Logical reasoning PrepTest 156 · Section 4 · Question 14

When we see "takes for granted" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Does the author believe this, and would this strengthen the argument?"

In this case, the science writer doesn't necessarily believe that "the only legitimate reasons for accepting an argument are social reasons." The writer doesn't even comment on the "legitimacy" of scientists accepting arguments for social reasons. Instead, the writer says that accepting scientific arguments for social reasons doesn't harm science. That doesn't necessarily imply that the writer thinks it's legitimate to accept an argument for social reasons, much less that this is the only legitimate reason to accept an argument.

Since the science writer doesn't necessarily believe this claim, we can cross it off.

Some test-takers will see that this answer choice matches our anticipation, allowing us to quickly select it and advance to the following questions. However, this answer choice is confusingly worded, so many test-takers will need to think about it.

So, let's get methodical with our thought process. When we see "takes for granted" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Does the author believe this, and would this strengthen the argument?"

In this case, the science writer definitely believes "the prevalence" of behaviors in certain endeavors determines whether "a similar behavior obstructs the achievement of a particular endeavor’s goals." After all, the science writer argues that because the influence of social factors is prevalent in "every human endeavor," the fact that scientists accept scientific arguments for similar social reasons isn't to science's detriment — in other words, it doesn't harm science's goals!

Moreover, this answer would definitely strengthen the science writer's argument. If it were true that the prevalence of a certain behavior determined whether similar behaviors obstructed a particular endeavor's goals, then social factors would not obstruct science's goals. According to the science writer, social factors are extremely prevalent — they influence all corners of human behavior — so social factors would not harm science. This would validate the writer's conclusion.

Since the science writer believes this claim and this claim strengthens the writer's argument, we can select this "takes for granted" answer choice and advance to the following question.

When we see "fails to consider the possibility" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

This wouldn't weaken the science writer's argument. If the scientists who accept an argument for social reasons also examine scientific evidence, that would only support the science writer's conclusion that scientists' tendency to rely on social factors isn't harmful. Even when relying on social reasons, scientists still consider scientific reasons in their analysis!

Since this answer choice wouldn't weaken the argument, we can eliminate it.

When we see "fails to consider the possibility" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

This wouldn't weaken the science writer's argument. Scientists' awareness of the influence of social reasons on their acceptance of scientific arguments is irrelevant to whether that influence harms science. Scientists could be unaware of their tendency to let social reasons influence their analysis, and the tendency could still not be to science's detriment.

Since this answer choice wouldn't weaken the argument, we can eliminate it.

When we see "takes for granted" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Does the author believe this, and would this strengthen the argument?"

In this case, the science writer doesn't necessarily believe that a behavior "not detrimental to the sciences will not be detrimental to any other human endeavor." The writer argues that relying on social factors is not detrimental to the sciences but never comments on whether social factors will harm any other human activity. It's perhaps implied that the science writer thinks social factors are generally innocuous. But it would still be a stretch to conclude that the science writer thinks that social factors are not detrimental to "any other human endeavor."

Even ignoring that issue, this statement also wouldn't strengthen the science writer's argument. The science writer's conclusion doesn't assert whether social factors will harm any activity other than science, making this answer choice irrelevant to the writer's conclusion.

Since the science writer doesn't necessarily believe this claim and this claim wouldn't strengthen the writer's argument, we can cross it off.