Logical reasoning PrepTest 158 · Section 3 · Question 22

This misdescribes the argument. The author didn't claim the correlation (between gesturing and concrete words) is universal. In fact, the conclusion is about how the correlation is not universal.

Like (A), this misdescribes the argument. The author never claimed the generalization (that we gesture more when saying concrete words) is universal. In fact, the conclusion is about how the correlation is not universal.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Some researchers say people gesture less when talking about abstract stuff and gesture more when talking about concrete stuff. You can't reject this idea just because it doesn't apply to everyone, because not everyone perceives concepts the same way. What's abstract to one person might be concrete to another.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify the premises and conclusion.
2. How do the premises support the conclusion? Phrase it in your own words… do they make an analogy, give an example, rebut a counterargument, appeal to an expert, cite a study, offer an alternate explanation?
3. Anticipate how the correct answer choice might describe this method of reasoning, within the context of the specific argument being made.
4. Look for an answer choice that accurately characterizes the argument.
   1. Avoid trap answers that...
      1. Describe a real method of reasoning, but not one found in this argument
      2. Use key words from the stimulus, but use them to describe a method of reasoning not used in the argument
      3. Describe a similar argument about the same topic that reaches the opposite conclusion

Answer Anticipation:
Answering Methods of Reasoning questions can be broken down into a two-step process: (1) breaking down the argument to its premises and conclusions, and (2) thinking abstractly about how the premises support the conclusion. To effectuate step 2, it can help to vacuum up all subject-specific nouns in the argument until you're left with abstract terms, like "generalization," "claim," "phenomenon," "cause," etc.

So, step (1): Which parts are premises, and which is the conclusion? The conclusion is that one can't reject the scientists' idea (that people gesture more when talking about concrete concepts) just because the observed phenomenon isn't universal. So, why exactly is saying, "Hey, not everyone does that!" not a reason to reject the researchers' claim? Well, because some people have different ideas of what's concrete and what's abstract. For example, some people see the word "comprehension" as concrete and others see it as abstract. The author seems to imply that perhaps the concrete-stuff-equals-more-gestures principle is universal, but the perception of particular concepts as concrete or abstract is not.

And now, step (2): How do the premises support the conclusion? The first premise introduced a generalization (gesturing more on concrete rather than abstract stuff). The conclusion states that potentially inconsistent evidence (not everyone gesturing more on concrete stuff) isn't a reason to reject the generalization. And the last premise is about why we may see inconsistent evidence (not everyone agrees on what's concrete and what's abstract).

So the correct answer might say that this argument is attempting to explain why potentially inconsistent evidence is not a reason to reject a generalization.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This answer choice is very close to our anticipation ("attempting to explain why potentially inconsistent evidence is not a reason to reject a generalization") and is worthy of a closer inspection. Some test-takers may take issue with the abstract phrasing here — especially that which doesn't conform to our anticipation, such as the words "psychological fact" and "reconcile." However, if we can find an analog in the passage that matches these words, we can be confident that this answer choice accurately describes the technique of reasoning in the passage.

So, what could be the "psychological fact" this answer choice references? According to this answer choice, the fact will help reconcile a "generalization" and "disconfirming evidence." We've already identified the generalization as the belief that people gesture more when describing concrete stuff. And the disconfirming evidence would appear to be that this "correlation is far from universal" — not everyone gestures more when describing concrete stuff. What could this psychological fact be then? The last premise describes how some people "perceive" (a psychological phenomenon) words differently. In other words, the psychological fact is that the perception of particular concepts as concrete or abstract is not the same for everyone. So we can find an analog in the passage for "psychological fact," which means we shouldn't reject (C) for using this term.

For many test-takers, "reconcile" is another keyword that may jump out in this answer choice. Whenever the idea of "reconciling" comes up in Logical Reasoning, it usually means using evidence to show how apparently contradictory facts can both be true. That's what happened here. Yes, it seems contradictory to say that the generalization is (1) not universal and (2) real. But the "psychological fact" can show why both sides are true — we all gesture more on concrete stuff, we just disagree on what is concrete.

So no matter how we slice it, (C) correctly describes the argumentative technique in this passage, and it is correct.

Key Takeaways:
The answer choices in Methods of Reasoning questions, like those in Argument Structure and Errors in Reasoning questions, will often resort to very abstract, unspecific words (like "claim," "generalization," "phenomenon," "explanation," etc.). However, if you can find an analog in the passage that matches these words, you can be confident that this answer choice accurately describes the argument in the passage.

Another answer choice that misdescribes the argument. The author never discussed "other possible explanations" for a phenomenon. In fact, the argument didn't even explain why we gesture more when describing concrete stuff. Rather, the issue was whether or not the phenomenon is even valid!

This incorrectly characterizes the conclusion of the argument. Our author does not call for additional evidence in their conclusion.