Category: Critical Reasoning

Critical Reasoning Question 3

An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits to fight against the Balaland Republic. The U.S. Neutrality Act plainly forbids U.S. citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war. Since no war has been declared between the United States and the Balaland Republic, we should bring charges against these fanatics, who are in open defiance of the law.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

A. The Balaland Republic is currently engaged in a bloody and escalating civil war.

B. Diplomatic relations between the United States and the Balaland Republic were severed last year.

C. The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event the United States goes to war against the Balaland Republic.

D. The training of recruits is funded not by E.S. citizens, but rather by a consortium of individuals from abroad.

E. Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is first launched.

Correct answer: C

U.S. law forbids U.S. citizens from engaging in military campaigns against countries unless the United States is at war with those countries. Since no war has been declared between the United States and the Balaland Republic, the author concludes that the recruits being trained to fight against the Balaland Republic are defying U.S. law. But if, as (C) asserts, the recruits are being trained to fight only if a way is declared, then they’re not in defiance of U.S. law. Being prepared for battle is different from actually engaging in it.

(A)’s no weakener; we can’t assume that the country’s escalating civil war justifies military action against it. In (B), severing diplomatic ties doesn’t go far enough to show that training recruits is justifiable under U.S. law. As for (D), who funds the rebels was never mentioned by the author and is irrelevant. And as for (E), the author starts off calling for an investigation, so he doesn’t assert that charges should be brought without launching an investigation first.

Critical Reasoning Question 2

In recent years, attacks by Dobermans on small children have risen dramatically. Last year saw 35 such attacks in the continental United States alone, an increase of almost 21% over the previous year’s total. Clearly, then, it is unsafe to keep dogs as pets if one has small children in the house.

The argument above depends upon which of the following assumptions?

A. No reasonable justification for these attacks by Dobermans on small children has been discovered.

B. Other household pets, such as cats, don’t display the same violent tendencies that dogs do.

C. The number of attacks by Dobermans on small children will continue to rise in the coming years.

D. A large percentage of the attacks by Dobermans on small children could have been prevented by proper training.

E. The behavior toward small children exhibited by Dobermans is representative of dogs in general.

The correct answer is E.

The evidence discusses attacks by Dobermans, but the conclusion is that the dogs-any dogs- are unsafe around little kids. This makes sense only if we assume (E): that Dobermans, in their behavior toward little kids, are generally representative of dogs. A good way of checking assumptions is to see what happens if we take their opposite: if the opposite of a statement weakens the argument, then that statement is assumed; if it doesn’t, it’s not. Here, if Dobermans’ behavior toward small children isn’t typical of dogs, the argument falls apart.

(A), whether the attacks were justified, is beside the point. Even if the kids were pulling the dogs’ tails, the author’s point that the dogs aren’t safe still holds. Other pets are beyond the scope, so (B)’s out. As for (C), the argument doesn’t deal with the future, so the author needn’t assume anything about it. And it certainly wouldn’t weaken the argument if, contrary to (D), many of the attack could not have been prevented, so (D)’s not assumed.

Okay, our goal at PrivateTutoringAtHome.com is to help parents, students, and tutors alike be super successful. We know many of you are shaking in your boots as you prepare for the ACT and SAT and GED and GMAT and LSAT, and any other acronym standardized test you can think of.

So, in honor of the standardized test, we’ll be posting 1 question and answer this whole month and the focus will be on critical reasoning. Deal? Good. So join us daily for some seriously yummy critical reasoning buffet.

Critical Reasoning Question 1

In Los Angeles, a political candidate who buys saturation radio advertising will get maximum name recognition.

The statement above logically conveys which of the following?

A. Radio advertising is the most important factor in political campaigns in Los Angeles.

B. Maximum name recognition in Los Angeles will help a candidate to win a higher percentage of votes cast in the city.

C. Saturation radio advertising reaches every demographically distinct sector of the voting population in Los Angeles.

D. For maximum name recognition a candidate need not spend on media channels other than radio advertising.

E. A candidate’s record of achievement in the Los Angeles area will do little to affect his or her name recognition there.

Think you know the answer?

The correct answer is D. An L.A. political candidate who buys saturation radio advertising will get maximum name recognition. In other words, such advertising is sufficient for maximum name recognition. If so, then is must be true that, as (D) says, a candidate can get such recognition without spending on other forms of media.

(A) suggests that radio advertising is the most important factor in L.A. political campaigns, but nothing like this was mentioned in the stimulus, so it’s not something that you can infer. Nor were we told the specific results of attaining a maximum name recognition, so (B) is out. Similarly, we don’t know precisely what is meant by “saturation radio advertising,” so we can’t infer anything as detailed as (C). Finally, although we know saturation radio advertising is sufficient for getting maximum name recognition, we can’t infer that other things, such as candidate’s record mentioned in (E), have little effect on name recognition.

When I answered this question, I thought the answer was either B or C. Knowing both these answers were incorrect, helps me to understand that I need to work on assuming details not given.