LSAT Logical Reasoning Section

A test that examines people on their memory capacity for spatial layouts has placed Jason in the top 1 percentile of all test-takers. We can conclude from this that his memory capacity for things that do not involve spatial layouts will be below average. The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed? AJason tried hard to remember spatial layouts. BJason has a greater proclivity to remember spatial layouts than most people. CIt is possible for Jason to improve, through practice and effort, his memory capacity for things that do not involve spatial layouts. DThe total memory capacity of the human brain is fixed and equal for all people. ESome people have a greater memory capacity than others.

- Close Explanation Solution Argument construction A test that examines people on their memory capacity for spatial layouts has placed Jason in the top 1 percentile of all test-takers. We can conclude from this that his memory capacity for things that do not involve spatial layouts will be below average. The structure of the argument is: Premise: Jason is in the top 1 percentile of all people in his memory capacity for spatial layouts. This means, his 'memory capacity for spatial layouts' (called Ms henceforth for easier reference) is better than 99% of all test-takers. In other words, it is outstanding! Conclusion: We can conclude from this that his memory capacity for things that do not involve spatial layouts (called Mo - 'o' for other things - henceforth for easier reference) will be below average. Looking at this argument, we see a gap between the premise and conclusion - being outstanding in Ms does not necessarily guarantee that one's Mo will be below average. This is the loophole that the correct answer choice will have to plug. The correct answer choice will be one which, when added to the argument's premise, would produce a conclusive argument, that is, an argument with no gaps in its support for the conclusion. Let us analyze the options one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This option is incorrect. When we take this option statement as a premise and combine it with the premise of the argument, does the conclusion logically follow? No. This option statement only provides a plausible reason for why Jason's Ms is outstanding. It does not offer any support for the conclusion, which is about his Mo. B. This option is incorrect. The reasons are similar to the ones discussed in Option A above. C. This option is incorrect. The premise in the argument is that Jason's Ms is outstanding. The premise offered by this option statement is that it is possible for Jason (through practice and effort) to improve his Mo. When these two premises are combined, the conclusion that Jason's Mo is below-average does not logically follow. In fact, one wonders how, when it is possible to improve one's Mo, can such a definite declaration as the argument's conclusion be made. D. This option is correct. According to this option statement, the total memory capacity, M, is equal for all people. Also, M is a fixed number. It cannot be increased or decreased. Now, If Jason has higher Ms than most people, then it does follow that his Mo is lower than most people. Therefore, when this option statement is combined with the argument's premise, there is no gap left in the argument and the conclusion follows logically. E. This option is incorrect. If some people have a greater (total) memory capacity than others, then it could be possible that Jason has both an outstanding Ms and an outstanding Mo, therefore, ending up with an outstanding total memory capacity M as compared to most people. Therefore, when this option statement is combined with the premise, the conclusion does not logically follow.

Many home renters buy their first homes believing that it is clearly more profitable to make mortgage payments than to pay rent. Other costs, such as maintenance, property taxes, and insurance must be factored in, however. All housing expenses together total at least 40% of most homeowners' income. It is not financially reasonable to spend any more than 30% of income on housing expenses. If the information is correct, which of the following cannot be true? A. A majority of homeowners have unreasonable housing expenses B. A minority of homeowners have unreasonable housing expenses C. The combination of property taxes, insurance, and home maintenance costs is greater than mortgage payments for a minority of homeowners D. A majority of renters pay an unreasonable amount for housing expenses E. A minority of homeowners have reasonable housing expenses

A minority of homeowners have unreasonable housing expenses

Each year, the number of students caught copying in examination is nearly the same as the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license and the number of students caught traveling without a valid ticket. Therefore, the outcry about copying in examination ought to be put to rest, as the act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively undermine the author's argument? A. Although the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license each year is very small, the total number of incidences of students traveling without a valid ticket is many times greater. B. The punishments upon being caught copying in examination are graver than those upon being caught driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. C. Fewer students would take their chances with driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket than with copying in examination. D. Cheating in general—including copying in examination—is more prevalent than driving without a valid driving license. E. The prevalence of wrongdoings such as copying in examination, driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket among students is inversely proportional to their probability of getting caught.

Argument construction The argument attempts to convince that since the number of students caught copying in examination each year is nearly the same as the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license each year, and the number of students caught traveling without a valid ticket, the uproar about the act of copying in examination is not required. Copying in examination in fact almost as commonplace as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. Conclusion: The act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. Predict a Weakener We need to weaken the conclusion that the act of copying in examination is almost as ordinary as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. We must cast a doubt over the comparison between the act of copying in examination and the acts of driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket. The weakener of the argument would be something that shows Copying in Examinations to be extraordinary (in some respect) as compared to the other two acts. Though all the three acts mentioned attract punishments, do the quantum or the degree of punishments differ? Certainly, they do! The punishments for driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket are usually monetary; however, those for copying in examination could be: disgrace, discredit for the test, reexamination, repetition of the course, debarring from the course, and in the extreme case, criminal prosecution. These are certainly severer than the monitory punishments. And this makes the act of copying in examination incomparable to that of driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket. Predictive Weakener: The consequences for the act of copying in examination are severer than those for driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket. Answer choices explanation: This is incorrect. The statement does not talk about the act of copying in examination. It tries to make a relationship between the other two acts, which are not the focus of the conclusion. This is correct. This matches our predictive weakener. This is incorrect. The premise mentions that the number of students caught each year for the three acts of wrongdoings is similar. This option states that there are fewer students who are inclined to try driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket than are inclined to try copying in examination. So, we can infer that there is a relatively greater number of students who copy in examinations. Thus, this option rather bolsters the claim that the act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as (or, in fact, more mundane than) the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. It is rather a strengthener. This is incorrect. This is not a weakener. It is a generic statement and lacks reasoning to weaken the argument. This is incorrect. From the premise, we know that the number of students caught copying in examination is similar to the number driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. However, the probability of getting caught for each of these three wrongdoings may be different. For example, copying in examinations may be more strictly checked than traveling without a valid ticket. Therefore, the prevalence of the three wrongdoings may be different. This option does not give us any information to mark out copying in examinations as in any way extraordinary or distinct from the other two wrongdoings.

Palmistry—the art of understanding an individual's present personality and predicting his or her future state through the study of the shape, size, and lines of the hands—is an unscientific technique. In a study, most palmists' assertions about the present financial status of the individuals in the sample population were found to be mere intelligent guesses. Which one of the following is an assumption necessary to the argument? A. Individuals with the same financial status usually do not have a similar personality. B. There is a stable correlation between an individual's personality and his or her financial status. C. Palmistry is an effective means of predicting how personalities of individuals evolve over the long term. D. There are numerous other methods for understanding the personality of an individual that are more precise than palmistry. E. The financial future of a person is one of the most important concerns that palmists address.

B. This is correct. This matches our second predictive assumption. Argument construction Palmistry is the art of understanding an individual's personality and predicting his future state through the study of the shape, size, and lines of the hands. But it is an unscientific technique. Many palmists' predictions about the present financial status of the individuals in the sample population were purely smart guesstimates and not scientific deductions. Predict an Assumption As per the given definition, Palmistry is the art of: Understanding the personality Foretelling the future state Of an individual. By seeing your hand, a palmist will both: be able to understand the kind of person that you are today (A) and predict what's going to happen in your future (B) The Conclusion is: Palmistry is Unscientific. Why: Because the study shows that Palmists' assertions about the present Financial Status failed (were merely intelligent guesses). Predictive Assumption(s): Here are the assumptions that this argument makes: Predictive Assumption 1: The study is correct, with no major flaw in its design or calculations. Predictive Assumption 2: Financial status is related to personality (Palmistry is about understanding the present personality whereas the study tested assertions about present financial status. So, the researchers must have thought that present financial status is related to/ a part of personality). Predictive Assumption 3: If Palmistry cannot do A, it cannot do B too. (Though the report only concerns a present attribute of a person (his present financial status), the author makes a conclusion about Palmistry in general, including its ability to predict future states.) Predictive Assumption 4: Scientific things never behave unexpectedly.

If the bookstore does not respond to modern trends, it will not stay in business. And if the bookstore does not offer electronic books in a popular format, it will not respond to modern trends. Furthermore, no electronic book format is popular unless it can be used on each of the top three e-book readers. If the statements above are true, which one of the following must be true? A. Popular electronic book formats generate more business for the bookstore than unpopular formats. B. If the bookstore offers electronic books in a format which can be used on each of the top three e-book readers, it will stay in business. C. It is significantly more likely that the bookstore will stay in business if it responds to modern trends than if it does not respond to them. D. If the bookstore stays in business, it will offer electronic books in a format which can be used on the top three e-book readers. E. The bookstore will probably stay in business if it offers electronic books in a popular format.

If the bookstore stays in business, it will offer electronic books in a format which can be used on the top three e-book readers.

A growing world population has caused growing concerns about increasing famine. The population in 2000 was 6 billion. Ten years later the population was 7 billion. There were also more people affected by famines in 2010 than in 2000. Furthermore, in each year from 2000 to 2010, when the world's population increased, so did the number of those affected by famine. Based on the information given, which of the following is true? A. From 2000 to 2010, when the world's population increased, the percentage of the population affected by famine also increased B. The population increased in every year between 2000 to 2010 C. There was greater concern about famine in 2010 than in 2000 D. If the population decreased in a particular year between 2000 and 2010, the number of those affected by famine also decreased in that year E. If the population increased in 2005, then more people were affected by famine in 2005 than in 2004

If the population increased in 2005, then more people were affected by famine in 2005 than in 2004

Most successful professional football players began playing football as youths, though a significant number learned the sport later in life. No professional football player who ignored the advice of his coaches, however, has ever become successful. If the above statements are true, which of the following must also be true? A. The more attentive a professional football player is to his coaches' advice, the more likely he is to be successful. B. No professional football player who learned the sport later in lafe will ignore his coaches' advice. C. The most successful professional football players played the sport as youths. D. All unsuccessful professional football players have ignored the advice of coaches. E. Not all professional football players who played the sport as youths ignored the advice of coaches.

Not all professional football players who played the sport as youths ignored the advice of coaches.

The print circulation of The World Tribune has shown a 40 percent decline in the past two years. However, the traffic on the newspaper's website has increased by 30 percent during the same period. The website contains many news sections and blogs that are not featured in the print newspaper but are the most read pages of the website. Therefore, to maintain its profits, the newspaper has decided to discontinue its still-profitable print edition and to introduce more content on the website that is similar to the exclusive content on the most read pages of the website. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the decision of The World Tribune depends? AThe print circulation of the newspaper would not have declined further in the near future. BTo access the content on the newspaper's website, the readers of the website will be willing to pay a monthly subscription fees that is equal to the revenue that the print edition of the newspaper earned per reader each month. CThe print circulation of the newspaper declined in the past two years because the newspaper's website offered more interesting content. DThe revenue earned from increased website traffic will not be less than the revenue lost by discontinuing the print edition. EIntroducing more content similar to the exclusive content on the most read pages of the website will increase the newspaper's website traffic further.

Solution Argument Construction This argument features two versions/modes in which The World Tribune newspaper is available: the Print Mode and the newspaper's website (called the Web Mode henceforth). Over the past 2 years: The Print Mode's circulation has decreased by 40% - Premise 1 The Web Mode's traffic has increased by 30% - Premise 2 The website contains many news sections and blogs that are not featured in the print newspaper but are the most read pages of the website. This is Premise 3. The Conclusion drawn (= the decision made) by the newspaper from these three premises is that: to maintain profits, the newspaper should: discontinue the still-profitable Print Mode introduce more exclusive content on the website that is similar to the most read pages of the website. When we analyze the premises of this argument, we realize that from Premises 2 and 3, the decision-makers at the newspaper have assumed that the increase in the Web Mode's traffic is due to the exclusive content that makes for the website's most read pages. It is due to this assumption that they have decided to introduce more such content on the Web Mode. It can also be said that these decision-makers believe (assume) that because such content led to an increase in the website traffic in the past two years, introducing more such content will inevitably increase the website traffic in the future too. That is, they are assuming that a past relationship between two metrics (amount of exclusive content that forms the most-read pages of the Web Mode, website traffic) that held in the past will hold in the future too. Further, the explicit goal of the newspaper is "to maintain its profits." However, the decision that it has taken concerns its reach - because the reach ("circulation") of the Print Mode was decreasing while the reach ("traffic") of the Web Mode was increasing, the newspaper decided to kill the still-profitable Print Mode and focus solely on the Web Mode and take measures to increase the traffic of the Web Mode further. So, one necessary assumption that the decision-makers have made is that the increase in profits from increasing the traffic of the Web Mode will at least offset (if not exceed) the loss of profits due to closing down the Print Mode. At the time of DecisionAfter the DecisionProfits from Print Modex0Profits from Web ModeyzTotal Profitsx+yz The decision-makers assume that this decision will enable them to "maintain profits," that is: z ≥ x + y => z - y ≥ x => (Post-decision Increase in profit from Web-Mode) ≥ (Post-decision Loss of profit from Print-Mode) Therefore, to sum up, the assumptions that have gone into the newspaper's decision are: over the past two years, the increase in the Web Mode's traffic was due to the exclusive content that makes for the website's most read pages in the future too, introducing more such content will continue to drive an increase in the Web Mode's traffic (Post-decision Increase in profit from Web-Mode) ≥ (Post-decision Loss of profit from Print-Mode) In analyzing the options in an assumption question, the Negation Test often comes in handy. Since a necessary assumption is, by definition, vital for the conclusion to be logically valid, we can test an answer choice by deeming it to be false. If, upon doing so, the conclusion no longer holds, this means that the answer choice in question is indeed a necessary assumption. Let's analyze each option one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This option is incorrect. Suppose the print circulation of the newspaper would have declined further in the near future. Then, the perception that the Print Mode is a sinking business would be further strengthened and the newspaper's decision to kill the Print Mode would be validated. So, if we Negate this answer choice, the conclusion (= decision made by the newspaper) stands strengthened, instead of being demolished. Therefore, this answer choice fails the Negation Test. B. This option is incorrect. Let the revenue that the print edition of the newspaper earned per reader each month (at the time of the decision) be dollars. Suppose the readers of the newspaper's website are not willing to pay a subscription fees of dollars per month for access to the website content. Does this necessarily mean that the newspaper will not be able to maintain its profits? No. For example, suppose the readers of the website are only willing to pay a monthly subscription fees of dollars. If the number of website readers is more than ten times the number of print-edition readers (which it very well might be, because, from the argument, we only know the percentage changes in readership of the print-edition and the website traffic, and not the actual numbers), then the revenue from the website subscription fees will be greater than the revenue from the print-edition. If the costs of the website are not greater than the costs of the print-edition, then the profits from the website will be greater than the profits that the print-edition earned at the time of the decision. Therefore, negating this answer choice does not necessarily impact the conclusion. C. This option is incorrect. Suppose the print circulation did not decline in the past two years because of the content offered in the Web Mode but due to some other reason. The facts of the case still remain the same - the print circulation was declining, the Web Mode traffic was increasing, and the newspaper wanted to maintain its profits. So, negating this answer choice has no impact whatsoever on the conclusion drawn. D. This option is incorrect. Suppose the revenue earned from increased website traffic is indeed less than the revenue lost by discontinuing the print edition. However, if the costs incurred by the newspaper for the Web Mode are far lesser than those for the Print Mode, then profits earned by the newspaper for the Web Mode can still be greater than or equal to the profits earned for the Print Mode. Therefore, the conclusion ("to maintain profits," kill the Print Mode and put more of XYZ type of traffic-increasing content on the Web Mode) can still stand. Therefore, this answer choice fails the Negation Test. E. This option is correct. Suppose that introducing more content similar to the exclusive content on the most read pages of the website will not increase the newspaper's website traffic further. The newspaper had assumed: (More such content --> More Web Traffic --> More Profit from Web-Mode that would at least offset the loss of profit from Print-mode). The negation of this answer choice breaks this chain of assumptions and therefore suggests that the newspaper's decision may not result in greater profit from Web-Mode that would at least offset the loss of profit from Print-Mode. Therefore, the profits of the newspaper may not be maintained. The negation of this answer choice substantially weakens the decision made by the newspaper. Therefore, this answer choice represents a necessary assumption on which this decision depends.

Astragalus linifolius, a rare plant species that is found only in the Colorado region of the United States, reproduces when a pollinating agent like a fly or a bee carries the pollen grain from the male part of one plant to the female part of another plant of the same species. To maintain the population of this species, the use of pesticides that control grasshoppers should be banned in this region. These pesticides also often result in significant mortality among the Bombylius flies that are the most important pollinating agents of A. linifolius. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? AA. linifolius has a short life-span. BA. linifolius is also pollinated, though to a much-lesser degree, by some local species of bees. CThe pesticides that control insect herbivores other than grasshoppers are even more toxic to Bombylius flies. DBombylius flies do not reproduce very fast and their populations do not recover for many years after one spraying of a pesticide that controls grasshoppers. EThe populations of some other plant species in the Colorado region have decreased to an even greater extent than the population of A. linifolius since the spraying of pesticides that control grasshoppers first started in the region.

Solution Argument construction The argument starts with a premise - Premise 1: Astragalus linifolius (context-setting information: this is a rare plant species that is found only in the Colorado region of the United States) reproduces when a pollinating agent like a bee or a fly carries the pollen grain from the male part of a plant and deposits it onto the female part of another plant of the same species. From this premise, it becomes clear that pollinating agents like bees and flies are necessary for the reproduction of A. linifolius to take place. Next comes the conclusion of the argument: To maintain the population of Astragalus linifolius (a rare legume species that is found only in the Colorado region of the United States), the use of pesticides that control grasshoppers should be banned in this region. This conclusion is followed by two more premises: Premise 2 - These pesticides result in significant mortality among the Bombylius flies. Premise 3 - Bombylius flies are the most important pollinating agents of A. linifolius. Here is how these premises are used to draw the conclusion: From Premise 1, we know that A. linifolius cannot reproduce without pollinating agents. From Premise 3, we know that Bombylius flies are the most important pollinating agents of A. linifolius. By combining Premises 1 and 3, we can draw a subsidiary conclusion that to conserve A. linifolius, it's probably important to conserve Bombylius flies too. A decline in the numbers of the latter is likely to result in a decline in the numbers of the former. When this subsidiary conclusion is combined with Premise 2, we draw the conclusion that to maintain the population of A. linifolius, the use of pesticides that control grasshoppers should be banned in that region. We are looking for the answer choice that provides additional information which makes this conclusion stronger than when the above two premises are used alone. Let us analyze the options one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This option is incorrect. This argument is concerned with the maintenance of population of a particular species. The population of a species would be maintained if its death rate and birth rate remain in equilibrium. The life-span of a species is irrelevant to the maintenance of its population and, therefore, to this argument. B. This option is incorrect. If there are other pollinating agents through which A. linifolius can reproduce, then, assuming that these pollinating agents are not impacted by pesticides that control grasshoppers, this plant species might survive even if these pesticides are not banned. Therefore, this statement actually weakens the conclusion. C. This option is incorrect. There may be pesticides that are more toxic to the Bombylius flies than the pesticides mentioned in the argument, but this does not strengthen the argument that to save A. linifolius, the pesticides that control grasshoppers should be banned. For example, consider the statement 'to get better health, you should eat less sugar.' This statement is of the same format as the conclusion drawn in this argument: To achieve Goal A, do Action X. Does a statement that eating oily foods is even worse for your health than eating sugar strengthen the above example statement? It does not. D. This option is correct. Suppose that Bombylius flies had been able to reproduce fast. Then, even if one spraying had significantly reduced the number of flies in a region from, say, 1000 to a mere 100, their fast breeding would have restored the population number to its pre-spraying level pretty soon and so there would probably not have been much adverse impact on the amount of pollination that these flies did for A. linifolius and, therefore, in the population of this plant species. However, this statement tells us that the populations of Bombylius flies do not recover for many years post a pesticide spraying. In those years, therefore, the extent of reproduction of A. linifolius is likely to decline, which in turn, is likely to decrease the population of this plant species. E. This option is incorrect. That other plant species have suffered greater declines than A. linifolius since the spraying of pesticides that control grasshoppers started is irrelevant to the conclusion drawn for how the population of A. linifolius may be maintained.

As per a report published by the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, in the last five years, the per capita income of American workers employed in Agriculture and allied services has increased by 10 percent while that of American workers employed in other sectors has increased by 20 percent. Therefore, American workers employed in other sectors now earn a higher per capita income than those employed in Agriculture and allied services. The argument's reasoning is questionable because the argument fails to rule out the possibility that Afive years ago, fewer American workers were employed in other sectors than in Agriculture and allied services Bfive years ago, the per capita income of American workers employed in other sectors was significantly less than that of American workers employed in Agriculture and allied services Cover the last five years, the number of American workers employed in other sectors has decreased Dover the last five years, many American workers who were previously employed in Agriculture and allied services shifted to other sectors Ethe total national income generated by Agriculture and allied services now is still greater than that generated by other sectors

Solution Argument construction A report (published by the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis) talks about two kinds of American workers: Those employed in Agriculture and allied services - let's call this Group A, and Those employed in Other Sectors - let this be Group B As per the report, in the last five years, the per capita income of: Group A has increased by 10% Group B has increased by 20% From the above premises, the following conclusion is drawn: (Per Capita Income of Group B today)>(Per Capita Income of Group A today) Flaw in the argument Let's dissect the argument. Let's assume that 5 years ago, the per capita income of Group A was A0A0 Group B was B0B0 Then, as per the report findings, the per capita income today of Group A is A1=A0+10%ofA0=1.1A0A1=A0+10%ofA0=1.1A0 Group B is B1=B0+20%ofB0=1.2B0B1=B0+20%ofB0=1.2B0 The Conclusion B1>A1B1>A1; That is, 1.2B0>1.1A01.2B0>1.1A0 We know from the question statement that this conclusion is flawed. What is the flaw in it? In the above inequality, 1.2 is certainly greater than 1.1. However, can we be sure that B0B0 is greater than A0A0? Does the argument give us any basis to assume this? The answer to both questions is 'No.' What if B0B0 were significantly smaller than A0A0? Say, B0B0 was 40,000 dollars while A0A0 was 60,000 dollars? Then: B1=1.2B0=1.2×40,000=48,000dollarsB1=1.2B0=1.2×40,000=48,000dollars A1=1.1A0=1.1×60,000=66,000dollarsA1=1.1A0=1.1×60,000=66,000dollars In such a case, the conclusion drawn by the argument (B1>A1B1>A1) is proved wrong. Therefore, the flaw in the argument is that it fails to consider the cases where B0<A0B0<A0. Let's analyze each option one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This is incorrect. Since the comparison is between the per capita incomes of the two sectors, the number of workers in either sector is not relevant. (Per capita income)=Total incomeTotal number of workers(Per capita income)=Total incomeTotal number of workers. The value of per capita income therefore already takes into account the 'number of workers.' Had the 'total income' of the two sectors been mentioned in the argument along with their per capita incomes, then the 'number of workers' might have been a factor. B. This is correct. As per this option, the flaw in the argument is that it fails to rule out the possibility that B0<A0B0<A0. This is in-line with the discussion done in the 'Argument construction' section. C. This is incorrect. One of the ways in which the per capita income of other sectors could have increased is with decreasing number of workers; there is no reason to rule out the possibility that the increase in the per capita income happened due to this reason. Therefore, failing to rule it out does not make the reasoning questionable. D. This is incorrect. Since the per capita income depends on the number of workers, the changing numbers of Groups A and B, as suggested in this option, would have impacted the respective per capita incomes of both the groups. However, this does not affect the argument at all since neither the premises nor the conclusion concern themselves with 'how or why' the per capita income of each group changed. Therefore, failing to rule out the possibility that the change in per capita income happened due to the reason suggested in this option is no error in reasoning. E. This is incorrect. If the total national income generated by Agriculture and allied services was greater than that generated by other sectors five years ago and remains greater now, but the number of workers employed in Agriculture and allied services is far greater than those in other sectors, then the conclusion B1>A1B1>A1 is still possible. (For an example with easy numbers, consider A1=(Total income=$120,000)(No. of workers=4)=$30,000A1=(Total income=$120,000)(No. of workers=4)=$30,000 and B1=(Total income=$80,000)(No. of workers=1)=$80,000B1=(Total income=$80,000)(No. of workers=1)=$80,000.) Therefore, failing to rule out the possibility of this option does not prove the conclusion wrong.

Henry: An average American car driver drives a thousand miles per month. If all American car drivers drove only five miles less daily, their monthly mileage would reduce by 15 percent. Five miles is ten thousand steps, the amount of daily walking recommended by doctors for good health. Therefore, if the government could persuade car drivers to drive five miles less daily and walk that distance instead, the total transport-related carbon emissions in the United States would reduce by 15 percent. Bill: Cars are responsible for 30 percent of all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States. Bill's response to Henry proceeds by Arefuting an assumption on which Henry's argument relies Bdiscrediting Henry's argument by giving of erroneous information Carguing that the benefit of Henry's hypothetical measure might also be achieved in another way Dciting seemingly irrefutable evidence that contradicts one of the stated premises on which Henry's argument depends Eproviding additional information in support of Henry's argument

Solution Argument construction Henry tells us that: An average American car driver drives a thousand miles per month. So, if all American car drivers drove only five miles less daily, their monthly mileage would reduce by 15 percent (5 × 30 = 150 miles = 15% of 1000 miles). Five miles is ten thousand steps, the amount of daily walking recommended by doctors for good health. Therefore, if the government can persuade car drivers to drive five miles less daily and walk that distance instead, the total transport-related carbon emissions in the United States would reduce by 15 percent. Bill responds to Henry by saying that cars are responsible for only 30 percent of all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States. Understanding how the argument proceeds Let's dissect the argument. When we strip Henry's argument to its essence, it is this: 'Reducing average monthly mileage of American car owners by 15 percent would reduce the total transport-related carbon emissions in the United States by 15 percent.' So, Henry is assuming that only car owners are responsible for transport-related carbon emissions in the United States. In his mind, the formula for transport-related carbon emissions is: (Total transport-related carbon emissions per month) = (Average carbon emissions made per car mile) × (Average monthly miles driven per driver) × (Number of drivers) Note that the right-hand side of this equation would give 'total car-related carbon emissions per month'. Henry assumes that this number is equal to 'total transport-related carbon emissions per month'. By pointing out that total car-related carbon emissions are, in fact, only 30 percent of all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States, Bill is telling Henry that his assumption was mistaken. And due to this mistake, Henry's argument is incorrect. Let's analyze each option one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This is correct. It accords with the discussion done in the argument analysis above. B. This is incorrect. We have no reason to decide that the information given by Bill is erroneous. C. This is incorrect. The benefit of Henry's hypothetical measure is a 15 percent reduction in the total transport-related carbon emissions in the United States. Bill suggests no other way to achieve this benefit. D. This is incorrect. The stated premises on which Henry's argument depends are: If all American car drivers drove only five miles less daily, their monthly mileage would reduce by 15 percent. Five miles is ten thousand steps to walk. (The argument also makes use of an unstated premise (that is, an assumption): all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States are made by cars.) Bill's response does not contradict either of the two stated premises listed above. Further, Bill cites evidence that contradicts Henry's claim, not a premise. E. This is incorrect. As discussed in the analysis section above, Bill's response does not support Henry's argument.

A study of young and middle-aged men in the United States has found that the men whose diet was high in saturated fat also had a high amount of blood cholesterol. In another experiment, when the blood cholesterol level of laboratory rabbits was raised by feeding them exclusively on cholesterol, fat deposits formed in their blood vessels. Similar fat deposits are found in human patients of heart disease. Therefore, to reduce the occurrence of heart disease, people should reduce their dietary consumption of saturated fat. Each of the following, if true, weakens the above argument EXCEPT: AThe bodily reactions of animal models to internal or external stimulants are often poor predictors of the reactions of the human body to the same stimulants. BThe per capita consumption of saturated fat in the United States has decreased by 27 percent since 1970 while the occurrence of heart disease in the country has increased by 400 percent in the same period. CAn analysis of studies done on more than 600,000 men and women has established that blood cholesterol is inversely associated with the risk of death from infectious respiratory and digestive diseases. DA study that covered more than 10,000 individuals has found no relationship between the amount of blood cholesterol and the occurrence of heart disease. EIn a study where the dietary saturated fat consumption of young and middle-aged American women was three to seven times higher than normal, the blood cholesterol level remained unchanged.

Solution Argument construction Premise 1: A study of young and middle-aged men in the United States has found that the men whose diet was high in saturated fat (SF) also had a high amount of blood cholesterol (BC). So, this premise can be simplified as: High SF is correlated with high BC in young and middle-aged American males. Premise 2: In another experiment, when the blood cholesterol level (BC) of laboratory rabbits was raised by feeding them on cholesterol, fat deposits (FD) were found in their blood vessels. This premise can be simplified as: In lab rabbits, when BC became high, FD formed. Premise 3: Similar fat deposits (FD) are found in human patients of heart disease (HD). So, per this premise, FD is correlated with HD in humans. By combining these three premises, the following conclusion is drawn: Conclusion: To reduce the occurrence of heart disease, people should reduce their dietary consumption of saturated fat. In simpler form: To reduce HD, people should reduce SF The structure of this argument can be visually depicted as under: There are a few things to note about the way this argument is drawn: The argument's conclusion draws broad generalizations whereas the premises are not similarly general in their scope: Premise 1 mentions a finding about one demographic - young and middle -aged American men - while the conclusion drawn is a generalization that seems to apply to all "people," irrespective of age, gender or nationality. Premise 2 mentions a finding about laboratory rabbits while the conclusion drawn is about humans. The argument confounds correlation with causation. This is proved by the conclusion that reducing SF will cause reduced occurrence of heart disease. However, the premises do not offer grounds for such causality: Premise 1 only states that in one particular group, high SF is correlated with high BC. We cannot infer from this whether it is high SF that caused high BC, or whether high BC caused high SF (for example, by inducing cravings for food that is high SF), or whether some other third factor was the cause of both high SF and high BC (for example, if the individuals of this particular group have a genetic predisposition towards higher BC than other ethnic and/or age groups and also have a diet that is high in SC). In Premise 2, since FD follows an increase in BC, the said increase in BC does seem to cause the FD; however, this causal link is still an assumption and is not explicitly stated by the argument. Alternate explanations might be possible. For example, since these rabbits were fed exclusively on cholesterol, perhaps they developed deficiency of some vital nutrient X (which they usually got from their normal diet) and it was the lack of this nutrient X that caused the formation of FD. With such an explanation, one can see that if the rabbits had continued to consume as much cholesterol as they did in this study but along with the required amounts of X, they would not have formed FD. In Premise 3, FD is found in human patients of HD. This is not enough to conclusively establish that FD causes HD in humans. For example, when the virus of common cold enters the human body, the body activates its immune system and produces antibodies to neutralize that virus. There is a brief period when, if a blood sample is taken from the body, both the virus and the antibodies will be found in it. From this coexistence, drawing a conclusion that the antibodies produced/caused the virus would be wrong. Correlation does not always imply causality, and even when it does, the direction of that causality is not always clear (if A and B coexist, then does A cause B or does B cause A?). Not only does the argument make an unreasonable assumption that high SF causes high HD, but it also assumes that the converse of this statement would be true - that is, low SF would cause low HD. The evidence presented in premises 1 and 2 is about high SF and high blood cholesterol. Using this evidence to draw the conclusion that low SF would have the opposite effect to that of high SF is fallacious. For example, the following statement is true: "high stress causes high blood pressure." However, the converse of this - "low stress causes low blood pressure" - is not true. This is a 'Weaken EXCEPT' question. Therefore, four of the answer choices will weaken the argument. We will be looking for the single statement that does not weaken it. Let us analyze the options one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This option is incorrect. This statement does weaken the argument by suggesting that the use of premise 2 (which describes the bodily reaction of an animal model to high BC) to draw a conclusion about the bodily reaction of the humans to high BC may not be correct. Without this premise, the conclusion cannot hold. B. This option is incorrect. This statement does weaken the argument by providing empirical evidence that in the same period in which SF decreased, HD increased by a lot more. This suggests that some factor, other than SF, causes HD and therefore disproves the causal assumptions that went into the drawing of the conclusion. C. This option is correct. This statement does not weaken the argument. From this statement, we learn some benefits of high blood cholesterol and risks of low blood cholesterol. However, the argument's main concern was not whether the overall impact of high blood cholesterol on human health is beneficial or not. The argument suggests only one specific effect of high blood cholesterol - that it causes heart disease. Likewise, the conclusion is only concerned about reducing HD. If reducing HD by reducing SF has some other side-effects (like increased risk of infections, as this option statement seems to suggest), then so be it. These are "other" side-effects and are outside the scope of the argument. The author is only claiming that reducing SF will reduce HD. He is not claiming that reducing SF will reduce the occurrence of all kinds of diseases. D. This option is incorrect. This statement weakens the argument. It states that in humans, high blood cholesterol does not lead to HD. This directly disproves the subsidiary conclusion that can be drawn by combining premises 2 and 3 while also assuming that correlation implies causation, this subsidiary conclusion being that high blood cholesterol leads to HD. E. This option is incorrect. It weakens the argument. It shows that the extrapolation of premise 1 to all humans (as has been done in the argument) was incorrect. When females of a similar age-group and nationality as the men in the study that is cited in premise 1 ate a high SF diet, their blood cholesterol did not increase. This suggests that there is not a simple causal link between high SF and high BC. The chain of causations on which the conclusion rests therefore stands broken.

In the 1920s, surveys of factory workers who painted watch dials with luminous paint found an alarming incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer. This paint contained radium, a radioactive element. As a result, the industrial use of radioactive luminous paint was completely stopped by 1960. However, radium stays active for hundreds of years. Therefore, those watch-collectors who own watches that have luminous dials and were made before 1960 should either bury these watches in the ground or store them in thick lead boxes to protect themselves and the people around them from anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer. Which one of the following, if true, LEAST strengthens the argument above? AThe surveys also found that the incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer among factory workers who painted watch dials with non-luminous paint was not greater than that among the general population. BThe surveys also found that factory workers who painted watch dials with luminous paint, the extent of their health problems was directly proportional to the cumulative number of hours for which they had worked with luminous paint till then. CBarriers of lead or earth provide adequate protection to human beings from harmful radioactive substances. DPeople who wear watches that have luminous dials and were made before 1960 for more than a decade have an alarming incidence of anemia. EMost chemists and laboratory workers who worked with radium for more than a year in the first decade after its discovery in 1898 did not have, for the rest of their lives, a greater incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer than the general population.

Solution Argument construction Premise 1: In the 1920s, surveys of factory workers who painted watch dials with luminous paint (WDLP workers) found an alarming incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer (HP = Health Problems). This premise tells us that 'WDLP workers' had 'HP.' Premise 2: This paint contained radium, a radioactive element. WDLP would presumably have had many ingredients, one of which was radium - a radioactive element. Subsidiary Conclusion drawn from Premises 1 and 2: As a result, the industrial use of radioactive luminous paint was completely stopped by 1960. The fact that this is a conclusion is suggested by the phrase 'as a result.' This conclusion also implies that those who had the power to decide what kind of paint was to be used on watch dials (the watch dial manufacturers, the government authorities etc.) assumed that 'WDLP workers' had 'HP' due to 'the radium in WDLP.' Also note that Premise 1 was only concerned with WDLP workers. However, the subsidiary conclusion extends to all industrial use of LP. So, the decision-makers mentioned in the above paragraph also assumed that if radium caused HP in WDLP workers, then it would also cause HP in other industrial workers. Premise 3: However, radium stays active for hundreds of years. So, the radium in the watches that were made before 1960 would still be active today, and, assuming the causal link between 'the radium in WDLP' and the 'HP of WDLP workers,' can cause HP even today. Main Conclusion: Therefore, those watch-collectors who own watches that have luminous dials and were made before 1960 should either bury these watches in the ground or store them in thick lead boxes to protect themselves and the people around them from anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer. The Main Conclusion makes use of some assumptions (unstated premises): Burying a radioactive material in ground or storing it in thick lead boxes is enough to protect humans from it. While Premise 1 presented an observation for WDLP workers, the main conclusion is drawn for watch-collectors. The author of the argument has assumed that what is true for WDLP workers would also be true for collectors of the watches made by these workers. This is a questionable extrapolation, as it might be expected that a worker who painted watch dials with WDLP day-in and day-out would have had a much higher exposure to radium than a watch-collector who only looks at his watch-collection occasionally and for only a few minutes per watch at a time. The Main Conclusion applies to a group of people (watch-collectors) in the present-time and the reason why watches made decades ago are still thought to pose a health hazard today is given in Premise 3, which states that radium stays active for hundreds of years. The main conclusion therefore depends on the assumption that it was the radium in the LP that caused the HP of WDLP workers. This assumption need not be correct. LP would have had many ingredients, one of which was Radium; no direct evidence is presented in the argument to indicate that it was Radium and not another ingredient of the LP that caused the HP of WDLP workers. Note that this is a Strengthen-Except question (If one option 'least' strengthens the argument, it follows that the other four options strengthen the argument). We are looking for the one answer choice that does not strengthen the argument. Let us analyze the options one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This option is incorrect. The group of workers mentioned in this option statement are the opposite of WDLP. These people did not use LP and, as per this option statement, they had no HP; the incidence of diseases mentioned in the argument among this group was the same as in the general population. So, 'the WD painters who used LP' had HP while 'the WD painters who did not use LP' did not have HP. This option statement strengthens the assumption that it was the LP that caused the HP in WDLP workers. B. This option is incorrect. The more LP that a WDLP worker was exposed to, the more HP he had. The less LP that a WDLP worker was exposed to, the less HP he had. This clearly strengthens the assumption that it was the LP that caused the HP in WDLP workers. C. This option is incorrect. This statement strengthens the main conclusion by validating an assumption on which it depends. D. This option is incorrect. This statement strengthens the main conclusion by providing evidence that under certain circumstances (when the antique watches are worn for more than a decade), watch-collectors too can suffer from at least some of the HP (anemia) that the WDLP workers of Premise 1 suffered from. Thus, this option statement validates an assumption on which the main conclusion depends. E. This option is correct. This statement weakens the main conclusion because it provides evidence that there is a group of people who handled radium but who did not have HP. This suggests that an assumption on which the Main Conclusion depends - that the HP of the WPLD were caused by the radium in the LP - is probably incorrect.

Movies that contain persistent violence are usually given R rating. R rated movies can be viewed in a theater by a child or an under-17 adolescent only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Mr. Smith and Mr. Green are two directors whose every movie has been given an R rating, while only some of Ms. Abbott's movies are R rated. Which one of the following logically follows from the statements above, if they are true? AThe movies made by female directors are more often viewed alone in the theaters by children or under-17 adolescents than the movies made by male directors. BAn under-17 adolescent cannot view a movie of Mr. Green by himself in a theater. CNo movie of Mr. Smith can be viewed by a child or an under-17 adolescent in a theater. DA child is more likely to view a movie made by Ms. Abbott in a theater than a movie made by Mr. Green. ESome of Ms. Abbott's movies do not contain persistent violence.

Solution Argument construction Premise 1: Movies that contain persistent violence are usually given R rating. Two points to note in the above premise: The word "usually": From this, we may infer that though most movies that contain persistent violence are given R rating, there may be some movies that contain persistent violence but are not given R rating. Had R rating been given to 100% of the movies that contain persistent violence, Premise 1 would have read differently, for example: Movies that contain persistent violence are given R rating. Movies that contain persistent violence are always given R rating. Every movie that contains persistent violence is given R rating. This premise only states one feature of a movie (containing persistent violence) that may result in a R rating. We cannot infer on the basis of this statement that this is the only feature that results in a R Rating. There may be other features too that result in a R rating. For example, the list of features of a movie, having one or more of which results in the movie getting a R rating, might read as follows: Persistent violence Gruesome scenes that are revolting to watch, even if their number is a small percentage of all scenes in the movie Persistent use of obscene language Glorification of immorality, etc. So, a movie may get R rated despite not having persistent violence if it has one or more of the other features on this list. Premise 2: R rated movies can be viewed in a theater by a child or an under-17 adolescent only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Note that this premise does not say that a child or an under-17 cannot watch R rated movies in a theater. These movies are not banned for the under-17 age group. The requirement is only that the under-17s be accompanied by their parents or adult guardians. Further, note that the restriction for the under-17s is only for viewing an R rated movie in a theater. We do not know - and cannot infer - from the argument if similar restrictions apply to other, non-theatrical - avenues (such as, say, television or screenings in a community hall, etc.) that may be available to view R rated movies. Also, this premise applies to 100% of the R rated movies. We know this because the wording of the statement is not something like "R rated movies are usually viewed in a theater...." Or "Most R rated movies are viewed in a theater...." but a definite "can be viewed in a theater..." without any qualifications like "most" or "some" or "usually," etc. Premise 3: Mr. Smith is a director whose every movie has been given an R rating. Premise 4: Mr. Green is a director whose every movie has been given an R rating. Premise 5: Ms. Abbott is a director only some of whose movies are R rated. Because several inferences may be drawn by combining Premises 3-5 with the other premises of the argument, we cannot determine the correct answer without reading the answer choice. So, let's go through the answer choices to find the one that must be true, given the premises of the argument. Let us analyze the options one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This option is incorrect. From Premise 2, we know that under-17s simply cannot view an R rated movie alone in the theaters. Therefore, the frequency of viewing a movie alone will be zero among the under-17 age group for 'R rated movies.' Presumably, for movies that have non-R ratings, this frequency might be non-zero. So, this option statement may be simplified as: 'The movies made by female directors are less likely to be R rated than the movies made by male directors.' Now, this is a gross generalization of the specific facts mentioned in the argument. From such a small sample size as just one female director and two male directors, it is plainly wrong to generalize that movies made by female directors are less likely to be R rated than those of male directors. B. This option is correct. By combining Premise 4 with Premise 2, we may infer that an under-17 adolescent can view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Therefore, we may infer that he cannot view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater alone (by himself, without an accompanying a parent or an adult guardian). C. This option is incorrect. By combining Premise 3 with Premise 2, we may infer that a child or an under-17 adolescent can view a movie made by Mr. Smith in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Therefore, it is wrong to say that he cannot view Mr. Smith's movies in a theater. He can watch all of those movies in a theater if he wants to, the requirement is only that he be accompanied by a parent or an adult guardian. D. This option is incorrect. By combining Premise 4 with Premise 2, we may infer that a child can view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Similarly, by combining Premise 5 with Premise 2, we may infer that to view some of Ms. Abbott's movies in a theater, a child needs to be accompanied by a parent or an adult guardian. Just this information is not sufficient to make a comparison of the likelihood of children to watch the movies by the two directors. For example, it is possible that the movies of Mr. Green, though R rated, are wildly popular among children and so they urge their parents to take them to theaters to view the movies. On the other hand, Ms. Abbott's movies may have such content or presentation style that does not appeal to children and so they do not like to view any of her movies, even if the rating of a movie is such that they are allowed to view that movie alone. In such a scenario, the likelihood of a child watching Mr. Green's movie will be higher than his watching Ms. Abbott's movie. In other words, the likelihood of a child watching a movie by either director in a theater depends not just on the rating of the movie but also on the popularity of that director and that particular movie among children, and therefore, just on the basis of a movie's rating, we cannot infer a "must be true" statement about the likelihood of its being watched by children. E. This option is incorrect. Premise 5 only tells us that some movies of Ms. Abbott are R rated. We cannot infer from this that these movies got R rated because they had persistent violence. As discussed in the 'Argument Construction' part of the solution, there may be other reasons for an R rating. For example, Ms. Abbott's R rated movies may have zero violence but may have persistent use of obscene language. So, among Ms. Abbott's R rated movies, it is possible that all of them contain persistent violence, and it is also possible that none of them contain persistent violence. What about her non-R rated movies? Are they the "some" movies referred to in this answer choice? Imagine a scale that rates movies on their suitability to be viewed by children and under-17 adolescents. Let's suppose that R rating lies at the middle of this scale. At one end of this scale are, say, Z movies - movies that can be watched by children and under-17 adolescents alone in a theater. At the other end of this scale lie, say, J movies - movies that are so disturbing that the entry of children and under-17 adolescents in the theater is prohibited, even if they are accompanied by adults. Just from knowing that some of Ms. Abbott's movies are not R rated, can we make a "must be true" inference about what the ratings of those movies is? For all we know, they may all be Z rated, with absolutely zero occurrence of persistent violence. Or they may all be J rated, with gruesome violence in every scene. Or they may have zero violence and still be J rated for another reason. Therefore, the information given in the argument is not sufficient to infer whether some of Ms. Abbott's movies contain persistent violence, all of her movies contain persistent violence, or none of them do. To restate this conclusion in the wording used in this answer choice: we cannot infer whether "some of Ms. Abbott's movies do not contain persistent violence," all of her movies do not contain persistent violence, or there is no movie of hers that does not contain persistent violence.

The Urban Intelligence Unit publishes an annual Livability Ranking, which ranks 100 American cities for their quality of life based on assessments of urban infrastructure, healthcare, education, crime rates, culture and climate. Yet, this ranking should also consider unemployment rates. After all, if a city is unable to offer work opportunities to a sizeable proportion of its population that needs to work for survival, the quality of life for that proportion would be abysmal. The claim that the Livability Ranking should consider unemployment rates in a city plays which one of the following roles in the argument? AIt offers a reason to support the conclusion. BIt is an assertion that refutes the conclusion. CIt is a principle from which the conclusion is derived. DIt is a premise of the argument. EIt is a conclusion of the argument.

Solution Argument construction The annual Livability Ranking (published by Urban Intelligence Unit) ranks 100 American cities for their quality of life based on assessments of: urban infrastructure healthcare education crime rates culture climate. However, this ranking should also consider unemployment rates. Reason - If a city is unable to offer work opportunities to a sizeable proportion of its population that needs to work for survival, the quality of life for that proportion would be abysmal. Understanding the role played by the claim Let's dissect the argument. The first step in analyzing this argument is identifying the conclusion. To do this, let's find the position for which the argument offers support. From the first sentence, we know that Rankings are based on quality of life. The same sentence lists six factors that are assessed in determining the quality of life. The last sentence begins with the phrase 'After all,' which indicates that the statement that follows it is a premise. This premise, simply put, is that high unemployment rate means poor quality of life. When we put this sentence in conjunction with the first sentence, we see that the argument is constructed to support the position stated in the second sentence: "... [the Livability] ranking should also consider unemployment rates." Thus, the claim "this ranking should also consider unemployment rates" asked about in the question is the conclusion of the argument. Let's analyze each option one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This is incorrect. The claim is not an explanation or a reason-giving-statement. B. This is incorrect. The claim does not refute any statement in the argument. C. This is incorrect. The claim does not act as the source (principle) of any further conclusion. D. This is incorrect. As discussed in the 'Argument Construction' section, the premises of the argument are contained in the first and the third sentences of the argument. The claim is not a premise. E. This is correct. It is in-line with our discussion in the 'Argument Construction' section.

Arguing for the acquittal of his client from the charge of murdering the client's wife, the attorney reasoned that since neither the garage nor the main door of the client's home was bolted on the night of the murder, a thief must have trespassed on the home to steal valuables, and upon an unexpected confrontation with the client's wife, murdered her. The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following? AThe city administration could not find a solution to either water shortage or waterlogging problems; thus, it had to eat a humble pie and publicly accept responsibility for its lackluster approach. BDue to the work strike of railroads and the non-availability of sufficient buses during the rush hours - the only two modes of transport used by John, he may have faced a hard time commuting during the rush hours. CIn a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold. DThe evidence collected reveals that the financial fraud was executed by neither one nor all the team members. Therefore, it can be concluded that it was executed by either some team members or a third party. EIn an annual test of Midland high school students, the average score of neither the boys nor the girls is more than 50; thus, the average score of the total students is not more than 50.

Solution Argument construction The argument is simple to understand. An attorney argues that since the garage and the main door of the client's house were not bolted on the murder-night, a thief must have intruded the home to steal valuables. The client's wife would have confronted him and this led the thief to murder her. This follows that his client who is accused of the murder must be acquitted. Flaw in the argument The attorney's argument, simply put, is: (Garage and main door were open) => (A Thief must have entered) => (Since a thief was present in the house that night, he must be the murderer) => (His client must be acquitted) What is the flaw in the argument? Only on the basis that the garage and the main door were not bolted on the murder-night, the attorney claims that the chance that a thief must have broken into the house is 100%. He does not consider that other explanations for the garage and main door not being bolted might be possible. For example, the client may have committed the murder and then himself opened the garage and the main door to make it look like the work of an outsider. Also, what are the chances that if an outsider did come in, that outsider was a thief? Was any theft noted or reported at the client's home that night? Was a thief noticed in the vicinity of the client's home that night? The attorney provides no evidence to substantiate his claim that a thief came into the client's house that night. Further, if a thief did come into the house and was indeed confronted by the client's wife, is there any proof of such a confrontation in the house that night? Further, is such a confrontation a sufficient reason to drive a thief to murder? Thus, the evidence that the garage and the main door were not bolted on the murder-night does not actually absolve the attorney's client. The client can still be the culprit. The flaw in the attorney's argument is that the attorney does not even consider that there might be other explanations for the open garage and main door and presents the explanation that best serves his and his client's interests as the only one possible. Predict a parallel argument Upon looking at the options, we find that the options are on varied topics. So, we need to read each of them one by one and select the best option. To find the parallel flaw argument, we first need to analyze the question argument. The evidence: The garage and the main door were not bolted on the murder-night. The argument: The evidence suggests that there is a very high probability that a thief must have intruded into the client's home; therefore, this thief must be the murderer too and the client should be absolved of the murder charge. The flaw: The evidence does not support the claim that there is no probability that the client committed the murder. The argument provides evidence and concludes (from that evidence) that there is only one possible outcome and other possibilities do not exist. We need to find an option argument that possesses the above elements. Answer choices explanation: A. This is incorrect. The element that is not parallel to the question argument is that the city administration itself takes the blame and does not transfer the blame to another entity. B. This is incorrect. There is no flaw in the argument. A flawed judgment is not drawn. Since commuting by rail and bus are the only two options for John, he must have faced hard-time with commuting during the rush hours when the railroad was on strike and the number of buses was not sufficient during the rush hours. C. This is correct. Though Amy performed exceedingly well, it does not mean that her other co-participants did not perform exceedingly well; they all could have performed exceedingly well. They all or at least three could have been at least marginally better than Amy. If this is so, Amy does not have a chance to win Gold. This a perfect parallel flawed argument. D. This is incorrect. There is no flaw in the argument. The evidence suggests that either some team members or a third party may have executed the financial fraud, which is valid reasoning. E. This is incorrect. There is no flaw in the argument. This is a quantitative argument. It tests your concept on weighted average. Note that the weighted average of the two groups' averages can neither be greater than the greater of the two averages nor be smaller than the smaller of the two averages. For example, say the number of boys = 100 and their average score = 40; the number of girls = 50 and their average score = 45. The combined average of 150 students would lie between 40 to 45, which is less than 50. Even if you swap the number of boys and the number of girls, the weighted average would still between 40 to 45 (value will not be the same), which is less than 50.

Chief Executive Officer of Noan Industries: All competitors of our company are only concerned with increasing their profits and do not bother about the environmental degradation that their product-manufacturing process causes. In contrast, we have got our product-manufacturing process audited for its environmental impact by Green Org, a reputed international agency that monitors industrial pollution. So, when our customers choose to buy from us, they can be sure that they are buying from an environmentally-responsible company. The answer to which one of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the truth of the conclusion drawn by the Chief Executive Officer? ADoes Noan Industries provide more donations than its competitors to agencies that work to reverse the environmental impact of industrial pollution? BHas Green Org audited the product-manufacturing processes of all competitors of Noan Industries? CIn the product category in which Noan Industries operates, does the buying decision of customers get influenced by the environmental-responsibility of a company? DDo Noan's customers trust the audit reports of Green Org? EDoes Noan Industries make lesser profits than its competitors?

Solution Argument construction The conclusion of the CEO's argument is described in the last statement: "when our customers choose to buy from us instead of our competitors, they can be sure that they are buying from an environmentally-responsible company." What is the basis on which this conclusion is drawn? This basis (the premise of the argument) is described in the second statement of the argument: "we have got our product-manufacturing process audited for its environmental impact by Green Org, a reputed international agency that monitors industrial pollution." Therefore, the CEO's argument can be simplified as follows: "Because we have got our process audited by Green Org, our customers can be sure that we are environmentally-responsible." This is an Evaluate the Argument question. Each answer choice contains a question. The correct answer will be that answer choice whose question, when answered one way will strengthen the conclusion and when answered the opposite way will weaken the conclusion. Let us analyze the options one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This option is incorrect. Suppose the answer to this question is 'Yes.' Then the question arises - is Noan's providing more donations than its competitors to agencies that do environmental work sufficient to get it labelled as 'environmentally-responsible'? Even if other competitors provide zero donations and Noan donates a paltry $1000 per annum to this cause? Even if the product-manufacturing process of Noan causes the maximum environmental degradation among all companies that operate in this product category? So, we see that a 'Yes' answer to this option statement is not sufficient in itself to strengthen the conclusion. Likewise, a 'No' answer does not significantly weaken the conclusion. For example, even if Noan donates zero dollars to such agencies while its competitors donate millions, does this necessarily mean that Noan is environmentally-irresponsible? Even if, Noan uses such a manufacturing process that causes zero pollution, whereas its competitors cause environmental damage worth billions of dollars while donating only a few millions to such environmental agencies? B. This option is incorrect. Let's suppose the answer to this question is 'Yes.' If other competitors of Noan also get their process audited by Green Org, then by the logic used in this argument, the customers will believe that they too are environmentally-responsible companies. Well, then, so what? This does not impact the CEO's conclusion at all, which is just that the customers can be sure that his own company - Noan Industries - is environmentally-responsible. Had the Noan CEO claimed that the customers can be sure that his company was the only environmentally-responsible company in the product category that it operated in, then indeed, his claim would have been weakened by a 'Yes' answer to this question. But, once again, the CEO has not made this "we are the only ones" claim. Likewise, a 'No' answer to this question will not affect the CEO's conclusion. C. This option is incorrect. Let's suppose the answer to this question is 'Yes.' Then, all that this answer suggests is that, if the customers do believe that Noan is environmentally-responsible, then they may prefer to buy from Noan over its competitors. Well, this may impact the revenues and profits of the company in the long-term. However, the present argument is only about the CEO's claim of his company's environmental-responsibility. And this claim is neither strengthened nor weakened by a 'Yes' answer to this question. In a similar manner, answering this question with a 'No' does not impact the conclusion. Therefore, this answer choice does not help to evaluate the argument. D. This option is correct. Let's suppose the answer to this question is 'Yes.' This means, if Green Org says that Noan is an environmentally-responsible company, then the customers are going to believe that it is so. This greatly strengthens the CEO's claim. On the other hand, if the answer to this question is 'No,' that is, if the customers do not trust Green Org's audit reports, then the CEO's conclusion - that the customers will feel sure that Noan is environmentally-responsible because it's been audited by Green Org - stands shattered. Therefore, the answer to the question helps us assess (evaluate) the correctness of the conclusion. E. This option is incorrect. The companies mentioned in the first statement of the argument are concerned about "increasing their profits." The numerical values of their profits are never mentioned in the argument, nor is it suggested that the judgment of whether a company is environmentally-responsible or not depends on the profits made by the company. Therefore, whether you answer the question posed by this answer choice with a 'Yes' or 'No,' the conclusion remains unimpacted.

The parliamentarian has often stated that no crime that impacts only a few individual victims deserves capital punishment and, therefore, capital punishment should be awarded only for the rarest of rare crimes that threaten the survival or well-being of the society as a whole. When gruesome crimes involving only one or two victims but generally viewed as deserving capital punishment are cited as possible counterexamples, the parliamentarian justifies his stance by saying that if those crimes deserve capital punishment, they cannot have impacted only a few individual victims. The parliamentarian's reasoning contains which one of the following errors? AIt contains an unfounded acceptance of a popular opinion. BIt relies on the parliamentarian's authority on legal or sociological matters. CIt seeks to convince by emotion rather than logic. DIt attempts to substantiate a viewpoint by appeal to an unrelated contemplation. EIt assumes what it intends to substantiate.

Solution Argument construction The parliamentarian states that no crime that impacts only a few victims (for example, murdering only one or two people) deserves capital punishment. Therefore, on the basis of this statement, he concludes that the capital punishment can be awarded only for the rarest of rare crimes that threaten the survival or well-being of the society as a whole. Some people object to this conclusion and give as counterexamples such cases in which only one or two people may have been killed but which were so brutal or gruesome as to make the general population think that the murderer deserved to get capital punishment. To this objection, the parliamentarian responds that if those cases really deserve capital punishment, then they must have hurt more than a few individual victims. Flaw in the argument Let's dissect the argument. The parliament' principle: The parliamentarian decides the applicability of capital punishment for a crime by looking at the number of victims impacted by the crime. If a crime impacts only a few individual victims, then capital punishment should not be awarded. The Parliamentarian's Conclusion/Assertion Capital punishment should be awarded if and only if a crime impacts the survival or well-being of the whole society. How does he support this conclusion? Simply by citing his above principle. People's counterexample: Gruesome crimes that impact only one or two individual victims but are generally considered to deserve capital punishment. The parliamentarian's defense: The counterexample doesn't ruffle the parliamentarian at all. Rather, he still uses his principle to respond to it. He says that if the gruesome crimes that are offered as a counterexample deserve capital punishment, then they cannot have impacted only a few individuals. (Perhaps he would go down the road of showing how the families or neighborhoods of the victims were impacted too, or how those crimes destabilized the society as a whole and therefore merited capital punishment to preserve the well-being of the society etc.) What is the flaw in the parliamentarian's reasoning? He makes a conclusion based on nothing but his self-proclaimed stance treated as the absolute and incontrovertible truth. When that conclusion is challenged by counterexamples, he again responds by citing his stance, and suggests that if those counterexamples are true, then they must adhere to his stance. Let's analyze each option one by one. Answer choices explanation: A. This is incorrect. While the parliamentarian does blindly accept his stance to be true ("unfounded acceptance"), the argument does not suggest that this stance is popular and is the generally held opinion of most people. B. This is incorrect. There is nothing in the argument that suggests that the parliamentarian exercised his authority/power to enforce his opinion. C. This is incorrect. There is nothing in the argument that suggests that the parliamentarian appealed emotionally to sell his opinion. D. This is incorrect. The counter-argument advanced by the parliamentarian (in response to the counterexamples) is relevant to the argument. E. This is correct. It is in line with the analysis done above. The parliamentarian's conclusion is rather a rephrase of his opinion.

A hundred students of Midtown college were asked to pick their preference for one of three genres of movies: romantic, drama, and tragedy. Each of them picked one of the three genres. More than half picked romantic, more than a quarter picked drama and at least one picked tragedy. When asked about the genre of the movie Titanic, however, more than three quarter viewed it as a romantic movie. If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true? AOnly the students whose preferences were romantic and drama genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie. BOnly the students whose preferences were romantic and tragedy genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie. CAt least one student from each genre of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie. DSome students whose preference was romantic genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie. ESome students whose preference was tragedy genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.

Solution Argument construction The survey covers 100 students in Midtown college. They were asked to pick their preference for one of the three genres of movies: romantic, drama, and tragedy. More than 50% picked romantic, more than 25% picked drama and at least 1 student picked tragedy. When asked about the movie Titanic, however, more than 75% viewed it as a romantic movie. Predict an Inference Presenting the information mathematically will help. Say R represents Romantic genre; D represents Drama genre; and T represents Tragedy genre. Let's first find out the minimum values of R, D and T. It is given that there are 100 students, thus, the percent figures represent the actual numbers. We know that More than 50% picked romantic, thus R≥51R≥51; More than 25% picked drama, thus D≥26D≥26; At least 1 student picked tragedy, thus T≥1T≥1 Let's now find out the maximum values of R, D and T. Remember that a student could choose only one of the three genres, and every student did choose one of these three genres. So, the sum of R, D and T would be 100. We know that Maximum value of R would happen when the values of D and T are minimum. So, it would be 100−26−1=73100-26-1=73 Likewise, Maximum value of D would be 100−51−1=48100-51-1=48 Maximum value of T would be 100−51−26=23100-51-26=23 51≤R≤7351≤R≤73 26≤D≤4826≤D≤48 1≤T≤231≤T≤23 We have to see in how many ways the number of votes for Titanic viewed as a romantic movie can be more than 75%. Since there can be many inferences, we need to see the option statements to get the correct answer. Answer choices explanation: This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. Even some students from each genre can make the figure more than 75%. For example, 60 students who voted R, 30 students who voted D and 5 students who voted T could have viewed Titanic as a romantic movie. Further, since 'more than 75%' can stretch up to 100%, even all the 100 students covered in the survey can view Titanic as a romantic movie. This is incorrect. For the same reasoning, as with option A, this option is incorrect. This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. If the maximum number of students (73) whose preference is romantic movies and the minimum number of students (26) whose preference is drama movies view Titanic as a romantic movie, the total number of students equals 73+26=9673+26=96 number of students > 75%. So, even if none of the students whose preference is tragedy movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie, the given survey fact - more than 75% of students view Titanic as a romantic movie - can still hold. This is correct. The minimum number of students whose preference is Romantic movies is 51. This means that the maximum number of students whose preference is drama or tragedy movies is 100−51=49100-51=49. This is less than 75% of all surveyed students. Since the number of students who view Titanic as a romantic movie is more than 75%, some students whose preference is romantic movies must view Titanic as a romantic movie. This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. With the same reasoning as used in option C, this is incorrect.

Lecturer: There are many benefits to connecting everyday objects like cars and home appliances to the internet to enable their owners to manage them remotely. But beware of doing so! With the rising number and variety of devices connected to it, the internet is becoming more complex and, consequently, more prone to security breaches by hackers. The consequences of a security breach are much graver with an internet-connected car or home appliance than with an internet-connected computer and might even include a risk to the life of the owner of these objects. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the lecturer's argument? AThe gravity of the consequences suffered by the owner of an internet-connected car or home appliance in the event of a security breach outweighs the benefits that these devices offer. BOwners of cars and home appliances should be cautious and alert to the dangers of connecting these objects to the internet. CA security breach of a car or home appliance that is connected to the internet can be much more dangerous than a security breach of an internet-connected computer. DThe vulnerability of the internet to security breaches is directly proportional to the number and variety of the devices connected to the internet. EThe increasing connection of everyday objects such as cars and home appliances to the internet in the recent years has increased the overall vulnerability of the internet to security breaches.

Solution Argument construction This argument is about connecting everyday objects to the internet (abbreviated henceforth as CO2I - Connecting Objects to Internet). Let's analyze the argument. It begins with this statement: There are many benefits to connecting everyday objects like cars and home appliances to the internet to enable their owners to manage them remotely. Here, the lecturer states that there are many benefits of CO2I. Then, he begins the second statement with "but," thereby indicating that he is now going to talk about something other than benefits (possibly the costs/dangers/risks?) of CO2I. No other statement of the argument provides support to this statement. Therefore, this statement definitely cannot be the conclusion of the argument. Further, this statement does not provide support to any of the other statements of the argument (had it done so, the argument would have been of the form: "There are many benefits of CO2I. Therefore, ..."). Hence, it is not a premise of the argument either. The second statement of the argument is: But beware of doing so! 'So' in the above statement refers to CO2I. This statement does not state facts or principles. Therefore, it is not a premise. It states an advice. So, it is a candidate of being the main conclusion of the argument, provided the remaining statements of the argument provide support for this advice. The third statement of the argument is: With the rising number and variety of devices connected to it, the internet is becoming more complex and, consequently, more prone to security breaches by hackers. This statement states a fact. Therefore, it could be a premise. But we see that this statement by itself is not sufficient to support the 2nd statement (our only candidate so far for being a conclusion). How do we know that it is not sufficient? Because, if you put the second and the third statement in a "(2nd statement) because (3rd statement)" format, we get: 'Beware of CO2I because with the rising number and variety of devices connected to it, the internet is becoming more complex and, consequently, more prone to security breaches by hackers.' Reading this statement, questions immediately spring in our mind - "Okay, so internet is more prone to security breaches. Then so what? Why should I beware of CO2I?" Clearly, there is a missing link between the 3rd statement and the 2nd statement. If the last statement of the argument supplies this missing link, then the 3rd and the 4th statements will both become the premises on which the conclusion drawn in the 2nd statement is based. The fourth and the last statement of the argument is: The consequences of a security breach are much graver with an internet-connected car or home appliance than with an internet-connected computer and might even include a risk to the life of the owner of these objects. Now, we see that when statements 3 and 4 are read in conjunction, we can draw the inference that: 'With the rising number of devices connected to the internet, the chances of security breach are increasing, and the consequences of such a breach can potentially be life-threatening for the owners of CO2I cars and homes.' We are now able to understand why the author asked us, in the second statement, to beware of CO2I. His line of reasoning is as under: CO2I will increase the number of devices connected to the internet (because obviously, in CO2I, you are connecting devices to the internet). Rising number of devices connected to the internet increases the chances of a security breach. The consequences of a security breach are much graver - potentially life-threatening for the owners - in the case of CO2I cars and homes than in the case of internet-connected computers. Hence the main conclusion of the argument is described in the 2nd statement - beware of CO2I. Who should beware? Presumably, the owners of cars and home appliances. Let us analyze the options one by one. f we feel doubtful about whether an answer choice represents the main conclusion of the argument or not, we will perform the Conclusion Test as under: We will read that answer choice along with the 3rd and the 4th statements of the argument in the following format: "(Answer choice) because (3rd statement) and (4th statement)" If the resulting statement makes logical sense, then the answer choice is indeed the main conclusion of the argument. If it does not, then the answer choice can be ruled out. Answer choices explanation A. This option is incorrect. The inference stated in this answer choice can be indeed be drawn from the information given in the argument. However, does this answer choice describe the main conclusion of the argument? Let's perform the Conclusion Test: (The gravity of the consequences suffered by the owner of an internet-connected car or home appliance in the event of a security breach outweighs the benefits that these devices offer) because (Rising number of devices connected to the internet increases the chances of a security breach) and (The consequences of a security breach are much graver - potentially life-threatening - for CO2I cars and homes than for internet-connected computers). Does this make logical sense? No. Therefore, this answer choice is definitely not the main conclusion of the argument. You may also notice that if we write the following statement: (2nd statement of the argument) because (this answer choice) - (Beware of CO2I) because (The gravity of the consequences suffered by the owner of an internet-connected car or home appliance in the event of a security breach outweighs the benefits that these devices offer) - Then, the resulting statement makes much more logical sense. Therefore, this answer choice can actually be thought of as a premise for the main conclusion rather than the main conclusion itself. B. This option is correct. This answer choice adequately describes the second statement of the argument, which, as we have identified in the 'Argument Construction' part above, is the main conclusion. C. This option is incorrect. This answer choice restates the last statement of the argument. As discussed above, the fourth statement is a premise of the main conclusion and not the main conclusion itself. D. This option is incorrect. The inference stated in this answer choice may indeed be drawn from the third statement of the argument. However, it is not the main conclusion of the argument. E. This option is incorrect. This statement is factually incorrect as per the information given in the argument - it is the increase in number and variety of devices (note that the general word 'devices' has been used in the argument) that has caused the increased vulnerability of the internet. Some of these devices may indeed be CO2I cars and home appliances. However, this answer choice makes it look like only the CO2I cars and home appliances are responsible for the increased vulnerability of the internet. Another problem with this answer choice is, of course, that it only states an (incorrect) inference based on the third statement of the argument, whereas the question has asked us to find the main conclusion.

A metropolitan area that has a population of more than 10 million and a population density of more than 2000 people per square kilometer is termed a megacity. Among the metropolitan areas of the United States, X and Z are megacities but Y is not. If the statements above are true, each of the following statements must also be true EXCEPT: AY is a metropolitan area with a population density of less than 2000 people per square kilometer. BX is a metropolitan area with a population density of more than 2000 people per square kilometer. CZ is a metropolitan area with a population of more than 10 million. DX is a metropolitan area with a population of more than 10 million. EAt least some metropolitan areas of the United States have a population density of more than 2000 people per square kilometer.

Solution Argument construction This argument is about one specific type of areas, namely 'metropolitan' areas, and further about a sub-type of metropolitan areas, namely 'megacities.' So, the hierarchy of the areas is like this: All Areas Non-metropolitan areas Metropolitan areas (MA henceforth) Megacities (MC henceforth) Non-megacities From this visual representation, it is easy to see to draw inferences like: All MC are MA but the vice-versa is not true. The first statement of the argument is also its Premise 1. A metropolitan area that has a population of more than 10 million and a population density of more than 2000 people per square kilometer is termed a megacity. From this premise, we learn that to be termed a MC, a MA must fulfill two conditions - it should have: Population > 10 million and Population Density > 2000 per sq. km. It is important to note that the word used to join the two conditions together in one sentence is 'and', not 'or.' This tells us that it is important that a MA fulfill both these conditions to get termed as a MC. Suppose it fulfills only condition 1 but not condition 2? Sorry, that won't do. We may depict the 'and' requirement visually using the idea of overlapping sets as follows: So, for a MA to be termed a MC, it must lie in the brown zone of the above diagram. Now, coming to the second statement of the argument, which is also Premise 2: Among the metropolitan areas of the United States, X and Z are megacities but Y is not. The first thing to note is the phrase "among the metropolitan areas of the United States." From this, we can be sure that the names that follow in this statement are all MA of the United States. So, X and Z are MA of the US Y is an MA of the US Among these three MA of the US, X and Z are MC. This means, they do fulfill both the conditions mentioned in Premise 1. So, we may infer that both X and Z have: Population > 10 million and Population Density > 2000 per sq. km. Y is not a MC. What may we infer from this fact? Refer to the visual depiction above. If Y is not a MC, this means that it does not lie in the brown zone of the diagram. So, the possible zones in which Y may lie in the above diagram are: ZoneMeaning(That part of the blue circle which is outside the brown zone)(Population) > (10 million) (Population Density) NOT > 2000 So, (Population Density) ≤2000 (That part of the red circle which is outside the brown zone)(Population Density) > 2000 (Population) NOT > (10 million) So, (Population) ≤ 10 million The white zone(Population) ≤ 10 million(Population Density) ≤2000 Let us analyze the options one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This option is correct. As discussed in the 'Argument Construction' part above, it is possible that Y lies in 'that part of the red circle which is outside the brown zone,' and, therefore, has a population density greater than 2000. Thus, this answer choice does not contain a "must be true" statement. B. This option is incorrect. This inference indeed must be true. We have already drawn this inference in the analysis done by us in the 'Argument Construction' part above. C. This option is incorrect. This inference indeed must be true. We have already drawn this inference in the analysis done by us in the 'Argument Construction' part above. D. This option is incorrect. This inference indeed must be true. We have already drawn this inference in the analysis done by us in the 'Argument Construction' part above. E. This option is incorrect. This inference indeed must be true. We know from the argument that there at least 2 MA in the US that have a population density >2000 (X and Z). So, even if no other MA in the US has a population density >2000, this option statement still holds true. Note that though inferring generalizations from specific facts is usually risky, the reason why this particular generalization works is because it is cautious in what it is claiming. Its claim is merely that "at least some" MA fulfill Condition 2 of becoming a MC. Had the claim been more exaggerated, like say, "Most MA fulfill Condition 2" or to go in the opposite direction, "Very few MA fulfill Condition 2," then the generalization would have ceased to be a "must be true" statement, because the facts of the case - which mentions only 3 of all the MA of the US - would have been insufficient to support the extent of the claim.

If Amy were a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry, she would have won the best actress award. She is not a tall and fair actress since she has not won the best actress award. The conclusion above is flawed because the author does not consider that Amy could Ahave won an award for scriptwriting Bbe a singer from the mainstream film industry Cbe a tall and fair actress from a non-mainstream film industry Dbe an actress belonging to a mainstream theatre group Ehave won an award for some other mainstream work

Solution Argument construction This is a typical conditional statement If then argument with its contrapositive. We have the conditional statement: P: Amy were a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry.Q: She would have won the best actress award. P → Q Thus, the contrapositive statement would be: ~Q → ~P ~Q: Amy has not won the best actress award.~P: She is not a tall and fair actress from mainstream film industry. In words: If Amy has not won the best actress award, she is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry. We can rewrite the contrapositive statement using since as: Since Amy has not won the best actress award, she is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry./p> The statement can also be rewritten as Amy is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry since she has not won the best actress award. Now let's bring out the statement given in the argument. She (Amy) is not a tall and fair actress since she has not won the best actress award. Predict a Flaw Comparing the two statements, we find that 'from the mainstream film industry,' is missing in the argument statement. Thus, this makes the conclusion unsound. Amy could still be a tall and fair actress but from a non-mainstream industry. Predictive Flaw: Amy could be a tall and fair actress from a non-mainstream industry. Answer choices explanation: This is incorrect. This is irrelevant. The premise is that Amy has not won the best actress award. Scriptwriting domain is not relevant. This is incorrect. Like option A, singing domain is also irrelevant. This is correct. This matches our predictive flaw. This is incorrect. First, it misses that the qualification 'tall and fair'; second, we cannot conclude that the 'mainstream theatre group' is not a part of mainstream film industry. This is incorrect. All we know that she has not won the best actress award. Rest is not relevant.

This year, the cotton crop in Alabama has been attacked by a new, hardy variety of bollworm that is resistant to all known pesticides. Due to this, the cotton production of the state has declined by 40 percent this year. Since this bollworm variety reproduces rapidly, it is likely to spread through all cotton-producing states of the United States by the next year and, therefore, we can expect a decline of at least 40 percent in the amount of cotton produced in the country next year. Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument? AMany other crops in Alabama too have been attacked by this bollworm variety this year. BThe natural predators of this bollworm variety are not able to survive in Alabama while cotton-farms in other cotton-producing states have large populations of these predators. CNinety-five percent of all cotton produced in the United States is of the Upland variety, which is also the only variety of cotton that is grown in Alabama. DThe domestic prices of cotton are not likely to increase next year as the United States will be able to meet its domestic demand for cotton through imports. EAgricultural scientists in the United States are making a massive effort to soon develop a variety of genetically-modified cotton that is resistant to this bollworm variety.

Solution Argument construction This year: "the cotton crop in Alabama has been attacked by a new, hardy variety of bollworm that is resistant to all known pesticides." This is context-setting information. "Due to this, the cotton production of the state has declined by 40 percent this year." This is Premise 1. Premise 2: "this bollworm variety reproduces rapidly." Premise 2 leads to a Subsidiary Conclusion: "[this bollworm variety] is likely to spread through all cotton-producing states of the United States by the next year." Premise 1 and the Subsidiary Conclusion are then combined to reach the Main Conclusion: "we can expect a decline of at least 40 percent in the amount of cotton produced in the country next year." There are a few gaps in the way this argument has been made: It has been assumed that what has happened in Alabama will happen in all cotton-producing states of the country. Premise 1 mentioned a 40 percent decline in cotton production in only Alabama. However, using this premise, a conclusion was drawn that there will be a 40 percent decline across all cotton-producing states of the country next year. Clearly, this generalization is unfounded and if attacked or proved wrong will significantly weaken the conclusion drawn in the argument. Another type of generalization that has been made in the argument is time-based. Premise 1 presents facts that happened this year. And using this premise, a conclusion is drawn about what will happen next year. Such extrapolation of this year's information to make a prediction for the next year is a logical leap and the argument will be weakened if a reason is provided for why this year ought not to be used as the basis of future predictions. For example, it could be that the weather in Alabama this year was unusually hot but it is expected to be normal again the next year. In this case, the bollworm variety, which thrives in unusually hot weather, may lie dormant or even perish next year because the weather next year may be unfavorable to it. Premise 2 offers only a very weak support to the subsidiary conclusion. Premise 2 mentions that this bollworm variety reproduces rapidly. For example, say, its population takes only 24 hours to double. This only suggests that its population in Alabama where this bollworm variety is found now will increase significantly by next year. But will it necessarily spread to other cotton-producing states? Does this bollworm variety have the physical capacity to travel long distances or some other means to travel or reach new places? If evidence is presented to suggest that the answer to these questions is No, then the Subsidiary Conclusion is proved wrong, and consequently the Main Conclusion gets significantly weakened. Let us analyze the options one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This option is incorrect. The conclusion drawn concerns only the cotton crop (across all cotton-producing states of the country, next year). The impact of this bollworm on other crops of Alabama does not impact the argument. B. This option is correct. This statement suggests one reason why it would be wrong to use what happened in Alabama to make a prediction for what will happen in other cotton-producing states. A point of difference between Alabama and these other states is that Alabama does not have the natural predators of this bollworm variety, whereas the other states have these predators in large numbers. This suggests that in the other states, the population of this bollworm variety will be controlled (by natural predators present in cotton forms) and therefore, it will not be able to wreak as much havoc as it did in Alabama this year. Therefore, when this option statement is used in conjunction with Premise 1, the main conclusion appears much weaker. C. This option is incorrect. Had the variety of cotton grown in Alabama been different from that grown in the other cotton-producing states of the United States, the conclusion would have been weakened. For example, one could have supposed that perhaps this bollworm variety had a deleterious impact on only the Alabama variety of cotton, and that its impact on the other varieties of cotton would be mellower or negligible. However, this option statement says that Alabama also grows the same variety of cotton that makes for 95 percent of all cotton grown in the United States. This option statement, therefore, establishes a point of similarity between Alabama and the other cotton-producing states and, thus, supports the use of Alabama-based Premise 1 to make a general conclusion for all cotton-producing states. D. This option is incorrect. The argument makes no prediction or claim regarding the domestic prices of cotton next year. Therefore, this option statement is out of the argument's scope. E. This option is incorrect. On the face of it, this option seems to suggest that the efforts of the agricultural scientists might prevent the predicted decline of cotton production next year by creating cotton plants that are immune to this bollworm variety. However, on closer inspection of the statement, we start to notice flaws in it. For example, the word "soon" is qualitative. What time frame does it convey? One month, or six months, or one year, or five years? This is not clear. On the other hand, the conclusion concerns itself very clearly with the next one year. Further, even if such a variety of cotton gets developed before next year, will it immediately get adopted on a large scale, across all cotton-producing states of the United States? This seems unlikely. Therefore, it does not seem plausible that these efforts of agricultural scientists will undermine the conclusion drawn by the argument.

Tony: Most web-pages on the internet have numerous enticing and hard-to-ignore hyperlinks, with each hyperlink leading to further hyperlinks and so on. Regularly falling into this bottomless hole of distracting and mostly trivial information on the internet decreases the ability of heavy internet users to do complex reasoning that requires focus and attention. James: A research study has found that heavy internet users did better than infrequent users on tests for focus and attention and also had stronger muscles in the brain areas associated with complex reasoning, which suggests a higher usage of these muscles. The dialogue most strongly supports the claim that Tony and James disagree with each other about whether Afocus and attention are necessary to do complex reasoning Bmost web-pages on the internet require internet users to do complex reasoning Cmost web-pages on the internet have hard-to-ignore hyperlinks Dheavy internet usage decreases a person's ability to do complex reasoning Eheavy internet users are more knowledgeable than infrequent internet users

Solution Argument construction Tony says that most web-pages on the internet have multiple enticing and hard-to-ignore hyperlinks. Each of these links leads to further hyperlinks and so on. This chain of 'link 1 leading to link 2 leading to link 3...' creates, in Tony's words, a "bottomless hole of distracting and mostly trivial information." He says that regularly falling into this hole decreases the ability of heavy internet users to do complex reasoning that requires focus and attention. James responds by citing a research study that found that heavy internet users did better than infrequent users on tests for attention and also had higher levels of activation in the brain areas associated with complex reasoning. Understanding the point at issue We need to understand each person's stance clearly to understand the point at issue. Tony's stance essentially is: Heavy internet usage decreases the ability to do complex reasoning that requires focus and attention. Prior to declaring this stance, he explains how the internet is full of enticing links that lead you to tons of distracting information. He implies that regularly falling into the temptations of internet would decrease a heavy internet user's attention span and ability to focus, and since these two are required to do complex reasoning, these user's ability to do complex reasoning would decrease. James' stance essentially is: Heavy internet users have better ability to focus and attention and also seem to be more actively doing complex reasoning than infrequent internet users. He cites a research study's findings to support his claim. Therefore, the point at issue between Tony and James is whether heavy internet usage decreases a person's ability to do complex reasoning or not. Tony says 'Yes' and James says 'No.' Let's analyze each option one by one. Answer choices explanation A. This is incorrect. Tony explicitly states that focus and attention are necessary to do complex reasoning. As far as James is concerned, the research finding cited by him shows better 'focus and attention' and also more frequent complex reasoning in heavy internet users. Therefore, James too seems to believe that there is at least a correlation between 'focus and attention' and 'complex reasoning.' Since he does not actively rebut Tony on this matter, this is certainly not a bone of contention - the point at issue - between the two. B. This is incorrect. Tony implies that most web-pages on the internet offer distracting information. Since he believes that complex reasoning requires focus and attention (the opposites of distraction), he might also believe that most web-pages on the internet do not require users to do complex reasoning. James' argument is that heavy internet users do complex reasoning more frequently than infrequent users. We cannot infer from this that James believes that most web-pages on the internet require such skills. James might believe, for example, that heavy internet users are more likely than infrequent users to visit certain specific web-pages that require users to do complex reasoning. Therefore, we cannot infer whether James supports or opposes this option statement. Since we don't even know for sure what James thinks about it, this option certainly is not the point at issue between him and Tony. C. This is incorrect. Tony explicitly supports this statement. However, nothing that Tony says commits him to a particular view on this statement. There is certainly no indication that the two hold opposing views on this matter. D. This is correct. It is in-line with our discussion in the 'Argument Construction' section. E. This is incorrect. 'Knowledge' and 'information' are two distinct entities. While Tony does seem to imply that heavy internet users access more information on the internet than infrequent users, he does not touch at all the question of how much, if at all, this extra information improves the knowledge of heavy internet users. James is silent on both the relative information consumption and the relative knowledge of heavy and infrequent users. Therefore, it is not possible to deduce the stance of either Tony or James on this option statement.

Two things are true of all good deeds. First, they are accompanied by feelings of satisfaction. Second, if they are publicly known, they elicit general approval. If all of the above statements are true, then which of the following cannot also be true? A. Some good deeds that are not publicly known are not accompanied by feelings of satisfaction. B. Even if they frequently elicit general approval when known publicly, some deeds that are accompanied by feelings of satisfaction are not good deeds. C. Good deeds are good solely because they are accompanied by feelings of satisfaction. D. Every publicly known act that is accompanied by feelings of satisfaction is a good deed. E. Some publicly known deeds that elicit general approval are not accompanied by feelings of satisfaction.

Some good deeds that are not publicly known are not accompanied by feelings of satisfaction.

Most movie critics dislike Hollywood blockbusters. If someone dislikes Hollywood blockbusters they are a snob. Most people who are over the age of fifty dislike Hollywood blockbusters. Some people who dislike Hollywood blockbusters are huge fans of theater. If someone does not dislike Hollywood blockbusters they like large explosions. Each of the following must be true EXCEPT: A. Some people who dislike Hollywood blockbusters are over the age of fifty. B. Most movie critics are snobs. C. If someone is not a snob, they like large explosions. D. Some movie critics are huge fans of theater. E. Most people over the age of fifty are snobs.

Some movie critics are huge fans of theater.

During the construction of the Quebec Bridge in 1907, the bridge's designer, Theodore Cooper, received word that the suspended span being built out from the bridge's cantilever was deflecting downward by a fraction of an inch (2.54 centimeters). Before he could telegraph to freeze the project, the whole cantilever arm broke off and plunged, along with seven dozen workers, into the St. Lawrence River. It was the worst bridge construction disaster in history. As a direct result of the inquiry that followed, the engineering "rules of thumb" by which thousands of bridges had been built around the world went down with the Quebec Bridge. Twentieth-century bridge engineers would thereafter depend on far more rigorous applications of mathematical analysis. Which one of the following statements can be properly inferred from the passage? A. Bridges built before about 1907 were built without thorough mathematical analysis and, therefore, were unsafe for the public to use. B. Cooper's absence from the Quebec Bridge construction site resulted in the breaking off of the cantilever. C. Nineteenth-century bridge engineers relied on their rules of thumb because analytical methods were inadequate to solve their design problems. D. Only a more rigorous application of mathematical analysis to the design of the Quebec Bridge could have prevented its collapse. E. Prior to 1907 the mathematical analysis incorporated in engineering rules of thumb was insufficient to completely assure the safety of bridges under construction.

The question asks you to identify the response that can be properly inferred from the passage. The passage indicates that the Quebec Bridge disaster in 1907 and the inquiry that followed caused the engineering "rules of thumb" used in construction of thousands of bridges to be abandoned. Since the Quebec Bridge disaster in 1907 prompted this abandonment, it can be inferred that these were the rules of thumb under which the Quebec Bridge was being built when it collapsed and that these were the rules of thumb used in bridge building before 1907. Further, since the Quebec Bridge collapsed while under construction and the rules of thumb being used were abandoned as a result, it can be inferred that the rules of thumb used in building the Quebec Bridge and bridges prior to 1907 were insufficient to completely assure the safety of bridges under construction. Finally, since the alternative that was adopted in place of the old engineering rules of thumb was to "depend on far more rigorous applications of mathematical analysis," it can be inferred that the mathematical analysis incorporated in the engineering rules of thumb used prior to 1907 made them insufficient to completely assure the safety of bridges under construction. Thus, (E) is the correct response.

About two million years ago, lava dammed up a river in western Asia and caused a small lake to form. The lake existed for about half a million years. Bones of an early human ancestor were recently found in the ancient lake-bottom sediments that lie on top of the layer of lava. Therefore, ancestors of modern humans lived in western Asia between two million and one-and-a-half million years ago. Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument? A. There were no other lakes in the immediate area before the lava dammed up the river. B. The lake contained fish that the human ancestors could have used for food. C. The lava that lay under the lake-bottom sediments did not contain any human fossil remains. D. The lake was deep enough that a person could drown in it. E. The bones were already in the sediments by the time the lake dried up.

This question asks you to find the assumption required by the argument. In other words, find the statement whose truth is required if the argument is to succeed in demonstrating its conclusion. Response (E) is the correct response. If the bones were not already in the sediments when the lake dried up, that means that they got into the sediments later; that is, less than one-and-a-half million years ago. But then their existence would not provide evidence that there were human ancestors in western Asia between two million and one-and-a-half million years ago; that is, the conclusion of the argument would not follow if (E) is false.

The Venetian Renaissance painter Vittore Carpaccio used sumptuous reds in most of his paintings. Since the recently discovered Venetian Renaissance painting Erato Declaiming contains notable sumptuous reds, it is probably by Carpaccio. Which one of the following contains a pattern of flawed reasoning most similar to that in the argument above? A. Most Renaissance painters worked in a single medium, either tempera or oil. Since the Renaissance painting Calypso's Bower is in oil, its painter probably always used oil. B. In Italian Renaissance painting, the single most common subject was the Virgin and Child, so the single most common subject in Western art probably is also the Virgin and Child. C. Works of art in the Renaissance were mostly commissioned by patrons, so the Renaissance work The Dances of Terpsichore was probably commissioned by a patron. D. The anonymous painting St. Sebastian is probably an early Florentine painting since it is in tempera, and most early Florentine paintings were in tempera. E. Since late-Renaissance paintings were mostly in oil, the Venetian late-Renaissance painter Arnoldi, whose works are now lost, probably painted in oil.

This question asks you to find the response that contains a pattern of flawed reasoning most similar to that contained in the passage's argument. To do this, you must understand the flawed pattern in the passage's argument. Then choose the response that exhibits the most similar flawed pattern. Response (D) is correct. Just because most As are Bs, that does not mean a particular B is likely to be an A. There may be many more Bs than As. This is the flaw in the passage, and in response (D).

Executive: We recently ran a set of advertisements in the print version of a travel magazine and on that magazine's website. We were unable to get any direct information about consumer response to the print ads. However, we found that consumer response to the ads on the website was much more limited than is typical for website ads. We concluded that consumer response to the print ads was probably below par as well. The executive's reasoning does which one of the following? A. bases a prediction of the intensity of a phenomenon on information about the intensity of that phenomenon's cause B. uses information about the typical frequency of events of a general kind to draw a conclusion about the probability of a particular event of that kind C. infers a statistical generalization from claims about a large number of specific instances D. uses a case in which direct evidence is available to draw a conclusion about an analogous case in which direct evidence is unavailable E. bases a prediction about future events on facts about recent comparable events

This question asks you to identify how the executive's reasoning proceeds. The ads discussed by the executive appeared in two places—in a magazine and on the magazine's website. Some information is available concerning the effect of the website ads on consumers, but no consumer response information is available about the print ads. The executive's remarks suggest that the ads that appeared in print and on the website were basically the same, or very similar. The executive reasoned that information about the effect of the website ads could be used as evidence for an inference about how the print ads likely performed. The executive thus used the analogy between the print ads and the website ads to infer something about the print ads. (D), therefore, is the correct response.

Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom. There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies. Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects. The reasoning in the political scientist's argument is flawed because it A. confuses the conditions necessary for political freedom with the conditions sufficient to bring it about B. fails to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political freedom might cause a society to become more democratic C. appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim being made D. overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it E. bases its historical case on a personal point of view

This question asks you to identify how the reasoning in the political scientist's argument is flawed. The argument bases its conclusion—that democracy does not promote political freedom—on two sets of historical examples. The first set of examples demonstrates that democracy is not sufficient for political freedom, and the second set demonstrates that democracy is not necessary for political freedom. But it does not follow from these examples that democracy does not promote political freedom. Even if democracy is not, by itself, sufficient for political freedom, it can still promote political freedom by contributing to it in most instances. Even if democracy is not necessary for political freedom, it can still be true that democracy is something that promotes political freedom wherever it is found. Thus, (D) is the correct response.

Several critics have claimed that any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry—poetry that is rhymed and metered—is performing a politically conservative act. This is plainly false. Consider Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker, two contemporary poets whose poetry is almost exclusively formal and yet who are themselves politically progressive feminists. The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed? A. No one who is a feminist is also politically conservative. B. No poet who writes unrhymed or unmetered poetry is politically conservative. C. No one who is politically progressive is capable of performing a politically conservative act. D. Anyone who sometimes writes poetry that is not politically conservative never writes poetry that is politically conservative. E. The content of a poet's work, not the work's form, is the most decisive factor in determining what political consequences, if any, the work will have.

This question asks you to identify the option containing information that makes the conclusion of the argument follow logically. The conclusion of the argument is that it is false that any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry is performing a politically conservative act. To draw this conclusion logically, one only needs to show at least one contemporary poet who is writing formal poetry and is not thereby performing a politically conservative act. Showing such an instance would provide a counterexample to the claim attributed to the critics, demonstrating that the critics' generalization is false. The premise given is that there are two contemporary and politically progressive feminist poets who write formal poetry—Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker. If no one who is politically progressive is capable of performing a politically conservative act, and Peacock and Hacker are politically progressive, it follows logically that neither is capable of performing a politically conservative act. Since both write formal poetry, their writing of formal poetry cannot be a politically conservative act. This shows that one can write formal poetry without performing a politically conservative act, so (C) is the correct response.

Laird: Pure research provides us with new technologies that contribute to saving lives. Even more worthwhile than this, however, is its role in expanding our knowledge and providing new, unexplored ideas. Kim: Your priorities are mistaken. Saving lives is what counts most of all. Without pure research, medicine would not be as advanced as it is. Laird and Kim disagree on whether pure research A. derives its significance in part from its providing new technologies B. expands the boundaries of our knowledge of medicine C. should have the saving of human lives as an important goal D. has its most valuable achievements in medical applications E. has any value apart from its role in providing new technologies to save lives

This question asks you to identify the point on which Laird and Kim disagree with respect to pure research. Laird identifies two contributions of pure research: its medical applications ("technologies that contribute to saving lives") and its role in expanding knowledge and providing new ideas. Of these, Laird considers the second contribution to be more worthwhile. Kim, on the other hand, maintains that "Saving lives is what counts most of all." Since pure research saves lives through medical applications, Kim disagrees with Laird about whether pure research has its most valuable achievements in medical applications. The correct response, therefore, is (D).

The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in that there is still no evidence of the neutron star that current theory says should have remained after a supernova of that size. This is in spite of the fact that many of the most sensitive instruments ever developed have searched for the tell-tale pulse of radiation that neutron stars emit. Thus, current theory is wrong in claiming that supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? A. Most supernova remnants that astronomers have detected have a neutron star nearby. B;. Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova. C. The supernova of 1987 was the first that scientists were able to observe in progress. D. Several important features of the 1987 supernova are correctly predicted by the current theory. E. Some neutron stars are known to have come into existence by a cause other than a supernova explosion.

This question asks you to identify the response that most strengthens the argument. The argument concludes that "current theory is wrong in claiming that supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars" based on the observation that no evidence has been found of a neutron star left behind by the supernova event of 1987. However, the failure to find evidence of the predicted neutron star does not necessarily indicate that such evidence does not exist. It may instead indicate that the instruments used to search for the evidence are not powerful enough to detect a neutron star in the area where the 1987 supernova event occurred. The argument would thus be strengthened if there was evidence that the search instruments used would in fact be capable of finding the predicted neutron star if that star existed. Response (B) provides such evidence. If "sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova," then it is less likely that the predicted neutron star is outside the detection range of "the most sensitive instruments ever developed." Thus, (B) is the correct response.

In jurisdictions where use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than are drivers who use headlights only when visibility is poor. Yet Highway Safety Department records show that making use of headlights mandatory at all times does nothing to reduce the overall number of collisions. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the information above? A. In jurisdictions where use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, one driver in four uses headlights for daytime driving in good weather. B. A law making use of headlights mandatory at all times is not especially difficult to enforce. C. Only very careful drivers use headlights when their use is not legally required. D. There are some jurisdictions in which it is illegal to use headlights when visibility is good. E. The jurisdictions where use of headlights is mandatory at all times are those where daytime visibility is frequently poor.

This question asks you to resolve an apparent discrepancy in information. The discrepancy arises because the passage presents two pieces of information that are in conflict. Response (C) is correct. If only very careful drivers use headlights when their use is not legally required, then this explains why, when headlight use is optional, those drivers are less likely to be involved in a collision than are drivers who use headlights only when visibility is poor. It stands to reason that if headlight use is made mandatory, many less-careful drivers will also use headlights. But then the group of drivers using headlights expands to include not only the very careful drivers, but drivers of all sorts—including some who are not very careful. So it is not at all surprising that the overall number of collisions is not reduced: unsafe drivers do not become more careful when forced to use headlights.

Journalist: To reconcile the need for profits sufficient to support new drug research with the moral imperative to provide medicines to those who most need them but cannot afford them, some pharmaceutical companies feel justified in selling a drug in rich nations at one price and in poor nations at a much lower price. But this practice is unjustified. A nation with a low average income may still have a substantial middle class better able to pay for new drugs than are many of the poorer citizens of an overall wealthier nation. Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the journalist's reasoning? A. People who are ill deserve more consideration than do healthy people, regardless of their relative socioeconomic positions. B. Wealthy institutions have an obligation to expend at least some of their resources to assist those incapable of assisting themselves. C. Whether one deserves special consideration depends on one's needs rather than on characteristics of the society to which one belongs. D. The people in wealthy nations should not have better access to health care than do the people in poorer nations. E. Unequal access to health care is more unfair than an unequal distribution of wealth.

he journalist states that pharmaceutical companies have both a need for profits to support future research and a moral obligation to provide medicines to those who most need them and cannot afford them. In order to balance these requirements, they have adopted a practice of selling drugs at lower prices in poorer countries. The journalist's conclusion is that this practice is unjustified. To support this claim, the journalist points out that different individuals in the same nation have differing abilities to pay, but this consideration does not, by itself, establish that the pharmaceutical company's policy is unjustified. The question asks you to choose the principle that would most help to justify the journalist's reasoning. The principle stated in response (C) connects the question of whether special consideration is deserved to personal, rather than societal, needs. The pharmaceutical companies' practice provides special consideration based on the characteristics of one's society, and not based on one's personal needs. As a result, according to this principle, the practice tends to deny special consideration to some who deserve it (the poorer citizens of wealthier nations), while giving special consideration to some who do not deserve it (the middle class citizens of poorer nations). In this way the practice is failing to meet the pharmaceutical companies' obligation to provide special consideration for those who most need the drugs and cannot afford them, and, in giving undeserved special consideration, failing to generate income that could have been used to support new drug research. The principle in (C) thereby provides strong support for the journalist's reasoning that the pharmaceutical companies' practice is unjustified. Thus, (C) is the correct response.