PrepTest 158

The last sentence isn't an example of the type of warning referenced in the argument's main conclusion. The argument's main conclusion addresses warnings about foods from definitive studies, not fire alarms.

The last sentence plays a role in the argument — it's an analogy that supports the argument's conclusion. Moreover, the physician never impugns (challenges) the medical establishment's motives. The physician describes what the medical establishment should do to prevent people from ignoring its warnings.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Passage Summary:
Tentative conclusions from initial studies constantly tell us some foods are bad for us. But constant fire drill warnings lead people to ignore the warnings. So, if they want us to pay attention to these warnings, they should only announce conclusive results from definitive studies.

Strategy Overview:

1. Identify the conclusion
2. Identify the premise
3. Determine the role played by the statement from the question stem.
1. For example …
1. Premise
2. Main conclusion
3. Subsidiary conclusion
4. Find the answer choice that correctly expresses the role

Answer Anticipation:
On an Argument Structure question, an experienced test taker will first thoroughly deconstruct and understand the entire argument in the passage. Even though our job is to understand the role of the statement in the question stem, the benefits of understanding the whole argument are twofold. First, trying to figure out the role of the statement-in-question too early and without considering the entire argument can sometimes bias us and lead to an incorrect determination. Second, many answer choices will require us to know the roles of multiple propositions. (For instance, if the statement-in-question is a premise/conclusion, we'll probably also need to know which premise supports the premise/conclusion and which conclusion the premise/conclusion supports.)

So, let's break down the scholar's entire argument, starting with the conclusion. The second sentence, which uses the tonal word "should," is likely the conclusion. Moreover, the next sentence begins with "After all," which almost always comes after the main conclusion. So, the conclusion is the medical establishment should only announce conclusive results from definitive studies if it wants us to pay attention to warnings about food.

What are the other claims doing in this physician’s argument? It seems like every other claim supports the second sentence. The first sentence describes the effect of conclusions from initial studies — they "bombard[]" us with "warnings." The last sentence seems to come out of nowhere, bringing in an entirely different topic — fire drills. But, the introduction of a new topic typically means the author is making an analogy to prove their point. In this case, the analogy illustrates why conclusions not initial studies are bad. Constant fire drills cause people to ignore the fire alarm. Similarly, constant warnings about foods will cause us to ignore those warnings.

So, now that we have broken down the entire argument, we can determine what role the statement from the question stem serves. The claim in question is the last sentence. As discussed above, that claim is an analogy illustrating why conclusions from initial studies are bad.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This is correct! As anticipated, the last sentence is an analogy that supports the argument's main conclusion. After all, the last sentence shows why conclusions from initial studies are bad, supporting the last conclusion's claim that the medical establishment should only publish conclusions from definitive studies.

Key Takeaway:
The jarring introduction of a new topic in an argument's premise typically means the author is making an analogy to prove their point. On an Argument Structure question, we'll need to figure out what point that analogy illustrates. Consider which topic in the argument is similar to the new topic introduced by the analogy. In this case, the analogy's reference to constant fire drills is similar to the constant bombardment of warnings about foods from initial studies.

It's true that the last sentence is an analogy, but it doesn't challenge or undermine the argument's overall conclusion. It supports the argument's conclusion. It shows why conclusions from initial studies are bad, supporting the last conclusion's claim that the medical establishment should only publish conclusions from definitive studies.

It's true that the last sentence is an analogy, but it doesn't clarify the difference between an initial study and a definitive study. In fact, the author never clarifies the difference between the two. Instead, the analogy shows why conclusions from initial studies can backfire, supporting the last conclusion's claim that the medical establishment should only publish conclusions from definitive studies.