In Method of Reasoning questions, the correct answer must be a completely-accurate description of the argument - your goal then should be to attack each answer choice to find a word or phrase that doesn't fit. Method of Reasoning makes for good process of elimination.

Choice "Claims that her decision is the only logical course of action." is incorrect in that the hiker does not single her decision out as the ONLY logical decision: she considers the merits of two other decisions and arrives at one she feels is best. Choice "Claims that her decision is the only logical course of action." is too strong.

Choice "Chooses a course of action based on experience in similar situations." is incorrect because the concept of experience never comes up in the argument. Similarly, choice "Makes a unilateral decision by dismissing the recommendations of others." mentions the recommendations of others but in the argument as given the only options discussed come straight from the hiker herself.

Choice "Recommends a choice based on the elimination of alternative options." is correct: she eliminates two options and arrives at the third, so it is true that she recommends a course of action based on the elimination of others.

And choice "Outlines the risks and benefits of all available courses of action." is incorrect in large part because of the word "all" - you do not know that the three options she discusses are the only available options, so "all" could include others. And she does not talk about the risks associated with the third plan, so she does not discuss the risks even of "all" plans that are included. 

The course of action that is advised against is planting genetically-altered trees to remove toxins. The similar, but limited, course of action is long-term research involving the planting of such trees in a closed environment. Positive results from the limited action – no serious damage to the environment – need to be seen; otherwise, we should “resist the temptation” to plant the trees in the open.

"After detailing concerns with two approaches to a problem, both are discarded in favor of an approach that does not raise the same concerns." This choice mentions two approaches, and then “another approach,” making for three approaches in total. However, only two approaches are ever mentioned: planting them in the general environment, or planting them in a closed environment.

"A possible future scenario is described as being unrealistic, while a different scenario is given more credence." No particular scenario is ever described as unrealistic.

"An experiment is recommended to determine the benefits of a new approach to a longstanding problem for which no other comparable solution is known." This choice starts out fine, but we cannot say that “no other comparable solution is known.” If anything, we are told that naturally occurring trees can be used to remove toxins, though slowly.

"The benefits and disadvantages of two remedial courses of action are weighed." It is not clear that the argument presents two distinct remedies. Even if we consider planting the trees in an open environment to be one remedy and planting the trees in a closed environment to be another remedy, no disadvantages to planting the trees in a closed environment are mentioned. If we consider planting naturally-occurring trees to be a second approach, then this answer choice does not even mention long-term research.

The correct answer is "A course of action is advised against unless a similar, but limited, course of action produces positive results."

The students have specifically expressed their concern that they can't borrow the materials from a public library, which is why they want the library open. The university administration counters with an alternative solution to the problem -- access the materials online. Accordingly, choice "The administration counters a concern with an alternative." is the correct answer. Answer choice "The administration incorrectly makes an assumption about students' preferences." is incorrect because it is not clear that the administration is assuming anything about the students' preferences; nor is it certain that, even if the administration assumes that the students will prefer online materials to hard copies, that assumption will be incorrect. Answer choice "The administration provides an explanation that it assumes will clarify its decision." is also incorrect; the administration does not explain its decision to close the library, but rather offers an alterative solution. Answer choice "The administration defends its actions by criticizing the logic of its opponents." is incorrect, as the administration does not criticize the students at all, but rather addresses their concerns. Similarly, answer choice "The administration makes an unwarranted assumption about the motives of some of the students." is also incorrect, as the administration does not address the motives of the students at all.

In this Method of Reasoning question, you're asked to describe the opposing candidate's reply, so pay particular attention to that. Note that the opponent does not supply any statistics, so choices "Supplying a statistic that undermines the incumbent’s conclusion.", "Suggesting that the incumbent’s statistic is factually inaccurate.", and "Offering a statistic that sheds additional light on the statistic supplied by the incumbent." are not accurate descriptions of the response. And he does not say that the statistic is irrelevant, just that there is more to the statistic than the incumbent had implied. The opponent points out that the unemployment rate may be more a function of the denominator (the number in the labor market) than the numerator (the number of those people without jobs), so he is saying that the statistic might not actually support the claim of the incumbent. Thus, choice "Pointing out that the incumbent cited a statistic that does not necessarily support his conclusion." is an apt description.

Fairly well hidden within the executive’s claim is a data flaw relating to the survey. What if the only people who responded to the survey were those people who had successfully lost weight. The executive says “last year, over 80% of the survey respondents lost more than 10%...” Remember: “Survey respondents” is not the same as “Those who enrolled in the plan”! There could have been 1 million people who enrolled in the plan but only 50,000 lost 10% of their weight or more. If most of those 50,000 responded to the survey, and few other people did, then it would seem that a high percentage of the survey participants lost weight, when it was really only 5% of the population. Answer choice "It does not consider whether dissatisfied customers are less likely to respond to the survey." exposes this flaw and is thus correct.

For this type of “describe the flaw” method of reasoning question, you should first attack the argument to find flaws on your own and then decide which answer choice properly describes one of them. In analyzing the Town Representatives argument, you should notice that he does not actually address the specific claims made in the advertisements. Rather he just questions the motivations behind the claims. What if indeed the new cruise ship pier WILL bring in more cruise ships and ruin the charm of the town, but the ads are being paid for by a developer with questionable motivations. Then can the claims really be dismissed? This flaw is described perfectly by answer choice "It rejects a claim by addressing the motivations for the people making it rather than by addressing its actual merits." as the representative only addresses the motivations but not the claims themselves. For "It focuses on the motivations for the people making a particular claim without considering the motivations of other people making the same claim.", the argument does focus on the motivations but the issue is NOT that it isn’t considering the motivations of other people – the issue is that it does not address the claims. For "It directly attacks the merits of the claims made in the advertisements but does not provide evidence to support the opposing view." the argument specifically does not attack the merits of the claim so this is clearly incorrect and for "It mischaracterizes the views put forth in the advertisements and then directly attacks these mischaracterized views." it is not mischaracterizing the views. For "It fails to consider the possibility that some of these advertisements were paid for by town advocates with legitimate concerns on the effects of cruise ships.", the argument does not fail to consider this possibility as it only says “most of advertisements” were paid for by a developer. The argument acknowledges there are other ads paid by different people but is just emphasizing that most come from this person. Correct answer is "It rejects a claim by addressing the motivations for the people making it rather than by addressing its actual merits."

When you look at how this argument is built, recognize a few major points:

1) The only comparison drawn between methods of injury prevention pits "flexibility training" against "strength and speed training." You don't at all know that flexibility training is the best of all possible injury prevention techniques (rest? nutrition? hydration?). What if Bournemouth just did a better job of prioritizing the other, unnamed injury prevention techniques, but didn't do as much flexibility training as Haleford?

2) The amount of flexibility training is not part of the comparison - the comparison just pits "programs that include flexibility training" (whether it's a small amount of flexibility training or a large amount) against "programs that solely focus on strength and speed." The given premise does not allow for a "more vs. less" flexibility training conclusion, as it is just "has" vs. "does not have" data.

3) You don't know whether Haleford has more players, or played more games - you don't know whether the real number data (more vs. fewer injuries) is balanced enough to draw a conclusoin.

As you go to the answer choices, you'll see that choice "assumes that the consequence of one set of circumstances would not be produced by another." summarizes the flaw outlined in 1) above - the conclusion doesn't allow for other factors to be the drivers behind the injury difference. And no choices summarize 2) or 3), so "assumes that the consequence of one set of circumstances would not be produced by another." must be correct. Among the incorrect choices:

"generalizes from too few data points." points out the wrong data flaw - there is a flaw in using real numbers of injuries without a per-capita or percentage direct comparison, but the problem isn't necessarily "too few data points."

"uses its own conclusion as one of its major premises." is not the case, as the conclusion is not one of the premises - it stands alone as its own new piece of information.

"fails to consult alternative research studies." is not necessarily a flaw, as there is no reason to suspect that the studies consulted are insufficient to establish the notion that flexibility can help prevent injuries.

And "does not distinguish between incidence of injury and degree of injury." is not a flaw here as the premises and conclusion are all consistent in using the number/incidence of injuries (did an injury occur). The argument as constructed has no need to focus on severity of injury.

Roles questions often feature answer choices that diverge into two clearly defined groups, and this question is no exception. Begin by determining the nature of the first statement, which nicely passes the "Why Test" for conclusions. Why is the worthlessness of technology demonstrated easily enough? Because of the statistic that comes next (prices for "old world" goods are rising, while prices for high tech items are falling).

Because this portion is a conclusion, you can eliminate answers "The first is a premise supporting a later contention; the second is also a premise supporting that same contention." and "The first is a premise that is not necessarily true; the second is an admission of a potential flaw in the earlier premise." immediately without even considering the second half of each answer choice.

Then assess the role of the second bolded portion. Note that it modifies the main clause of the final sentence, which could stand alone without the modifier. By saying "despite their frequent improvements" the modifier bolsters that provided information, suggesting that one would think that prices for technological items would rise, and yet they have fallen. So the second portion exists to strengthen the main premise of the argument. Choice "The first is a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from a given premise; the second is a consideration meant to strengthen a premise given in support of that conclusion." provides exactly this description, so choice "The first is a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from a given premise; the second is a consideration meant to strengthen a premise given in support of that conclusion." is correct.

The question stem, “The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?”, clearly indicates this is a “Roles in Boldface” question, a subtype of the Method category. In order to successfully answer this question, we must analyze the “big picture” of the argument, focusing on structure, not topic. The correct answer will describe the function of the two bolded statements within the argument. Stepping back to look at the entire argument independent of its contextual context provides an insight into what role each piece plays. In essence, the argument states: “Some people believe X. Other people believe Y. The reason they disagree is Z. Some people believe X; the other people believe Y.” Because “Roles in Boldface” questions often contain overlapping answers, these questions are susceptible to process-of-elimination techniques. By correctly categorizing one of the two bolded statements, we can often eliminate more than one answer choice. The second bolded statement (“The reason they disagree is Z”) is likely the easier one to evaluate because it is distinctly different from the rest.

Looking down at the answer choices, “The first portion is evidence that supports a position; the second portion is a position that is not necessarily true based on the evidence.” and “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion represents the opposing position.” both call the second bolded statement “a position” of one of the two groups. “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion is evidence in support of that position.” and “The first portion is evidence that supports a position; the second portion is evidence that supports an opposed position.” call it “evidence in support” of a position. Only “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion describes the underlying reason for the difference in position.” correctly identifies the second portion as the underlying reason for why the two groups disagree. We can actually eliminate four of the five answers without needing to evaluate the first bolded statement. The answer must be “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion describes the underlying reason for the difference in position.”.

Just to check ourselves, we can evaluate the first statement to see if it fits (“Some people believe X.”) The first statement is clearly a statement of one of two positions, so it matches perfectly with “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion describes the underlying reason for the difference in position.”.