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.

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 any boldfaced question, it is essential that you first understand the complete argument. In this stimulus, it is stated that some economists believe that the enormous debt is the major impediment to job growth. As a result, these economists believe that spending should be cut immediately to reduce the debt. The evidence they give for their argument is that current debt levels are 96% of GDP and when total debt levels exceed 90% of domestic GDP, economic growth falls significantly causing job losses and overall economic malaise. The author of this argument agrees that reducing debt is essential but believes that an immediate reduction of spending would be problematic because the economy is too fragile. His recommendation and conclusion is that spending levels should be left constant in the short term and revenues increased with more taxes. Then, after the economy has recovered, spending should indeed be reduced. In summary, the author agrees with the economists that the major impediment to job growth is the high debt level but disagrees with their short term plan because the economists have not considered the fragile state of the economy. With that understanding of the argument, you must then attack each answer choice to see how the boldfaced sections are described:

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." The author does not believe that first boldfaced portion is incorrect but rather believes it is correct. He disagrees with their assertion that “spending should be cut immediately” but agrees with this boldfaced portion. While the second boldface portion is described correctly, "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." is incorrect because of the description of the first boldfaced portion.

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for the author’s conclusion." This answer choice also incorrectly describes the first boldfaced portion. While the second does support the author’s conclusion, "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for the author’s conclusion." contains the same error as "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." with the first boldfaced portion.

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author believes is correct; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author indeed believes is correct. The second boldfaced portion is the essential premise for that opinion so "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author believes is correct; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." is correct.

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion upon which the author’s conclusion is based; the second boldfaced portion is evidence that contradicts that conclusion." In this choice, it is correct to say for the first boldfaced portion that the author’s conclusion is based on the opinion that the major impediment to job growth in the U.S. is the enormous national debt. However, the second boldfaced portion does not contradict the author’s conclusion but rather supports it so "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion upon which the author’s conclusion is based; the second boldfaced portion is evidence that contradicts that conclusion." is incorrect

"The first boldfaced portion is the author’s conclusion; the second boldfaced portion is support for that conclusion." The first boldfaced portion is not the author’s conclusion but rather the opinion of several other economists. The author’s conclusion is given in the last two sentences that are not boldfaced.

For any boldfaced question, it is essential that you first understand the complete argument. In this stimulus, it is stated that some economists believe that the enormous debt is the major impediment to job growth. As a result, these economists believe that spending should be cut immediately to reduce the debt. The evidence they give for their argument is that current debt levels are 96% of GDP and when total debt levels exceed 90% of domestic GDP, economic growth falls significantly causing job losses and overall economic malaise. The author of this argument agrees that reducing debt is essential but believes that an immediate reduction of spending would be problematic because the economy is too fragile. His recommendation and conclusion is that spending levels should be left constant in the short term and revenues increased with more taxes. Then, after the economy has recovered, spending should indeed be reduced. In summary, the author agrees with the economists that the major impediment to job growth is the high debt level but disagrees with their short term plan because the economists have not considered the fragile state of the economy. With that understanding of the argument, you must then attack each answer choice to see how the boldfaced sections are described:

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." The author does not believe that first boldfaced portion is incorrect but rather believes it is correct. He disagrees with their assertion that “spending should be cut immediately” but agrees with this boldfaced portion. While the second boldface portion is described correctly, "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." is incorrect because of the description of the first boldfaced portion.

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for the author’s conclusion." This answer choice also incorrectly describes the first boldfaced portion. While the second does support the author’s conclusion, "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for the author’s conclusion." contains the same error as "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." with the first boldfaced portion.

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author believes is correct; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author indeed believes is correct. The second boldfaced portion is the essential premise for that opinion so "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author believes is correct; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." is correct.

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion upon which the author’s conclusion is based; the second boldfaced portion is evidence that contradicts that conclusion." In this choice, it is correct to say for the first boldfaced portion that the author’s conclusion is based on the opinion that the major impediment to job growth in the U.S. is the enormous national debt. However, the second boldfaced portion does not contradict the author’s conclusion but rather supports it so "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion upon which the author’s conclusion is based; the second boldfaced portion is evidence that contradicts that conclusion." is incorrect

"The first boldfaced portion is the author’s conclusion; the second boldfaced portion is support for that conclusion." The first boldfaced portion is not the author’s conclusion but rather the opinion of several other economists. The author’s conclusion is given in the last two sentences that are not boldfaced.

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.

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.

In any boldface critical reasoning problem, you need to carefully map out all elements of the argument. Remember that everything in a CR stimulus is a conclusion, a premise, or context. First find the conclusion, which is quite clearly the last sentence: “So clearly doctors need to stop prescribing antibiotics to treat the common cold.” To be sure, ask “why” and then map out the premises supporting this opinion. Why? Because 1. these illnesses are viral in nature, and such medications have no effect on viruses and 2. This course of treatment is troublesome, as antibiotics have dangerous side effects and unnecessary use of these drugs can lead to resistant bacteria. So it should be quite clear that the second boldfaced portion is a premise supporting the author’s conclusion. Since it is easier, start with that portion in the answer choices. "The first is a phenomenon that the argument addresses; the second is the author’s primary conclusion.", "The first is evidence used by the author to support his conclusion; the second is that conclusion.", and "The first is a circumstance that the author tries to explain; the second is the author’s primary conclusion." all refer to this premise as a conclusion so they can be confidently eliminated. For the first boldfaced portion, this part is indeed “a phenomenon that the argument addresses” so "The first is a phenomenon that the argument addresses; the second is evidence used by the author to support his position." is correct. For "The first is a circumstance that the author tries to explain; the second is that explanation.", while this portion might be “a circumstance” it is not at all what the author is trying to explain. The author is rather trying to show that this is a bad idea and must be stopped – he is not explaining why doctors do this! Therefore, both portions of "The first is a circumstance that the author tries to explain; the second is that explanation." are improperly described and this can be eliminated. Correct answer is "The first is a phenomenon that the argument addresses; the second is evidence used by the author to support his position.".

In any boldface critical reasoning problem, you need to carefully map out all elements of the argument. Remember that everything in a CR stimulus is a conclusion, a premise, or context. First find the conclusion, which is quite clearly the last sentence: “So clearly doctors need to stop prescribing antibiotics to treat the common cold.” To be sure, ask “why” and then map out the premises supporting this opinion. Why? Because 1. these illnesses are viral in nature, and such medications have no effect on viruses and 2. This course of treatment is troublesome, as antibiotics have dangerous side effects and unnecessary use of these drugs can lead to resistant bacteria. So it should be quite clear that the second boldfaced portion is a premise supporting the author’s conclusion. Since it is easier, start with that portion in the answer choices. "The first is a phenomenon that the argument addresses; the second is the author’s primary conclusion.", "The first is evidence used by the author to support his conclusion; the second is that conclusion.", and "The first is a circumstance that the author tries to explain; the second is the author’s primary conclusion." all refer to this premise as a conclusion so they can be confidently eliminated. For the first boldfaced portion, this part is indeed “a phenomenon that the argument addresses” so "The first is a phenomenon that the argument addresses; the second is evidence used by the author to support his position." is correct. For "The first is a circumstance that the author tries to explain; the second is that explanation.", while this portion might be “a circumstance” it is not at all what the author is trying to explain. The author is rather trying to show that this is a bad idea and must be stopped – he is not explaining why doctors do this! Therefore, both portions of "The first is a circumstance that the author tries to explain; the second is that explanation." are improperly described and this can be eliminated. Correct answer is "The first is a phenomenon that the argument addresses; the second is evidence used by the author to support his position.".

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 correct answer will describe the roles of both portions in bold. The first portion describes two possible advantages of the new salt water system. The second portion replies with two disadvantages that are not directly related to the two advantages listed in the first statement. Choice "The first portion lists two potential advantages of implementing a new system; the second portion lists an unrelated pair of possible disadvantages of implementing the system." correctly describes the roles of each of these statements. Choice "The first portion lists two possible advantages of implementing a new system; the second portion directly refutes those advantages." is very close to this, but incorrectly describes the second portion as directly refuting the advantages stated in the first. Choice "The first portion is an unproven claim regarding a new system; the second portion is evidence supporting this claim.", "The first portion is the main conclusion of the argument; the second portion is an unintended consequence of the main conclusion.", and "The first portion is evidence for a claim; the second portion is a competing claim." each describe both portions incorrectly.