1. Editorial: The premier’s economic advisor assures her that with the elimination of wasteful spending the goal of reducing taxes while not significantly decreasing government services
can be met. But the premier should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was convicted of embezzlement. Surely his economic advice is as untrustworthy as he is himself, and so the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services.
Which one of the following is a questionable
argumentative strategy employed in the editorial’s
argument?
(A) rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a
particular implementation of the proposal is
likely to fail
(B) trying to win support for a proposal by playing
on people’s fears of what could happen
otherwise
(C) criticizing the source of a claim rather than
examining the claim itself
(D) taking a lack of evidence for a claim as
evidence undermining the claim
(E) presupposing what it sets out to establish
2. Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality. The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior, since Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, must obviously have plagiarized superior ones.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on
which one of the following grounds?
(A) It simply ignores the existence of potential
counterevidence.
(B) It generalizes from atypical occurrences.
(C) It presupposes what it seeks to establish.
(D) It relies on the judgment of experts in a matter
to which their expertise is irrelevant.
(E) It infers limits on ability from a few isolated
lapses in performance.
3. Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for humans to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of
independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated
food is not safe for human consumption.
The reasoning in the activist’s argument is flawed
because that argument
(A) treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting
proof of the denial of that claim
(B) treats methodological flaws in past studies as
proof that it is currently not possible to
devise methodologically adequate
alternatives
(C) fails to consider the possibility that even a
study whose methodology has no serious
flaws nonetheless might provide only weak
support for its conclusion
(D) fails to consider the possibility that what is safe
for animals might not always be safe for
human beings
(E) fails to establish that the independent scientists
know more about food irradiation than do the
people who produced the five studies
4. Philosopher: Scientists talk about the pursuit of truth, but, like most people, they are
self-interested. Accordingly, the professional activities of most scientists are directed toward
personal career enhancement, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth. Hence,
the activities of the scientific community are largely directed toward enhancing the status of
that community as a whole, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth.
The reasoning in the philosopher’s argument is
flawed because the argument
(A) improperly infers that each and every scientist
has a certain characteristic from the premise
that most scientists have that characteristic
(B) improperly draws an inference about the
scientific community as a whole from a
premise about individual scientists
(C) presumes, without giving justification, that the
aim of personal career enhancement never
advances the pursuit of truth
(D) illicitly takes advantage of an ambiguity in the
meaning of “self-interested”
(E) improperly draws an inference about a cause
from premises about its effects
5. Several legislators claim that the public finds many current movies so violent as to be morally offensive. However, these legislators have misrepresented public opinion. In a survey conducted by a movie industry guild, only 17 percent of respondents thought that movies are overly violent, and only 3 percent found any recent movie morally offensive.
These low percentages are telling, because the respondents see far more current movies than does the average moviegoer.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the
argument
(A) attempts to undermine the legislators’
credibility instead of addressing their
argument
(B) bases its conclusion on subjective judgments
rather than on an objective criterion of moral
offensiveness
(C) fails to consider the possibility that violent
movies increase the prevalence of antisocial
behavior
(D) generalizes from a sample that is unlikely to be
representative of public sentiment
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that
the people surveyed based their responses on
a random sampling of movies
6. On some hot days the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels, and on some hot days the wind blows into Hillview from the east. Therefore, on some days when the wind blows into Hillview from the east, the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the
argument
(A) mistakes a condition that sometimes
accompanies unsafe levels of smog for a
condition that necessarily accompanies
unsafe levels of smog
(B) fails to recognize that one set might have some
members in common with each of two others
even though those two other sets have no
members in common with each other
(C) uses the key term “unsafe” in one sense in a
premise and in another sense in the
conclusion
(D) contains a premise that is implausible unless
the conclusion is presumed to be true
(E) infers a particular causal relation from a
correlation that could be explained in a
variety of other ways
7. Astronomer: I have asserted that our solar system does not contain enough meteoroids and other cosmic debris to have caused the extensive cratering on the far side of the moon. My opponents have repeatedly failed to demonstrate the falsity of this thesis. Their evidence is simply inconclusive; thus they should admit that my thesis is correct.
The reasoning in the astronomer’s argument is flawed
because this argument
(A) criticizes the astronomer’s opponents rather
than their arguments
(B) infers the truth of the astronomer’s thesis from
the mere claim that it has not been proven
false
(C) ignores the possibility that alternative
explanations may exist for the cratering
(D) presumes that the astronomer’s thesis should
not be subject to rational discussion and
criticism
(E) fails to precisely define the key word
“meteoroids”
8. Some people believe that good health is due to luck. However, studies from many countries indicate a strong correlation between good health and high educational levels. Thus research supports the view that good health is largely the result of making informed lifestyle choices.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to
criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that
only highly educated people make informed
lifestyle choices
(B) overlooks the possibility that people who make
informed lifestyle choices may nonetheless
suffer from inherited diseases
(C) presumes, without providing justification, that
informed lifestyle choices are available to
everyone
(D) overlooks the possibility that the same thing
may causally contribute both to education
and to good health
(E) does not acknowledge that some people who
fail to make informed lifestyle choices are in
good health
can be met. But the premier should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was convicted of embezzlement. Surely his economic advice is as untrustworthy as he is himself, and so the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services.
Which one of the following is a questionable
argumentative strategy employed in the editorial’s
argument?
(A) rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a
particular implementation of the proposal is
likely to fail
(B) trying to win support for a proposal by playing
on people’s fears of what could happen
otherwise
(C) criticizing the source of a claim rather than
examining the claim itself
(D) taking a lack of evidence for a claim as
evidence undermining the claim
(E) presupposing what it sets out to establish
2. Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality. The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior, since Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, must obviously have plagiarized superior ones.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on
which one of the following grounds?
(A) It simply ignores the existence of potential
counterevidence.
(B) It generalizes from atypical occurrences.
(C) It presupposes what it seeks to establish.
(D) It relies on the judgment of experts in a matter
to which their expertise is irrelevant.
(E) It infers limits on ability from a few isolated
lapses in performance.
3. Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for humans to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of
independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated
food is not safe for human consumption.
The reasoning in the activist’s argument is flawed
because that argument
(A) treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting
proof of the denial of that claim
(B) treats methodological flaws in past studies as
proof that it is currently not possible to
devise methodologically adequate
alternatives
(C) fails to consider the possibility that even a
study whose methodology has no serious
flaws nonetheless might provide only weak
support for its conclusion
(D) fails to consider the possibility that what is safe
for animals might not always be safe for
human beings
(E) fails to establish that the independent scientists
know more about food irradiation than do the
people who produced the five studies
4. Philosopher: Scientists talk about the pursuit of truth, but, like most people, they are
self-interested. Accordingly, the professional activities of most scientists are directed toward
personal career enhancement, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth. Hence,
the activities of the scientific community are largely directed toward enhancing the status of
that community as a whole, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth.
The reasoning in the philosopher’s argument is
flawed because the argument
(A) improperly infers that each and every scientist
has a certain characteristic from the premise
that most scientists have that characteristic
(B) improperly draws an inference about the
scientific community as a whole from a
premise about individual scientists
(C) presumes, without giving justification, that the
aim of personal career enhancement never
advances the pursuit of truth
(D) illicitly takes advantage of an ambiguity in the
meaning of “self-interested”
(E) improperly draws an inference about a cause
from premises about its effects
5. Several legislators claim that the public finds many current movies so violent as to be morally offensive. However, these legislators have misrepresented public opinion. In a survey conducted by a movie industry guild, only 17 percent of respondents thought that movies are overly violent, and only 3 percent found any recent movie morally offensive.
These low percentages are telling, because the respondents see far more current movies than does the average moviegoer.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the
argument
(A) attempts to undermine the legislators’
credibility instead of addressing their
argument
(B) bases its conclusion on subjective judgments
rather than on an objective criterion of moral
offensiveness
(C) fails to consider the possibility that violent
movies increase the prevalence of antisocial
behavior
(D) generalizes from a sample that is unlikely to be
representative of public sentiment
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that
the people surveyed based their responses on
a random sampling of movies
6. On some hot days the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels, and on some hot days the wind blows into Hillview from the east. Therefore, on some days when the wind blows into Hillview from the east, the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the
argument
(A) mistakes a condition that sometimes
accompanies unsafe levels of smog for a
condition that necessarily accompanies
unsafe levels of smog
(B) fails to recognize that one set might have some
members in common with each of two others
even though those two other sets have no
members in common with each other
(C) uses the key term “unsafe” in one sense in a
premise and in another sense in the
conclusion
(D) contains a premise that is implausible unless
the conclusion is presumed to be true
(E) infers a particular causal relation from a
correlation that could be explained in a
variety of other ways
7. Astronomer: I have asserted that our solar system does not contain enough meteoroids and other cosmic debris to have caused the extensive cratering on the far side of the moon. My opponents have repeatedly failed to demonstrate the falsity of this thesis. Their evidence is simply inconclusive; thus they should admit that my thesis is correct.
The reasoning in the astronomer’s argument is flawed
because this argument
(A) criticizes the astronomer’s opponents rather
than their arguments
(B) infers the truth of the astronomer’s thesis from
the mere claim that it has not been proven
false
(C) ignores the possibility that alternative
explanations may exist for the cratering
(D) presumes that the astronomer’s thesis should
not be subject to rational discussion and
criticism
(E) fails to precisely define the key word
“meteoroids”
8. Some people believe that good health is due to luck. However, studies from many countries indicate a strong correlation between good health and high educational levels. Thus research supports the view that good health is largely the result of making informed lifestyle choices.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to
criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that
only highly educated people make informed
lifestyle choices
(B) overlooks the possibility that people who make
informed lifestyle choices may nonetheless
suffer from inherited diseases
(C) presumes, without providing justification, that
informed lifestyle choices are available to
everyone
(D) overlooks the possibility that the same thing
may causally contribute both to education
and to good health
(E) does not acknowledge that some people who
fail to make informed lifestyle choices are in
good health
Very good questions. Thanks :)
ReplyDelete