers keep jobs and keep getting paid. and now this answer is saying no refund and spend the money on creating jobs. we still don't know how the government is going to be able to spend that same amount of money on creating jobs when it couldn't spend it on the refund - this doesn't solve that issue E - CORRECT ANSWER; alternate solution - just give the refund and then be more efficient with your use of workers instead of firing them, so you end up saving money in your budget (that's how you make up the money you gave out without firing people or taxing people). solves the issue of the lost money spent on the refund because they make it up by reducing the budget elsewhere by being more efficient!

Inference/MBT from the stimulus is that "multi-party democracies are more productive when they have fewer parties" What's a common shell game wrong answer?

"Among non-democracies, the legislatures with the fewest parties are the most productive." Why is this wrong: we know nothing about non-democracies, only about multi-party democracies!!!!

Find Flaw: The Volunteers of Literacy Program would benefit if Dolores takes Victor's place as director, since Dolores is far more skillful than Victor is at securing the kind of financial support the program needs and Dolores does not have Victor's propensity for alienating the program's most dedicated volunteers.

Secret Downside Fails to consider other factors - maybe she sucks in some other way? OVERVALUING A TRAIT - what if "skillful at getting financial support" and "not alienating volunteers" are not the only factors we need to consider

Ostensible definition

Stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so

Assumption Chain

Sufficient Assumption --> Conclusion True --> Necessary Assumption

Percentages =/= Numbers Flaw

Always assumes group size stays the same and draws a conclusion from percents about absolute numbers or from absolute numbers about percents

Converting Resolve Discrepancy Questions to Weakening

Take one of the two premises and negate it. make it the conclusion Now weaken the support/conclusion link Why does this work? The two statements that are happening together are not what you'd expect. they're saying A happened, and even though you expected NOT B to happen, it's actually B happening? Why is that? The answer is something that introduces a caveat or condition or factor that allows this unexpected result. So when you change it to say A happened and not B happened (as we expected), the answer is still the same - it introduces that same caveat that made the discrepancy go away, because it allows for the opposite of the conclusion to happen

Cookie Cutter Strengthen Answer for Phenomenon/Hypothesis Questions

Take the hypothesis to be true, which answer would you expect to be true?

Terms to use when thinking about flaws

Takes for granted that... Fails to consider that...

Contradiction Flaw

The premise actually leads to the opposite conclusion or the premises contradict each other Internal vs External differences - Internal: in the author's statements - External: DISAGREEMENT from others wrong is not the same as contradicting!!!!!!! APPLIES TO BELIEF-BASED ARGUMENTS AS WELL - someone has two beliefs and one of them is wrong - that doesn't mean the beliefs contradict! THIS IS A VERY COMMON TRAP ANSWER

If [Premise] then [Conclusion]

Both a sufficient AND a necessary assumption

Assumed Universal Goals Flaw

The things the author assumes everyone would want. Adds a normative claim in the conclusion. Example: Maple and bacon cause you to gain weight when you eat them. Therefore you should stop eating them. Who said I want to prevent gaining weight? Flaw: I should do the thing to prevent gaining weight?

RC questions about why the author says x - trap answers vs right answer

Trap Answers: factually true about x or tells you what x says or what you can infer from x Right Answer: focuses on the WHY it was brought up

Rates vs Aggregate total flaw

Using a reduced rate of increase to say the total will go down examples: - slowing down aging used to support that you're not aging. - slow down rate of pollution to say pollution isn't increasing. - slow down reproduction to say population isn't going up.

Weaken premise/conclusion relationship vs attack premise or conclusion

Weaken answer should weaken the link Wrong answers attack the premise itself (you're supposed to accept the premise as true) or try to independently provide reasons for the conclusion not being true. Most often these are not the correct answer choices!

​FIND FLAW: Sitting in and driving a car for long hours has been known to be bad for one's back. So, it's likely that flying an airplane for long hours has the same consequences.

What is True about one thing =/= True for another thing - TFG car and plane are the same context, what's true for a car is also true for a plane? APPLES =/= ORANGES: Subject Matter

define unambiguous

Clear, certain; not open to more than one interpretation

What does "even though" signify in a stimulus/argument? How does it contribute to the argument?

Concession What comes after the even though is TYPICALLY irrelevant to the argument

Numbers Flaw: AVERAGES

Example: The average salary at the company is currently well over $17,000. Therefore, most of the employees must make over $17,000.

Find Flaws: Tom is friendly. Therefore Tom is social. George makes a lot of money at his job, so we can say he has a successful career.

FRIENDLY =/= SOCIAL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY =/= SUCCESSFUL APPLES =/= ORANGES: Characteristics

Secret Downsides

FTC Other Sides/other factors to consider Overvaluing a trait/traits as more important to consider than others

False Dichotomy Flaw

Falsely splitting the world into only two options - failing to consider possibilities outside of those 2. Since Chris is not tall, he must be short. Flaw: What if he's average?

You need to be in Group A to get a badge. I am in Group A, therefore I will get a badge.

Flaw: necessary but not sufficient! Group A is a necessary condition to get the badge, but just because I am in Group A doesn't mean I will definitely get a badge. Have a Badge --> Must be in Group A Not in Group A --> No Badge This argument's flaw is that it's saying In Group A --> Will Get a Badge (WRONG!!!!!)

Everyone on the team is wearing a headband. Sarah is wearing a headband. So she must be on the team.

Flaw: sufficient but not necessary! Team --> Headband No Headband --> Not on Team Being on the team is sufficient evidence to say that you are wearing a handband. But non team members could ALSO be wearing a headband. This assumes that being on the team is a necessary condition to wearing a headband when it is not. It's just sufficient to show that you will be wearing one.

Similarity between Necessary Assumption and a flaw

If you negate the necessary assumption, it becomes a flaw/assumption

What kind of question is this in LR: Which of the following, if true, is evidence that the explanation given above is only a partial one?

It's a strengthen question disguised as a weaken one - or even a mixture of the two! It's asking for additional support or reasoning - you still want to get to the same conclusion that the argument reached, but find a different piece of support that the author did not consider/mention. It's kind of A -->B weakened by introducing 3rd factor. It's a mix of strengthen and weaken. Argument says conclusion is B. The reason for that is A. The answer to this question would say actually there's also C which gives you B.

If a supporting principle is given within the stimulus, what role does it play in the argument

It's another premise - it's not supporting the other premise, it's providing the link between one premise and the conclusion

RC: In a legal passage, an "opinion" is usually written by?

Judges

Overgeneralization Flaw

Like a part to part flaw Example: The pizza I got tasted good. All the food from that restaurant must taste good.

Common shell game answer tricks

Mess with the word "possibly" Say something about the future when the stimulus talked about the past interchanging quantities like some and none - look for shifts in those things and check if it affects the meaning

Equivocation Flaw and How to Recognize It

When a writer uses the same term in two different senses in an argument. Examples: public interest - this action is not in the public interest. However, the public has an interest in it, so we should do it - first use is good/bad for the public. second time is saying that the public is interested in it. NOTE: To say the issue is equivocation, it needs to be clear which definition is being used in the premise and which in the conclusion. If you yourself are just unclear on the definition being used but it's not OBVIOUSLY being used in the two separate ways (once in premise and once in conclusion) then it's not equivocation. If there is a way to interpret the conclusion with the same definition of the term the way it is used in the premise, then it's not an equivocation flaw!

Endowment Effect

When ownership increases the value of an item buy price vs sell price! maybe i'm not willing to pay a lot to buy it but once i have it, i require a lot more to sell it (value increased for me through ownership)

Find Flaw: This car is heavy. Its engine must be heavy.

Whole to part Just because the whole car has a trait, doesn't mean each individual piece of the car has that trait

Define motif

a decorative design or pattern a distinctive feature or dominant idea in an artistic or literary composition

Circular reasoning flaw

a fallacy in which the writer repeats the claim as a way to provide evidence look for repeated phrases or rephrasing something in a different way but saying the same thing in premise and conclusion

what does it mean to qualify a statement

add reservations to; make it less extreme

cultivated definition

agricultural/developed

define facsimile

an exact copy, especially of written or printed material

Define apt

appropriate or suitable in the circumstances

Define prefigure

be an early indication or version of (something)

Absolute vs Relative vs Superlative

be wary of things like "more" or "higher" - depending on context, this can be meaningless absolute = she's tall relative = she's taller than bob superlative = she's the tallest WHEN SOMEONE JUMPS BETWEEN THESE THREE - BE WARY. you need the conditions to line up properly to allow for a shift between the 3. otherwise you can't jump from one to the other Example: People tend to like chocolate more than sour candy overall. However, people like sour worms more than sour gummy bears. So they must like sour worms more than chocolate. WRONG!! Now we know that amongst the sour candies, worms>bears. But, we don't know if worms now surpassed chocolate in the ranking or if chocolate is still higher than all kinds of sour candies.

Define iconoclastic

characterized by attack on cherished beliefs or institutions

define eschew

deliberately avoid using; abstain from.

Define incipient

in an initial stage; beginning to happen or develop

Define "Invariably"

in every case; always

indicators of author support in RC

positive tone/terms while talking about one side structure of passage (is one side getting the final word/responding to the criticism? is one side getting more word count dedicated to it) etc. If they're not refuting a point they're either generally/implicitly supporting it or just reporting it - choose based on adjectives used in the answer choices

Define ornamental

serving or intended as an ornament; decorative

define vehement (and apply to RC)

showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, or intense. for an author to be vehement about something they need to be obviously passionate. usually this is too strong of a descriptor of an author viewpoint unless you have direct evidence of that intensity/passion

Converting weakening question to resolve discrepancy question

take the conclusion and negate it. now it's another statement/premise. now figure out why the two statements can occur together Why does this work? When you said A therefore not B, you weaken it by saying actually there's these other factors you didn't consider/conditions you didn't think of etc that allow B to happen instead of not B. Now when you switch it to A and yet B (you thought A would lead to not B being the conclusion yet you're seeing B happening) the answer is the same - it's the same condition that weakened the A to not B connection (allowing for just B to happen) that now explains why we have A and B happening rather than A and not B.

Define inimical

tending to obstruct or harm

Define ubiquity

the fact of appearing everywhere or of being very common

Define vitality

the state of being strong and active; energy

define coherency

the state of cohering or sticking together this can refer to either clarity OR things sticking together

"indeed" or "in fact" in RC passages - what does this signify

the stuff that comes after the indeed/in fact is referencing the thing that came before the indeed/in fact

Define subversion

the undermining of the power and authority of an established system or institution

Define proliferate

to reproduce, increase, or spread rapidly

define tacit use in RC?

understood or implied without being stated RC: author doesn't necessarily say their view one way or another, but you can infer their agreement with something one way or another (spend more time on it, don't blindly pick or blindly eliminate)

Synonyms for unless

until without except

Straw Man Fallacy

when a speaker ignores the actual position of an opponent and substitutes it with a distorted and exaggerated position and responds to that - responding to a straw man (an argument that's not really there)

define extant

(especially of a document) still in existence; surviving.

Strengthening Argument with Correlation/Causation Flaw

1) Block one of the omitted options if it says A-->B then block B-->A or third factor 2) Data confirming findings 3) Establish Chronology (confirm that A came before B) 4) Coincidence: block competing explanations

Weakening Argument with Correlation/Causation Flaw

1) Confirm one of the omitted options if it says A-->B, introduce possibility that B-->A or C causes both 2) Data against the findings 3) Destroy chronology (show that B existed even before A) 4) Coincidence: check for competing explanations

LR Question Approach

1) read q stem for type (mainly to differentiate if it's an argument or something else) Assuming argument 2) ID conclusion 3) ID support/premise 4) find flaw (especially if it's one of the common ones or weird ones) 5) go through and eliminate wrong answers 6) pick (quick test for correctness) - did it meet q stem goal Not argument 1) read and understand info 2) draw obvious inference if it's there otherwise just grasp concept 3) eliminate wrong answers 4) pick (test)

Find Flaw: "Seven months ago, Ian's photos took up six percent of his computer memory. Today, they take up four percent of the memory on his computer. Ian must have deleted some photos, or in some other way lessened the amount of memory they are taking up on his computer."

1+1=/=3: Context Issues - who said what's true for his laptop 7 months ago is true for it now? maybe he got a new computer? maybe he increased total memory available so the percent dropped (can also be linked to percent =/= number flaw here)

Find Flaw: "George is the hardest working employee in his division, but the same cannot be said about Karla and her division. So, if we want to promote a hard worker to the upper management position, George is a stronger candidate than Karla."

1+1=/=3: Reasoning Issues Perhaps George happens to be the only person who works moderately hard in a division full of lazy employees, and perhaps Karla actually works far harder than George does. Using comparisons to make an absolute statement! apples =/= oranges as well. Hardest working in his group doesn't mean that he is a hard worker. jumping between absolute, relative, etc.

Correlation vs Causation - 4 Options

1. A --> B 2. B --> A 3. C --> B and C --> A (third factor) 4. No relationship

Appeal Fallacies

1. Appeal to Authority- uses the opinion of an authority in an attempt to persuade the reader 2. Appeal to Popular Opinion/ Appeal to Numbers- this error states that a position is true because the majority believe it to be true 3. Appeal to Emotion- occurs when emotions or emotionally charged language is used in an attempt to persuade the reader answer is: who cares if a majority says it? who cares if the experts say it (that doesn't automatically make it true)? etc

APPLES =/= ORANGES

3 Types 1. Subject Matter 2. Characteristics/Traits 3. Relationships

Taxpayer: For the last ten years, Metro City's bridge-maintenance budget of $1 million annually has been a prime example of fiscal irresponsibility. In a well-run bridge program, the city would spend $15 million a year on maintenance, which would prevent severe deterioration, thus limiting capital expenses for needed bridge reconstruction to $10 million. However, as a result of its attempt to economize, the city is now faced with spending $400 million over two years on emergency reconstruction of its bridges. The main point of the taxpayer's argument (A) should have budgeted substantially more money for maintenance of its bridges (B) would have had a well-run bridge program if it had spent more money for reconstruction of its bridges (C) is spending more than it needs to on maintenance of its bridges (D) is economizing on its bridge program to save money in case of emergencies (E) has bridges that are more expensive to maintain than they were to build

Answer: A Why: We need a paraphrase of "for the last 10 years, MC's bridge maintenance budget has been a prime example of fiscal irresponsibility". Should/ought are 'normative' ideas, so they're somewhat interchangeable with any sort of value judgment about good/bad/right/wrong/justified/unjustified.

The postmodern view involves the rejection of modern assumptions about order and the universality of truth. The grand theories of the modern era are now seen as limited by the social and historical contexts in which they were elaborated. Also, the belief in order has given way to a belief in the importance of irregularity and chaos. It follows that we inhabit a world full of irregular events, and in which there are no universal truths. The argument's reasoning is questionable because the argument (A) infers that something is the case because it is believed to be the case (B) uses the term "universal" ambiguously (C) relies on the use of emotional terms to bolster its conclusion (D) uses the term "order" ambiguously (E) fails to cite examples of modern theories that purport to embody universal truths

Answer: A - infers something is the case because it is believed to be the case Flaw: Fact vs Belief!!!

Television news coverage gives viewers a sense of direct involvement with current events but does not provide the depth of coverage needed for the significance of those events to be appreciated. Newspapers, on the other hand, provide depth of coverage but no sense of direct involvement. Unfortunately, a full understanding of current events requires both an appreciation of their significance and a sense of direct involvement with them. Therefore, since few people seek out news sources other than newspapers and television, few people ever fully understand current events. The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument (A) treats two things, neither one of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the other, as though they were mutually exclusive (B) ignores the possibility that people read newspapers or watch television for reasons other than gaining a full understanding of current events (C) makes crucial use of the term "depth of coverage" without defining it (D) fails to consider the possible disadvantages of having a sense of direct involvement with tragic or violent events (E) mistakenly reasons that just because something has the capacity to perform a given function it actually does so

Answer: A treats two things, neither one of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the other, as though they were mutually exclusive Flaw: False Dichotomy!!! What if people watch tv AND read newspapers, so they get the full understanding!?

FIND AND EXPLAIN ALL THE TRAP ANSWERS + FIND THE COOKIE CUTTER WEAKENING ANSWER Almost all cases of rabies in humans come from being bitten by a rabid animal, and bats do carry rabies. But there is little justification for health warnings that urge the removal of any bats residing in buildings where people work or live. Bats are shy animals that rarely bite, and the overwhelming majority of bats do not have rabies. Which one of the following, if true, most weakens Pratt's argument? A) A rabid bat is much more likely to infect another bat than to infect any other type of animal B) Rabid bats are less mobile than other bats but are much more aggressive C) Most animals that carry rabies are animals of species that, under normal conditions, very rarely bite people. D) The bat species with the highest incidents of rabies do not live in buildings E) People are more likely to be aware of having been bitten by a bat if they were bitten by the bat inside a building.

Answer: B A - this doesn't really matter. also more likely doesn't tell us anything about how serious the threat really is to humans. The premise already implied its low because they rarely bite, so this isn't contributing one way or another - cookie cutter thing they did here is the "more" that means NOTHING B - CORRECT ANSWER. COOKIE CUTTER: saying that the premises may in fact be true (bats are shy, rarely bite, most don't have rabies) but that premise is a general one and it does not apply to our subset (aka the bats that DO have rabies are more aggressive/likely to bite, so even if there's very few of them, that's a potential risk and makes us question whether there is no justification for the health warnings) C - COOKIE CUTTER TRAP: who cares about other examples that are similar? ok so other species like rats, dogs, mice, etc that can carry rabies are under normal conditions non-biters. This tells us nothing about our premise/conclusion link. WHO CARES ABOUT OTHER SIMILAR EXAMPLES??? this doesn't even tell us anything about those examples, but even if it did, how do we know that those things and bats are comparable on all the relevant factors? D - COOKIE CUTTER use of "highest." ok the one with 99% incidence doesn't live in buildings. maybe the one with 98% incidence does? highest/higher is so relative E - who cares?

A number of seriously interested amateur astronomers have tested the new Exodus refractor telescope. With it, they were able to observe in crisp detail planetary features that were seen only as fuzzy images in their 8-inch (approximately 20-centimeter) Newtonian telescopes, even though the 8-inch telescopes, with their wider apertures, gather more light than the 4-inch (approximately 10-centimeter) Exodus. Given these amateur astronomers' observational findings, any serious amateur astronomer ought to choose the Exodus if she or he is buying a telescope for planetary observation. Which one of the following most seriously weakens the argument? A) Telescopes of certain types will not perform well unless they have been precisely collimated, a dedicate adjustment requiring deftness. B) Image quality is only one of several different factors that, taken together, should determine the choice of a telescope for planetary observation. C) Many serious amateur astronomers have no intention of buying a telescope for planetary observation. D) The comparisons made by the amateur astronomers were made during several different observation sessions. E) The substance used to make the lenses of Exodus telescopes differs from that used in the lenses of other telescopes.

Answer: B TFG that's the only factor to consider. Overvaluing a trait! Trap Answer is A - which are these "certain types?" Is the Newtonian amongst those? Also does amateur astronomer = lacking in deftness? ALSO the conclusion is specifically directed at the amateur astronomers! So even if we make all those assumptions that A requires, it actually strengthens the argument. If deftness comes with experience and Newtonian ones require calibration which requires deftness, then amateur astronomers don't have those necessary traits and can't use the Newtonian one. So they SHOULD get the exodus one! C is shell game - we don't know about serious vs not serious astronomers. Even if you make the WRONG assumption that serious = experienced, it's still shell game

Marianna: The problem of drunk driving has been somewhat ameliorated by public education and stricter laws. Additional measures are nevertheless needed. People still drive after drinking, and when they do the probability is greatly increased that they will cause an accident involving death or serious injury. David: I think you exaggerate the dangers of driving while drunk. Actually, a driver who is in an automobile accident is slightly less likely to be seriously injured if drunk than if sober. In responding to Marianna's argument, David makes which one of the following errors of reasoning? A) He contradicts himself. B) He assumes what he is seeking to establish. C) He contradicts Marianna's conclusion without giving any evidence for his point of view. D) he argues against a point that is not one that Marianna was making. E) He directs his criticism against the person making the argument rather than directing it against the argument itself.

Answer: D Flaw: STRAW MAN! because you can read David's response and say "But actually, she was saying..." Marianna said that a drunk driver will be more likely to CAUSE an accident that results in injury (which means either to the driver himself or someone in the other car/pedestrian etc) David said "the drunk person is less likely to get injured." BUT WHAT ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE - Marianna was including the others in there and he's addressing something else entirely. The other answers are trap answers - all common flaws that just don't apply here A - contradiction, where? he makes one statement that the drunk driver won't be as likely to get injured, and concludes that she is exaggerating the risk. he's wrong, but he's not contradicting himself. WRONG =/= CONTRADICTION! B - circular reasoning - where? he has a premise for support and a conclusion. doesn't work but they're two different statements C - he does give evidence - the likelihood of the drunk driver getting injured. the argument is bad but it is not lacking evidence. it's lacking the right kind of evidence E - ad hominem? he doesn't criticize her at all.

Members of the Amazonian Akabe people commonly take an early-morning drink of a tea made from the leaves of a forest plant. Althought they greatly enjoy this drink, at dawn they drink it only in small amounts. Anthropologists hypothesize that since this tea is extraordinarily high in caffeine, the explanation for the Akabe's not drinking more of it at dawn is that high caffeine intake would destroy the surefootedness that their daily tasks require. Which one of the following, if true, most seriously calls the anthropologists' explanation into question? A) The drink is full of nutrients otherwise absent from the Akabe diet B) The Akabe also drink the tea in the evening, after their day's work is done C) The leaves use for the tea contain a soluble narcotic D) Akabe children are introduced to the tea in only a very weak form. E) When celebrating, the Akabe drink this tea in large quantities.

Answer: C Conclusion/Hypothesis: the drink less at night because caffeine interferes with doing daily tasks Support: less at night, drink it in the early morning; it has a lot of caffeine Flaw: What if there's another reason that they don't drink it at night? What if the caffeine isn't really an issue? Think of it as resolve discrepancy question! Statement 1: It's an early morning drink and it has a lot of caffeine Statement 2 (conclusion negated): They drink a lot of it a night too though. HOW COME? Which answer choice explains why they would drink it at night anyways? C tells us that it has a narcotic - answers our question. Yes, it has caffeine but it also has a narcotic so it's not interfering with their sleep/surefootedness just because it has caffeine in it A and E are irrelevant; B furthers the issue if we think of it as RRE (why are they drinking it at the end of the day? Yes they have no more work for today but how will they sleep and be productive the next day??) and D is also irrelevant

Jane: Television programs and movies that depict violence among teenagers are extremely popular. Given how influential these media are, we have good reason to believe that these depictions cause young people to engage in violent behavior. Hence, depictions of violence among teenagers should be prohibited from movies and television programs, if only in those programs and movies promoted to young audiences. Maurice: But you are recommending nothing short of censorship! Besides which, your claim that television and movie depictions of violence cause violence is mistaken: violence among young people predates movies and television by centuries. Maurice's attempted refutation of Jane's argument is vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds? A) It presupposes that an unpopular policy cannot possible achieve its intended purpose. B) It confuses a subjective judgment of private moral permissibility with an objective description of social fact. C) It rules out something as a cause of a current phenomenon solely on the ground that the phenomenon used to occur without that thing. D) It cites purported historical facts that cannot possibly be verified. E) It relies on an ambiguity in the term "violence" to justify a claim.

Answer: C This is playing on the "cause" vs "only cause" of something. M implied that A couldn't have caused B because we've seen B without A. The correct way to do this would have been to say we see A but don't see B. Maybe B can exist without A but if you have A it will definitely create B. What she said doesn't rule that out. To understand, think about this analogy: This sleeping pill can't cause people to sleep better because sleeping is something we saw amongst humans before the pill was invented. FLAW: okay people slept before - who cares? Taking the pill could still cause sleep? Just think about it logically. For an insomniac, maybe the pill does cause them to sleep - who cares if some people or even most people used to sleep fine without it before. (this is very different from saying I was already asleep when they injected the contents of the pill into my veins so the pill couldn't have caused me to sleep)

A university study reported that between 1975 and 1983 the length of the average workweek in a certain country increased significantly. A governmental study, on the other hand, shows a significant decline in the length of the average workweek for the same period. Examination of the studies shows, however, that they used different methods of investigation; thus there is no need to look further for an explanation of the difference in the studies' results. The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to A) distinguish between a study produced for the purposes of the operation of government and a study produced as part of university research B) distinguish between a method of investigation and the purpose of an investigation C) recognize that only one of the studies has been properly conducted D) recognize that two different methods of investigation can yield identical results E) recognize that varying economic conditions result in the average workweek changing in length

Answer: D Conclusion: don't need to look for any other explanation Support: they have different methodologies Flaw: Is the different methodology relevant to the difference in results? Is having that a guarantee that you will have different results? FTC any other thing that could have led to different findings and TFG that that is the one thing that DID lead to different findings Answer choice D is saying they fail to consider that different methods can give you the same findings (this is the negation of the NA, which would be that different methods cannot give you the same findings). If you negate that NA, you get this flaw (they can give you the same findings), which destroys the conclusion that this HAS to be the reason for the different findings.

Mayor: The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights serves no useful purpose. After all, in order to serve a useful purpose, a law must deter the kind of behavior it prohibits. But pedestrians who invariably violate this law are clearly not dissuaded by it; and those who comply with the law do not need it, since they would never cross against red lights even if there were no law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights. The mayor's argument is flawed because it (A) takes for granted that most automobile drivers will obey the law that prohibits them from driving through red lights (B) uses the word "law" in one sense in the premises and in another sense in the conclusion (C) ignores the possibility that a law might not serve a useful purpose even if it does deter the kind of behavior it prohibits (D) fails to consider whether the law ever dissuades people who sometimes but not always cross against red lights (E) provides no evidence that crossing against red lights is more dangerous than crossing on green lights

Answer: D Flaw: False Dichotomy!!! It only talks about people who invariably (ALWAYS) violate the law vs those that never violate it. There's people in between!

Find Flaws: Ted says he loves Janice. Janice must therefore love Ted. Gerald joined that new exercise class and it helped him get in incredible shape. That's probably how Jill also got in such great shape.

Assuming that the relationship between elements in a premise equates to the relationship between elements in a conclusion APPLES =/= ORANGES: Relationships OTHER FLAWS IN THIS: - context: what if what's true for Ted is not true for Janice; what if what's true for Gerald is not true for Jill - correlation/causation: Just because Gerald and Jill both lost weight, doesn't mean it was caused by an exercise class for both; what if something else caused Jill's weight loss

Ad Hominem

Attacking the source of the argument and concluding that the conclusion must therefore be false.

Consumer advocate: Last year's worldwide alarm about a computer "virus" - a surreptitiously introduced computer program that can destroy other programs and data - was a fraud. Companies selling programs to protect computers against such viruses raised worldwide concern about the possibility that a destructive virus could be activated on a certain date. There was more smoke than fire, however; only about a thousand cases of damage were reported around the world. Multitudes of antivirus programs were sold, so the companies' warning was clearly only an effort to stimulate sales. The reasoning in the consumer advocate's argument is flawed because this argument A) restates its conclusion without attempting to offer a reason to accept it B) fails to acknowledge that antivirus programs might protect against viruses other than the particular one described C) asserts that the occurrence of one event after another shows that the earlier event was the cause of the later one D) uses inflammatory language as a substitute for providing any evidence E) overlooks the possibility that the protective steps taken did work and, for many computers prevented the virus from causing damage

Answer: E A - it does give reasons (the sales, the fact that not many people got viruses etc. this is an attempt to imply circular reasoning, A COMMON TRAP ANSWER) B - other viruses are irrelevant to this argument C - TRAP ANSWER. break it down/parse it out. it says occurrence of one event (more sales) after another (warning about virus) implies that the earlier event (warning) was a cause of the later one (sales). The warnings causing the increase in sales is NOT the conclusion! Conclusion is that the MOTIVATION behind the warning was to increase sales. This doesn't do anything to that argument. In fact, it's kind of restating a premise (we are already basically told that lots of antivirus programs were sold because of these warnings) D - there's no inflammatory language; also a trap answer that is in there for when you get desperate to pick an answer E - YES this is a common answer: we are seeing mitigated effects so we can't draw a conclusion (like the motivations) from the result we're seeing because that result could have an alternate cause! Maybe we had few viruses and lots of sales not because they lied to get sales, but because they were right so people bought the programs and were protected from the virus. Raises doubts on the conclusion about their motivations. SIMILAR EXAMPLE: seasickness question, people took seasickness meds and did just about as well as those who didn't. it's not because the meds are fake! it could be because the meds worked and if they hadn't taken the meds, they would've done EVEN WORSE.

Professor: It has been argued that all judges should be elected rather than appointed to their positions. But this is a bad idea. If judges ran for election, they would have to raise campaign funds. Thus, they would be likely to accept campaign contributions from special interests. It is well-known that such contributions lead to conflicts of interest for politicians, so it is to be expected that they would produce similar conflicts of interest for judges. Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify the professor's reasoning? A) If politicians should avoid conflicts of interest, then judges should avoid conflicts of interest as well. B) Special interests should not make offers of campaign contributions to those running for elective office. C) Judges should be appointed to their positions only if doing so ensures that they will usually be able to avoid conflicts of interest. D) If judges should be appointed, then it is likely that there are other public offices that should be changed from elected to appointed offices. E) No public offices for which election campaigning would be likely to produce conflicts of interest should be changed from an appointed to an elected office.

Answer: E Conclusion: don't switch from appoint to elect (elect is bad) Support: Elect --> raise funds --> accept contributions from SI --> COI (like for politicans) Flaw: Missing the COI --> don't elect or Elect --> NO COI A - do we know politicians should avoid though? we aren't told this, so this won't fix the argument; this is attempting to make this a flaw in analogy/context issue, but that's not the main flaw here B - we don't know anything about what the other groups should or shouldn't do, just about what the situation should or should not be for judges C - TRAP ANSWER THAT I HAVE SEEN BEFORE - they said it's a bad idea (definitively) for us to make this switch; this introduces a condition in which it's okay to introduce, but we don't want that; also nothing was said about needing to avoid; the issue was COI exists, and the author is implying that that automatically means you don't make the switch. ALSO: This is adding your own judgment into it. Nothing about avoiding COI was mentioned, but that was a personal assumption added. D - we don't know about elections in other offices; this is an inference that is unsupported and also does not do the job of being a SA E - COI --> NOT SWITCH to elect - this matches

Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain crimes have enhanced the integrity of our system of justice, for no longer are there two kinds of justice, the kind dispensed by lenient judges and the kind dispensed by severe ones. Public advocate: But with judges stripped of discretionary powers, there can be no leniency even where it would be appropriate. So juries now sometimes acquit a given defendant solely because the jurors feel that the mandatory sentence would be too harsh. Those juries, then, do not return an accurate verdict on the defendant's guilt. This is why it is imperative that the legislation instituting mandatory jail sentences be repealed. Which one of the following principles, if valid, provides the politician with the strongest basis for countering the public advocate's argument? (A) Juries should always consider whether the sum of the evidence leaves any reasonable doubt concerning the defendant's guilt, and in all cases in which it does, they should acquit the defendant. (B) A system of justice should clearly define what the specific actions are that judges are to perform within the system. (C) A system of justice should not require any legal expertise on the part of the people selected to serve on juries. (D) Changes in a system of justice in response to some undesirable feature of the system should be made as soon as possible once that feature has been recognized as undesirable. (E) Changes in a system of justice that produce undesirable consequences should be reversed only if it is not feasible to ameliorate those undesirable consequences through further modification.

Answer: E The public advocate concluded that we HAVE to repeal the legislation. Answer choice E introduces a different consideration - maybe we don't have to repeal? Maybe there are solutions available to modify it that would work and we don't have to repeal THINK RRE: "the verdicts are wrong but we do not want to repeal. HOW COME? Because maybe we can modify it" - also think of false dichotomy!!! Maybe our choices aren't keep vs repeal! Maybe there's a middle ground to modify

FIND TRAP ANSWERS Sales manager: Last year the total number of meals sold in our company's restaurants was much higher than it was the year before. Obviously consumers find our meals desirable. Accountant: If you look at individual restaurants, however, you find that the number of meals sold actually decreased substantially at every one of our restaurants that was in operation both last year and the year before. The desirability of our meals to consumers has clearly decreased, given that this group of restaurants-the only ones for which we have sales figures that permit a comparison between last year and the year before- demonstrates a trend toward fewer sales. Which one of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the accountant's argument? (A) The company's restaurants last year dropped from their menus most of the new dishes that had been introduced the year before. (B) Prior to last year there was an overall downward trend in the company's sales. (C) Those of the company's restaurants that did increase their sales last year did not offer large discounts on prices to attract customers. (D) Sales of the company's most expensive meal contributed little to the overall two-year sales increase. (E) Most of the company's restaurants that were in operation throughout both last year and the year before are located in areas where residents experienced a severe overall decline in income last year.

Answer: E A - irrelevant B - shell game! we don't care about prior to last year. whatever it was before, sales manager already told us we reversed that trend by getting an overall increase in sales. C - do we care about the ones that did increase their sales? technically we have none of those. accountant said that everyone went down except new restaurants (which have no comparison point). so we're focusing on the ones that went down - even if there were ones who went up, they don't seem to affect this argument (SHELL GAME) D - SALES amount is irrelevant!! The argument only cares about NUMBER OF SALES - numbers issue!!! E - CORRECT ANSWER - PROVIDES ALTERNATE CAUSE FOR SALES DECREASE (not the desirability of the meals)

Thinking of a Flaw Question as a Necessary Assumption Question

Argument "Takes for Granted / Assumes that X." X is a necessary assumption! It's the implicit assumption/unmentioned premise that completes the argument and is necessary for the argument to work "Argument Fails to Consider that X." The necessary assumption is "NOT X." Negation test on that: if X is true then that destroys the argument! Must Be True Test: X cannot be true if the argument is to work!

Value Judgments Flaw

Assigning moral/immoral, good/bad, should/shouldn't, appropriate/inappropriate in the conclusion but not before that

Gifts of cash or gift cards, which allow the recipient to choose the actual gift, are more highly valued by recipients than are gifts chosen for them by others. In a study, when people were asked how much they would have been willing to pay for gifts chosen for them by others, they responded by citing amounts that were on average only about two-thirds of the actual price of the gifts. Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist's argument? A) The rate at which gifts are returned to retailers has been steadily increasing since the rate was first measured. B) Gifts of cash and gift cards currently represent only about 14 percent of all gift giving. C) People in the study would have been willing to pay more for gifts chosen for them by close friends and relatives than for gifts chosen for them by others. D) People are unwilling to sell gifts chosen for them by others unless offered about one and a half times the gift's actual price. E) Most retailers require receipts before people can return gifts for refund or exchange.

Conclusion: cash/gift cards valued higher than gifts chosen for them Support: study where people said they'd pay less than the value for gifts chosen by others Flaw: ENDOWMENT EFFECT; value of something changes once you own it, so what if the buy price they offer is not an accurate reflection of how much they value it?? What about sell price?? Answer: D A - if anything this strengthens (people aren't liking the gifts people pick for them) B - irrelevant C - the number they gave us (2/3 of price) is already an average. this is looking deeper into that number and saying some are higher (close friends), which we assume when we have an average. it also doesn't tell us HOW MUCH HIGHER!!! is it now higher than the value of the gift? or lower still, but just 9/10 instead of 2/3 or something? BE WARY OF RELATIVE VS ABSOLUTE LIKE THIS D - CORRECT ANSWER; introduces endowment effect and the other option to tell value - sell price E - who cares

In Australia, the population that is of driving age has grown large over the last five years, but the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined. This leads to the conclusion that, overall, the driving-age population of Australia consists of more skillful drivers now than five years ago. Each of the statements below, if true, weakens the argument EXCEPT: (A) Three years ago, a mandatory seat-belt law went into effect throughout Australia. (B) Five years ago, Australia began a major road repair project. (C) Because of increases in the price of fuel, Australians on average drive less each year than in the preceding year. (D) The number of hospital emergency facilities in Australia has doubled in the last five years. (E) In response to an increase in traffic fatalities, Australia instituted a program of mandatory driver education five years ago.

Conclusion: more skillful drivers now are the cause of decrease in fatalities Support: Phenomenon/Observation that driving age pop up but number of FATALITIES down ANSWER: E A - seatbelts are alternate cause for decrease in fatalities B - road repair --> less accidents = alternate cause for decrease in fatalities C - people are driving less; probability of accidents go down = alternate cause for decrease D - hospital FACILITIES increase, so there's more hospitals to treat the people from the accidents - alternate cause for fatalities down E - CORRECT ANSWER; this kind of strengthens the argument - it's BUILDING upon the "skillful drivers" conclusion/hypothesis. it's confirming that yes, people have become more skilled. the training is the reason for it. Training --> Skill --> Lower fatalities (it's just adding the training part to this conditional, the skill --> lower fatalities WAS ALREADY THERE)

Studies indicate that the rate at which water pollution is increasing is leveling off: the amount of water pollution caused this year is almost identical to the amount caused last year. If this trend continues, the water pollution problem will no longer be getting more serious. The reasoning is questionable because it ignores the possibility that A) some types of water pollution have no noticeable effect on organisms that use the water B) the types of water pollution caused this year are less dangerous than those caused last year C) the leveling-off trend of water pollution will not continue D) air and soil pollution are becoming more serious E) the effects of water pollution are cumulative

Conclusion: water pollution problem will no longer be getting more serious Support: rater of WP increase is leveling off (this year was about the same amount of pollution as last year) Flaw: What if the amount that it increases doesn't directly correlate with the overall problem! Let's say last year the increase was 5%. This year the increase was also 5%. If it increases by 5% every single year, isn't that building up to a LOT? does last year's go away and each year is treated independently?? REMEMBER THE RATES VS AGGREGATE TOTAL FLAW!!! Answer: E A -"some types" and "organisms" does nothing to or for the argument B - types of water pollution are not differentiated in any way in the argument; also the level of danger of each doesn't matter, we're talking about the sum total of the problem C - THE CONCLUSION SAYS "IF THIS TREND CONTINUES" so this doesn't identify the flaw!! if the "if this trend continues" wasn't included then you could point out C as a flaw of assuming leveling off will not continue D - who cares about other pollution, argument is only about water pollution E - gets at the flaw!! EVEN IF THE TREND CONTINUES and things level off (only 5% increase each year for example) ultimately the problem is going to get worse because it's aggregating

A member of the British parliament is reputed to have said, "The first purpose of good social reform is to increase the sum total of human happiness. So, any reform which makes somebody happy is achieving its purpose. Since the reform I propose would make my constituents happy, it is a good social reform." Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument attributed to the member of Parliament (include analysis)? A) Different things make different people happy. B) The proposed reform would make a few people happy, but would not increase the happiness of most other people. C) The proposed reform would affect only the member of Parliament's constituents and would make them happy. D) Increasing some people's happiness might not increase the sum total of human happiness if others are made unhappy. E) Good social reforms usually have widespread support.

NOTICE THE S --> IC --> C structure! P1: First purpose of good social reform is to increase sum total of human happiness IC: Any reform which makes somebody happy is achieving its purpose. P2: This reform would make my constituents happy C: It is a good social reform The issue is between P1 and IC! Making somebody happy =/= Increasing sum total of happiness. If this were true then the final conclusion would be fine, it would work based on that analysis. BUT that Support to IC link is flawed! What if this reform is making somebody happy but EVERYONE else unhappy? The sum total happiness could go down and make it a bad reform. Answer: D D gets at this issue between premise and IC A and E are irrelevant B and C are trying to do what D says but not accomplishing it - they are just saying not everyone is going to increase in happiness, only a subset is. So? If 3/5 people get happier, sum total is still going up. D brings in the idea of the other 2 decreasing in happiness, which impacts the sum total NUMBERS!!!!!

Find Flaw: I once made a home run. Therefore, I will now always make a home run

Overgeneralization; a single instance used to create a general principle

Find Flaw: This engine is light. The car must be light too.

Part to Whole Just because a part of the car has a trait, doesn't mean the whole car has that trait. What if the other pieces are heavy? Or added together the car ends up being very heavy, and the engine just happens to be a light part.

Find Flaw: Shane sold 1000 more yoyos today than he did yesterday. Therefore, his market share must have increased

Percents =/= Numbers Do we know if the overall market for yo-yos stayed the same? Without knowing that we can't say anything about his market share based on the change in his absolute number of sales. Maybe his market share went down because everybody else increased by way way way more and he now makes up a smaller percentage of the total

Find Flaw: Shane's market share rose from 10% to 20%. His sales must have dropped.

Percents =/= Numbers Do we know if the overall market stayed the same? Maybe the overall market got smaller. So Shane had no change in sales, but his market share increased

Sufficient Assumption

Powerful Makes the conclusion 100% true Test: place it between premise and support

Possibility =/= Certainty

Premise says could be false, so conclusion says it must be false Premise says could be true, so conclusion says must be true

1+1=/=3

Premises added together do not lead to conclusion Context Issues Reasoning Issues

Necessary Assumption

Provable Must Be True if the conclusion is true Tests: - Must Be True - Negation Test (if false, does it destroy the conclusion, aka the contrapositive test)

What is a shell game wrong answer

Provides information that is SIMILAR to something in the stimulus, but which is different enough to be unsupported.