The argument’s conclusion states that patients should switch therapists to improve the quality of their treatment, but fails to indicate that the possible bias and inaccuracy resulting from attachments to patients necessarily leads to lower quality treatment.  Hence, it is possible that long-term relationships create benefits which outweigh the negative consequences mentioned.  The remaining answer choices are either irrelevant or attack the argument’s premises rather than its reasoning and conclusion.

There is a possible explanation for increased attendance during the late hours which is completely overlooked by the theme park executive: namely, that the late hours only occurred for a week.  In other words, it is quite possible that attendance was high during those periods because attendees saw this as a special, one-time event (the equivalent of a product being available "for a limited time").  If the late hours became a permanent fixture of the theme park, the novelty might wear off and there is no indication that attendance would remain high in those circumstances.  The argument does not assume that late-night attendance will remain constant throughout the year; rather, it assumes it will remain high enough to be profitable.  The remaining answer choices do not accurately describe the argument's reasoning.

The flawed reasoning follows the pattern that if “A” always has quality “X” and if “B” always has the opposite of quality “X,” then something that is a mix of “A” and “B” will have a moderate amount of quality X.

In the example, “art history books” (=A) always has the quality of “using elaborate language” (=X) However, “economics books” (=B) do not. Therefore, a mix of art history books and economics books (A + B) would use a moderate amount of (X), elaborate language.

In the correct answer, this same reasoning is followed.

Chihuahuas = A

Corgis = B

High-strung personalities = X

The advertisement's claim, that Coma Cola is the best tasting cola, is based on 99% percent of cola consumers choosing it over soda water. The flaw in the experimental setup is that just because a consumer chooses Coma Cola over soda water, it does not mean that she will choose Coma Cola over any other cola, let alone over all other colas. 

The correct answer recognizes that, in order to validly make such a claim, one would have to show a preference for Coma Cola over other colas, not over soda water (or even over other flavored soft drinks, as one of the incorrect answer choices indicates).

The author, here, makes the mistake of assuming that drinking green tea raises test scores or that conversely, drinking soda yields lower test scores. Therefore, the author ignores the possibility that there may be other characteristics besides drink preference that determines a test taker’s score. Thus, the correct choice is “ignores the possibility that students who drink green tea may have other characteristics besides their drink preference that yield to higher test scores than those students who prefer to drink soda.”

If the author's premise is true, then there is no flaw in the author's argument. The premise states that everyone who achieves success must struggle first. Therefore, if the premise is true, it is logical to conclude that if Seth has achieved success, he must have first struggled.

The flaw in the argument is best represented by the choice that several variables affect whether defendants elect a judge or jury trial. These variables could influence if a defendant is found guilty or not. For example, defendants who are guilty but who wish to receive shorter sentences may elect the forum in which that is more likely. This could skew the results for guilty verdict rates. None of the other choices represent a flaw in the argument.

The politician does not directly criticize the economist, but rather presents a viewpoint about avoiding economic recessions because of the pain it could cause people. The economist's argument is that the effect of an economic recession is not that serious, which the politician would say is minimizing the effects of the recession.

The dean uses a survey of former students about the fairness of grading processes to justify his argument that grades are not artificially inflated at his university.  He does not provide any information about the sample size of the survey, uses former students rather than current students, and generalizes that the university's entire grading practices are "fair" based on this sample.

The passage states that Mr. Smith will see a jump in his poll numbers, because he had the most screen time during a debate. The only evidence for this conclusion was that the candidates whose poll numbers had most improved were the ones who had gotten the most screen time in previous debates. This would be the biggest flaw in the statement. Also, just because the candidates saw the biggest relative improvement, does NOT mean that the leap to calling this potential bump in numbers as significant.