| To
prevent some conflicts of interest congress
could prohibit high level government officials
from accepting position as lobbyists for
three years after such officials leave government
service. One such official concluded, however,
that such a prohibition would be unfortunate
because it would prevent high level government
officials from earning a livelihood for
three years
The
official’s conclusion logically depends
upon which of the following assumptions?
- Laws should not restrict the behavior
of former government officials
- Lobbyists are typically who have previously
high level government officials
- Low level government officials do not
often become lobbyists when they leave
government service
- High level government officials who
leave government services are capable
of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists
- High level government officials who
leave government services are currently
permitted to act as lobbyists for only
three years
The conclusion
– “a prohibition would
be unfortunate because it would prevent
high level government officials from earning
a livelihood for three years”
Now try option 1 therefore conclusion (doesn’t
link with conclusion)
option 2 therefore conclusion (irrelevant)
up-to option 5
Only option 4 has
a logical connection with the conclusion
Hence this is the assumption.
Since assumption is a missing evidence,
place the option before the conclusion,
and connect the statements using therefore.
High level government officials
who leave government services are capable
of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists.
Therefore “a prohibition would be
unfortunate because it would prevent high
level government officials from earning
a livelihood for three years”
Weaken
the argument
This is a higher weight-age question. It
tests your ability to evaluate an argument.
Important
points
The conclusion is already stated
in the argument
The logical steps to answer this
question are
Step 1: find the conclusion
Step 2: Identify the logic
– exemplars, analogy, causation, statistical
logic
Step 3: find the option
that negates the logic of the argument
More
If the argument is based on analogy
logic ( deriving a conclusion based on apparent
similarity between two situations), To negate
the analogy you have to prove that the two
situations are in fact dissimilar)
If a causal logic is used, you must
negate it by choosing the option that states
reasons other than cited in the argument
affecting the effect
.
If exemplars are given you must check the
number of cases referred and the generality
of the conclusion drawn.
If a statistical evidence is used,
you have to check the representativeness
of the sample of the population for which
conclusion is drawn
The right answer will question the representativeness
of the statistic cited in the form of numbers,
percentages or ratios
The ice on the front windshield
of the car had formed when moisture condensed
during the night. The ice melted quickly
after the car was warmed up the next morning
because of the defrosting vent, which blows
only on the front windshield, was turned
on full force.
Which of the following,
if true, most seriously jeopardizes the
validity of the explanation for the speed
with which of the ice melted?
- The side windows had not ice condensation
on them
- Even though no attempt was made to
defrost the back window, the ice there
melted at the same rates as did the ice
on the front windshield.
- The speed at which ice on a window
melts increases as the temperature of
the air blown on the window increases
- The warm air from the defrosting vent
for the front windshield cools rapidly
as it dissipates throughout the rest of
the car
- The defrosting vent operates efficiently
even when the heater, which blows warm
air toward the feet or faces of the driver
and passengers, is on
Let’s
find the conclusion
“The ice melted quickly
after the car was warmed up the next morning
because of the defrosting vent,”
the logic is causation- a causes b.
cause is defrost vent and effect is speed
with which the ice melted
To weaken the causal logic we have to negate
the above reasoning.
Option 2 negates this showing that without
a defrost vent the ice melted at the back
window at the same rate. The other options
do not disprove what causes the speed with
which ice melted.
|
