MCAT Textbooks / MCAT CARS Review 2022-2023 / Ch 3 of 12

📖 Rhetoric and Arguments

9,842 words · 2 figures · ≈43 min read · MCAT CARS Review 2022-2023

Chapter 3: Rhetoric and Arguments

Chapter 3

Chapter 3. Rhetoric and Arguments, Rhetoric and Arguments

Chapter 3: Rhetoric and Arguments

Chapter 3: Rhetoric and Arguments

Chapter 3

Chapter 3, Rhetoric and Arguments

In This Chapter

3.1Key Components of Rhetoric

Rhetoric

Author and Tone

Audience and Genre

Goal

3.2Key Components of Arguments

Argument Structure

Inferences

Strengthening and Weakening Arguments

Counterarguments

3.3Analyzing Passages with Rhetoric and Arguments

Using Rhetoric to Analyze Passages

Using Arguments to Analyze Passages

Sample Passage

Passage Analysis

Concept and Strategy Summary

Introduction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After Chapter 3, you will be able to:

By now you’ve learned about the CARS section in outline and about the CBT tools at your disposal on Test Day, and perhaps you’ve even attacked a couple CARS passages yourself. During all this, you’ve seen that CARS passages can explore almost any topic, which may have led to the question, “How can the CARS section be standardized if each passage discusses something unique? Isn’t that the opposite of standardized?” Well, not quite. The standardization of the CARS section is achieved not through a shared set of content topics, but rather by means of how the passages are written (as well as through the common types of questions accompanying each passage). Thus, rather than trying to familiarize yourself with all the topics that could show up in CARS passages on Test Day, your aim should be to recognize the common patterns authors use to construct their passages. By Test Day, whether you see passages discussing the workings of ancient Greek currency, the appeal of a mystery novel, or even the ramifications of an obscure philosophical theory, you will be comfortable analyzing these passages by identifying their basic rhetorical and argumentative components.

Toward that end, this chapter will focus on two nearly universal aspects of CARS passages, rhetoric and arguments, with the ultimate goal of introducing you to their most common (and most testable) patterns. A strong command of rhetoric and argumentation will allow you to navigate any passage on Test Day.

3.1 Key Components of Rhetoric

It is safe to assume that the authors of CARS passages are competent writers. In fact, we could even go so far as to say they are effective writers. Therefore, it makes sense to begin our discussion of how CARS authors construct their passages by examining rhetoric, the art of effective communication. The theory of rhetoric is a wide-ranging topic that can literally fill a university-level writing course but, fortunately, only a couple of key components of rhetoric are necessary to gain proficiency in CARS.

Rhetoric

Most of us are familiar with the device known as a rhetorical question. Although it ends in a question mark, a rhetorical question tends to have only one plausible and obvious answer. What makes it rhetorically effective is that it forces readers to reach the conclusion themselves, so that readers are more convinced of the intended conclusion than if the author had simply stated it. However, effective use of rhetoric is much more nuanced than simply asking questions that aren’t really questions. Considered broadly, rhetoric is the art of effective communication, both in speech and in text. Because the MCAT is a written exam (as opposed to oral), we will discuss only the textual side of rhetoric throughout this chapter. While language may serve many purposes, the study of rhetoric tends to focus on persuasion—the attempt to influence others to adopt particular beliefs or to engage in certain behaviors. Rhetorical analysis, then, is an examination of speech or writing that goes beyond what the author is saying (the content) to consider how and why the author is saying it.

REAL WORLD

Discussion of the art of rhetoric often begins by describing the rhetorical situation: an interplay between author, audience, message, purpose, genre, exigence, and context. However, discussion of the rhetorical situation as a whole is not needed for the MCAT.

Many other standardized tests focus predominantly on understanding the details of what the author has said. However, the MCAT takes it a step further, sometimes asking you to use the text to infer characteristics about the author, the audience, and the goal of the passage. To that end, we will define these fundamental aspects of rhetoric (author, audience, and goal) and demonstrate how Distilling them will translate to points on Test Day.

Author and Tone

The author, in the most basic sense, is the individual or group that wrote the text. Authors can be distinguished by how much expertise they have on the topic at hand and by how passionate or vested in the topic they are.

Authors who are experts in a topic—and who know that their intended audience is also knowledgeable in the topic—tend to use a lot of jargon in their writing. Jargon refers to technical words and phrases that belong to a particular field. For example, transcriptional repression, zwitterion, and anabolism are all biochemical jargon; homunculus, Gesellschaften, and negative symptoms are all behavioral sciences jargon. Authors who are less expert, or who are writing to a less-informed audience, tend to use more common terminology and provide more explicitly detailed descriptions of their ideas. Authors who consider themselves less expert than their audiences may use an abundance of Moderating keywords, described in Chapter 5 of MCAT CARS Review.

MCAT EXPERTISE

On Test Day, be on the lookout for descriptive words, such as adjectives and adverbs. These words were specifically chosen by the author and can convey tone.

Tone reflects the author’s attitude toward the subject matter. When an author is passionate about a topic, this emotion often manifests as strong language. Extreme keywords, also described in Chapter 5 of MCAT CARS Review, may suggest that an author is emotionally invested in the piece. Less-invested authors may use more emotionally neutral words to describe the same ideas. In addition to an author’s word choice, what the author chooses to discuss about a subject matter can also reveal the author’s tone. For instance, an author may use neutral language, but use that neutral language to describe disadvantages of a particular activity and to list suitable alternatives. Despite the lack of Negative keywords (also discussed in Chapter 5), the author would still have a negative attitude toward the subject matter. On Test Day, aim to identify whether, and to what extent, the author’s attitude toward the subject matter is positive or negative.

Determining Author Tone

Identifying the author’s tone can help you keep track of the author’s opinions while reading the passage, but more importantly it will pay off when answering questions. Not only will you be asked questions directly focused on the attitudes and opinions of the author, but you will also see questions where simply knowing the author’s tone will allow you to narrow down the answer choices. To determine the author’s tone in a passage, examine the words that are used while considering the question: What imagery or feelings do these words convey? Let’s try an example!

MCAT EXPERTISE

The more knowledgeable authors are in a topic, the more jargon may appear in their writing. This may make for a challenging passage to read, but recognize that the MCAT does not expect you to know any field-specific terminology in CARS. Any important jargon will be defined in the passage—or the definition will be strongly implied.

Consider this passage excerpt:

One of the first examples of the ascendance of abstraction in 20th-century art is the Dada movement, which Lowenthal dubbed “the groundwork to abstract art and sound poetry, a starting point for performance art, a prelude to postmodernism, an influence on pop art … and the movement that laid the foundation for surrealism.” Dadaism was ultimately premised on a philosophical rejection of the dominant culture, which is to say the dominating culture of colonialist Europe. Not content with the violent exploitation of other peoples, Europe’s ruling factions once again turned inward, reigniting provincial disputes into the conflagration that came to be known by the Eurocentric epithet “World War I”—the European subcontinent apparently being the only part of the world that mattered.

It’s clear that the author is discussing the Dada movement, but what is the author’s view of the Dada movement? Notice how the author’s chosen quotation describes the Dada movement: “… groundwork … starting point … prelude … foundation …” The quotation makes it clear that the Dada movement is one of the first instances of artistic abstraction, but why did the author choose a quotation that seems to be saying the same thing in four different ways? The answer is because the author wants to stress the influential nature of the Dada movement, implying that the author’s opinion of Dadism is positive! In contrast, notice the author’s word choice to describe the “dominating culture” of Europe: “violent exploitation.” This is clearly negative. Furthermore, if you read the last sentence of the excerpt and thought it sounded sarcastic, you’re right. This echoes the author’s negative view of early twentieth-century European culture. All this provides further evidence of the author’s positive view of Dadaism because the author claims Dadaism is based on a “philosophical rejection of the dominant culture.”

In short, there are two opinions being put forward in this excerpt: the author’s positive view of the Dada movement and his negative view of the European culture of the time. Using the author’s tone, let’s attack this Inference question (Inference questions will be further discussed in Chapter 9):

When answering an Inference question on Test Day, you can use the author’s tone to set expectations before reviewing the answer choices. Keeping in mind the author’s opinions toward Dadaism and European culture of the time, let’s evaluate each of the answer choices. Choice (A) suggests something negative about European culture, that its rejection of Dadaism led to World War I. We know that this author has a negative opinion about European culture, so you can’t immediately eliminate this answer. But, there’s more we need to unpack with this choice to determine whether it’s what we’re looking for. So let’s see if we can eliminate any of the other choices. Choice (B) portrays Dadaism negatively with the word “insignificant” and is thus wrong. Choice (C), however, paints Dadaism in a positive light with the phrase “a step forward.” This is consistent with the author’s expressed opinions. On the other hand, Choice (D), like (B), represents Dadaism negatively, making (D) incorrect as well.

Using the author’s tone alone, we were able to get this Inference question down to a 50/50 choice between (A) and (C)! To decide between them, simply return to the passage and verify whether the facts match up as well as the opinions do. The author never suggests that rejecting Dadaism was a cause of World War I—rather, he blames the “inward” turn of “Europe’s ruling factions.” However, he does describe Dadaism as an important early example of abstract art. That means (A) can be ruled out and (C) is correct.

Audience and Genre

The audience is the person, or persons, for whom the text is intended. In daily life, the audience could be a single person with whom you have a dialogue, but publications typically have considerably larger audiences. Many CARS passages address an academic audience—perhaps other specialists in the author’s field. Even when writing for the “general public,” authors may draw upon idioms, clichés, symbols, and references that may have been recognizable to people of a particular time and place, but are less commonly used today.

In CARS, you will rarely be a member of the passage’s intended audience, but you can still develop the ability to recognize the audience for whom a passage was originally written. One potential source of information about the author’s intended audience is the genre of the passage. The genre is the particular category to which the written work belongs—for example, fiction, nonfiction, drama, poetry, and so on. Genre can also represent the more tangible form of the work: book, scholarly journal article, case study, essay, letter, email, and so forth.

Determining Audience and Genre

A passage’s audience and genre are tested less frequently in the CARS section than are the author’s opinions and tone. Nevertheless, being able to recognize audience and genre can sometimes yield points on Test Day. To determine the audience, begin by identifying the topic of the passage, then consider how the author presents the major ideas in the passage. Does she explicitly define key concepts and use simple terms that most readers would recognize? Or does she use jargon and assume her readers will already understand her meaning? Generally speaking, an author who writes more accessibly aims for a general audience, while an author who assumes reader knowledge is writing for an expert or specialized audience.

REAL WORLD

Why do the test makers care so much about your ability to think beyond just understanding the content of an author’s writing? This is a skill you’ll use every day when talking with patients (to discern what they are really thinking from their body language and tone of voice) and when critically appraising research (to look for potential biases or conflicts of interest on the part of the researcher). To make good choices for your patients, you must be able to move beyond simply reading words on a page and consider the bigger picture, such as the author’s goal.

In terms of genre, most of the passages you’ll encounter on Test Day will be nonfiction prose, excerpted from books or articles. A piece intended for a general audience is likely to be taken from a popular magazine or book, while journal articles and other scholarly publications are more often associated with specialized audiences. Let’s try an example!

Consider this excerpt:

The most prevalent argument against doctor-assisted suicide relies upon a distinction between passive and active euthanasia—in essence, the difference between killing someone and letting that person die. On this account, a physician is restricted by her Hippocratic oath to do no harm and thus cannot act in ways that would inflict the ultimate harm, death. In contrast, failing to resuscitate an individual who is dying is permitted because this would be only an instance of refraining from help and not a willful cause of harm. The common objection to this distinction, that it is vague and therefore difficult to apply, does not carry much weight. After all, applying ethical principles of any sort to the complexities of the world is an enterprise fraught with imprecision.

The MCAT might test your ability to recognize the passage’s intended audience or genre with a question like the one below.

To answer this question, consider the author’s tone as well as the passage’s intended audience. Unlike the previous example, the author’s tone is fairly neutral, with few words suggesting strong authorial opinions. Despite this, the author does share one opinion in the next-to-last sentence: the common objection to the active vs. passive distinction is weak. This excerpt describes subject matter that might appeal to medical professionals, professors of ethics, or the general public. In this case, considering subject matter alone, it may be difficult to determine the intended audience. But by considering how the author constructs his passage, you can arrive at a more precise answer. The author explicitly defines concepts like active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and the Hippocratic oath—terms that specialists such as doctors and ethics scholars would already know. Overall, the language is accessible and the amount of jargon minimal, which suggests that this article’s audience is the segment of the general public that may have an interest in ethics. Choice (B), “Exploring the Ethics of Doctor-Assisted Suicide,” matches the tone of the author, the topic of the passage, and the intended audience. In terms of genre, that title suggests an excerpt from a popular book or magazine, and this makes more sense than (A)’s “handbook” or (C)’s “case study,” which are more specialized publications that don’t fit the language of the passage.

Goal

The goal of a passage, sometimes called the purpose, is why the author wrote the passage. In other words, what was she hoping to accomplish? In some cases, the author’s goal may be simply to inform her audience. Passages with an informative goal tend to read like textbooks or encyclopedia entries, providing detailed descriptions nearly devoid of the author’s opinion. In the CARS section, however, more often the goal is persuasion, in which the author aims to influence the audience to adopt new beliefs. Persuasive passages are the most common on the MCAT; most passages on Test Day will contain at least one opinion the author tries to get the reader to endorse (with varying degrees of forcefulness). Besides altering beliefs, persuasion can also motivate individuals to take action. Such persuasion is often encountered in speeches, but it could appear on the MCAT as a set of recommendations for solving a particular problem.

BRIDGE

Impression management, discussed in Chapter 9 of MCAT Behavioral Sciences Review, focuses on how we present ourselves to accomplish specific goals. Some of the impression management strategies can be employed in writing as well, such as self-disclosure, ingratiation, and alter-casting.

On Test Day, you will encounter Main Idea questions, covered in Chapter 9: Foundations of Comprehension, which will directly test your ability to distill the author’s goal.

Distilling the Goal of a Passage

To distill the goal of the passage, consider the major ideas of the passage while keeping the author’s tone in mind. Ask yourself, Why did the author write this passage? We recommend beginning your answer an infinitive verb (“to X”), such as “to explain,” “to argue,” or “to compare.” Let’s try an example!

Consider this excerpt, which includes and continues the previous excerpt:

The most prevalent argument against doctor-assisted suicide relies upon a distinction between passive and active euthanasia—in essence, the difference between killing someone and letting that person die. On this account, a physician is restricted by her Hippocratic oath to do no harm and thus cannot act in ways that would inflict the ultimate harm, death. In contrast, failing to resuscitate an individual who is dying is permitted because this would be only an instance of refraining from help and not a willful cause of harm. The common objection to this distinction, that it is vague and therefore difficult to apply, does not carry much weight. After all, applying ethical principles of any sort to the complexities of the world is an enterprise fraught with imprecision.

Rather, the fundamental problem with the distinction is that it is not an ethically relevant one, readily apparent in the following thought experiment. Imagine a terminally ill patient hooked up to an unusual sort of life support device, one that only functioned to prevent a separate “suicide machine” from administering a lethal injection so long as the doctor pressed a button on it once per day. Would there be any relevant difference between using the suicide machine directly and not using the prevention device? The intention of the doctor would be the same (fulfilling the patient’s wish to die), and the effect would be the same (an injection causing the patient’s death). The only variance here is the means by which the effect comes about, and this is not an ethical difference but merely a technical one.

Consider the ideas discussed in both paragraphs and determine how they connect to serve the purpose of the passage. In the first paragraph, the author describes the distinction between active and passive euthanasia, providing examples. He then offers the “common objection” to this distinction, but immediately shoots this common objection down. In paragraph 2, the author provides his own objection (“fundamental problem”) with the active and passive distinction: that the distinction is ethically irrelevant. The author then supports his objection with a thought experiment.

With the passage’s structure laid out, the goal should be more visible. The author clearly disagrees with those who distinguish between active and passive euthanasia. After describing these terms in paragraph 1, he dedicates the entire second paragraph to debunking this distinction. But more specifically, what reason does this author give for disagreeing with this distinction? In paragraph 1, the author describes one reason why some people object to the distinction between passive and active euthanasia, which is that the distinction is vague. However, notice that the author distances himself from this point of view: he calls this “the common objection” and says it “does not carry much weight.” The author’s own objection comes in paragraph 2, where he claims that the distinction between passive and active euthanasia is not “ethically relevant.” Thus, the author’s goal is broadly persuasive and could be phrased more precisely as: to argue that the distinction between passive and active euthanasia is not ethically relevant. Armed with the goal of the passage, let’s attack the following Main Idea question.

Choice (C)’s phrase “morally significant” is just another way of saying “ethically relevant,” so (C) best reflects the goal we distilled previously.

3.2 Key Components of Arguments

You may have noticed that we used the verb “to argue” in our formulation of the last passage’s purpose. But contrary to popular usage, an “argument” in the CARS section is not a heated verbal dispute between people, but a specific kind of logical structure that authors use for persuasive purposes. In this section of the chapter, we will investigate the structure of arguments and prepare you to recognize their components in CARS passages.

Argument Structure

In the study of logic, an argument is the combination of one claim, known as the conclusion, and one or more other assertions, known as the evidence, explicitly used to support the conclusion. In this way, a mere claim becomes a supported conclusion as long as it’s accompanied by supporting evidence. Evidence is like the friend who vouches for you to get into the VIP area at a nightclub (conclusions only!): it offers a reason to “trust” that the conclusion is what it claims to be. In other words, the evidence is an answer to the question, “Why should I believe that conclusion?” Together, the evidence, the conclusion, and the one-way connection between them constitute the simplest form of an argument. Consider the following statements:

These two statements can create a plausible argument, but only if arranged the proper way. Specifically, you must correctly identify which of the statements is the conclusion and which is the evidence. To determine the relationship between two statements

in an argument, we recommend using the One Sentence Test. Phrase a sentence in the following form: “<conclusion> because <evidence>.” The order that makes more sense will reveal which statement is the evidence and which is the conclusion.

Let’s try out the One Sentence Test on Statements A and B:

The first arrangement makes sense; it’s logical to think that at least one reason why cats make great pets is their cuteness. That doesn’t have to be the full explanation of why they’re great pets, as long as it gives us some reason to believe that they are. The second arrangement, however, seems confused. An animal’s appearance is based on genetics and environmental conditions, not on their relationships with humans (as pets). Notice that arguments have a one-way connection: evidence supports conclusion and not vice versa.

We can summarize the argument and its components as follows:

KEY CONCEPT

An argument is the combination of one claim, known as the conclusion, and one or more other assertions, known as the evidence, explicitly used to support it.

While one piece of evidence is the minimum required to support a conclusion, authors typically rely upon multiple sources of support. In fact, authors will often build layers of support for their arguments by providing additional reasons to believe the evidence. In other words, providing evidence for their evidence! So, with respect to our cat example, perhaps you’re a dog person, someone who’s skeptical that cats are so cute, especially compared to that new puppy your friend just adopted. You might ask, why should I believe that cats are cute? After all, that claim seems like a matter of opinion, one that you might not share. The cat advocate could attempt to address your concern by providing evidence for her evidence, perhaps by stating that cats are cute because they have large eyes and small mouths. More formally, this argument appears as follows:

This may seem peculiar because what was before called the evidence is now the conclusion. Can the exact same statement be both evidence and conclusion? Yes, but only in relation to two different claims. This is nothing special: the same man can be both a son and a father, but only to two different individuals. Anytime a claim is used to support something else, the claim is acting as evidence; but whenever the claim in turn is supported by something else, the claim is acting as a conclusion. If we treated the second argument as a “subargument” within the first, we could represent it like this:

We can also use arrows to represent the relevant support relationships, simplifying the depiction of the argument further:

MCAT EXPERTISE

When authors employ especially difficult arguments, you may find it useful to sketch a diagram on your noteboard, using arrows to denote the support connections. Place the author’s main conclusion, or thesis, either at the top with arrows pointing up toward it or, as we model here, at the bottom with arrows pointing down to it. Multiple pieces of evidence for the same conclusion would appear as branches extending from a common stem; thus, we sometimes call these drawings “argument trees.”

Cats have large eyes and small mouths.

arrow pointing down

Cats are cute.

arrow pointing down

Cats are great pets.

When determining relationships such as these, you can use the textual clues discussed in Chapter 5 of MCAT CARS Review, especially Evidence and Conclusion keywords (the two most important subtypes of Logic keywords). However, as noted there, these keywords are less common than the other two types, and some authors use them quite sparingly. Be alert for hidden support relationships!

With an understanding of the basic components of an argument, let’s take a moment to consider how this will affect your CARS reading on Test Day. As previously stated, most passages on Test Day will contain at least one argument, but is it necessary to identify its components clearly when you first analyze it? After all, we were able to analyze the euthanasia passage from earlier without applying knowledge of arguments. But even in that analysis, we identified the author’s conclusion (that the active/passive distinction is morally irrelevant) and recognized that the purpose of the passage was to argue for that conclusion. In addition, we noticed that the author supported that conclusion with a thought experiment—in other words, the thought experiment was the evidence in that argument. Thus, just as a little rhetorical analysis can aid us in better understanding the passage (and in answering more questions correctly), so too can attention to argumentation. On Test Day, you’ll typically find it most worthwhile to identify conclusions because they are more often featured in questions. Often, it’s enough just to note the location of evidence without spelling out exactly what it says (until prompted by a question).

Inferences

While an argument could contain as little as one stated conclusion and one piece of stated evidence, most arguments contain unstated, or implicit, parts as well. The most commonly appearing terms for these are implications, assumptions, and inferences. For the sake of precision, whenever we use the word implication, we specifically will refer to an unstated conclusion, and assumption will be used only for unstated evidence. Inference will be used generally to cover any unstated part of an argument, whether an implication or an assumption.

KEY CONCEPT

Unstated claims in arguments are known as inferences. Inferences are either assumptions (unstated evidence) or implications (unstated conclusions).

It’s important to note that inferences (whether assumptions or implications) are not simply claims that are possibly or probably true given what is said. Rather, inferences must be true or—at the very least—must be highly probable, the most likely option among the alternatives. One way to recognize an inference is by the negative effect it would have on the argument if the inference were denied. An example will help clarify what this means.

In our previous argument about the cuteness of cats, cats are cute because they have large eyes and small mouths, the connection between the evidence and the conclusion might seem unclear. For that argument to be valid, we need another piece of information that connects those features (big eyes and tiny mouths) to that trait (cuteness). This additional claim is an assumption. In short, an assumption is an unstated piece of evidence that must be true in order for the conclusion to follow from the stated evidence. In this case, we can identify the assumption as follows:

We can be sure that we have correctly identified an assumption by considering what would happen to the conclusion if we negated that suspected assumption. So, for example, if we were to say instead that animals with large eyes and small mouths are NOT cute, then it would make no sense to conclude that cats are cute—because we’ve already stated as our evidence that they have those very features. This procedure for identifying inferences by negating them is called the Denial Test, and is explained further in Chapter 9.

So where do inferences fit into your Test Day experience? Well, it’s worth mentioning that a common question type in the CARS section is the Inference question type, which will be discussed in detail in Chapter 9. So, you should have the ability to identify an argument’s assumptions and implications as necessary. However, spelling out the inferences of every argument that appears in the passage is generally not a good use of your time. Instead, only consider the inferences of an argument if and when a question demands it of you.

Strengthening and Weakening Arguments

Although claims or statements can be called true or false, it is a misnomer to say that an argument is true or false. Rather, the validity or strength of arguments varies along a continuum with certain proof at one end and complete refutation at the other. Most arguments (virtually all of the ones you see on the MCAT) fall somewhere short of either extreme, with evidence making conclusions more probable and refutations making them less probable.

KEY CONCEPT

Arguments are evaluated on the basis of their strength or validity, which varies along a spectrum. An argument is strengthened whenever the truth of its conclusion is made more probable and weakened whenever it is made less probable.

CARS questions, particularly Strengthen–Weaken questions (discussed in Chapters 10 and 11), will often require you to imagine how an argument’s validity might be modified. More supporting evidence will strengthen, bolster, or further an argument. This evidence can come in many forms, and often what counts as compelling evidence will depend on the topic of the CARS passage. For instance, quotations from the novel Moby Dick are excellent evidence when an author is advocating for his interpretation of Moby Dick. But those same quotes—coming from a work of fiction—would not be great evidence in a passage about the history of whaling in the Atlantic ocean.

On the other hand, a claim is said to weaken, challenge, or undermine an argument whenever the claim’s truth would make the conclusion more likely to be false. Such claims serve as refutations or counterarguments (discussed more below). Note that most refutations do not come in the form of outright contradictions of the original conclusion or evidence. In other words, while directly attacking a conclusion will definitely weaken an argument, there are many ways to challenge an argument other than to simply state the opposite conclusion. For example, if an author draws a general conclusion about US citizens on the basis of results from a psychological survey, then evidence that the survey used a demographically unrepresentative sample would undermine the author’s argument. In this way, it is not the author’s conclusion that is directly undermined, but rather the evidence (that psychological survey) the conclusion stands on.

With an understanding of how claims can strengthen or weaken an argument, let’s revisit our argument on cats as great pets.

This argument could be weakened by a claim that many of the cutest animals of the world make terrible pets, which would undermine the assumption that cute animals make for great pets. Similarly, we might challenge the assumption that large eyes and small mouths indicate cuteness by pointing to a study that identified other features (say, floppy ears or wagging tails) as being more salient indicators of cuteness. In contrast, this argument could be strengthened by a study that found that most people choose pets based on their apparent cuteness or by a survey showing that a majority of people describe cats as “adorable.” Any argument can be strengthened or weakened with the appropriate evidence!

On Test Day, strengthening and weakening arguments should be treated just like making inferences. Don’t bother trying to figure out all the ways an argument could be bolstered or hindered as you read through a passage—the number of possibilities is enormous, but your time is limited. Instead, you should only make such judgments when a particular Strengthen–Weaken question (see Chapters 10 and 11) requires it.

Counterarguments

A related concept is the counterargument. Counterarguments, also known as refutations, objections, or challenges, are simply claims that weaken a particular conclusion. Counterarguments are often worth noting when they appear in passages, because they’re high yield for questions. Counterarguments are sometimes indicated through the use of Refutation keywords, discussed in Chapter 5 of MCAT CARS Review.

A counterargument can take aim at any component of an argument. Consider the original version of our cats as great pets argument:

Each of the following are possible counterarguments:

When you encounter a counterargument in a passage on Test Day, consider its relative strength compared to the original argument and the author’s tone when presenting it, then ask yourself, Why did the author include this? In most cases, an author includes counterarguments for one of two reasons: either she’s constructing a counterargument in order to shoot down an argument she opposes, or she’s describing someone else’s counterargument (and probably then refuting it!) as an indirect way of supporting her own point of view.

3.3 Analyzing Passages with Rhetoric and Arguments

Now that you’ve seen the basic elements of rhetorical and argumentative structure, let’s consider in more detail how to apply this knowledge when reading and analyzing CARS passages.

Using Rhetoric to Analyze Passages

While analyzing passages, always be on the lookout for clues that reveal the author’s tone and attitudes toward the subject matter. Pay attention to opinions suggested by the author’s use of adjectives and adverbs. At the start of your CARS journey, this might mean consciously stopping and asking yourself, What is the author’s feeling about this? With practice, you will likely begin to identify author attitudes automatically, without the need for conscious effort. In addition to tone and author opinion, the author’s goal is also prime material for questions. When you finish reading a CARS passage, you should always mentally answer the question, Why did the author write this? Other rhetorical elements like the intended audience and the genre are really only useful to the extent that they help you to identify the author’s goal or to answer a particular question.

Using Arguments to Analyze Passages

As with rhetorical analysis, logical analysis is most effective on Test Day if you focus on only some of the elements of arguments. Conclusions, in particular, should be explicitly identified because they most often appear in questions. And whenever you identify a conclusion, you should also be able to locate the evidence that supports that conclusion, but you will typically not need to unpack that evidence further unless a question demands it. Counterarguments are less common but are likely to show up in questions when they do appear, so these are also worth locating. Be particularly careful when arguments are complex, with multiple layers of evidence or counterargument; try to keep clear which particular conclusion is being supported or challenged by a specific claim. As a general rule, inferences, as well as strengthening and weakening conditions, should only be considered when directly featured in questions. See the discussion in Chapter 5 of Logic keywords for more on how to recognize arguments in passages.

Now, let’s apply these skills of rhetorical and logical analysis to a sample passage. As you read the passage below, try to identify the elements of rhetoric and argument discussed in this chapter. Then compare your thoughts to the expert analysis that follows.

Sample Passage

Can we truly know anything with certainty? Since the dawn of the so-called “Early Modern” era in Western philosophy, this question has preoccupied both skeptics and their critics. Perhaps the most noteworthy challenger of the certainty-rejecting skeptics is René Descartes, who constructs in his seminal Meditations an elaborate argument that purports to ground all human knowledge on the indubitability of one’s own existence. However, in his attempts, Descartes actually bolsters the case for skepticism. Indeed, later thinkers even cast doubt on the supposed surety of self-existence.

Dissatisfied with the dogmatism of his scholastic forebears, Descartes sought to clear away all the questionable but typically unquestioned “truths” handed down to him and his contemporaries, expecting that anything that remained after an onslaught of radical doubt would have to be known with certainty. Demolishing accepted opinions one by one would require volumes, so instead Descartes examines the basic categories of belief, rejecting any kind for which he can find plausible reasons for doubt.

The first Meditation begins the process by considering empirical knowledge, what is learned from experience by means of our senses. Descartes’s most powerful argument relies upon the impossibility of distinguishing waking consciousness from sleeping. Who has not dreamt of “waking up” while still asleep? When I awaken, how do I know the “reality” around me is not just another layer of illusion, a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream? Thus, Descartes concludes that all knowledge that derives from sensation cannot be certain.

With the certainty of the a posteriori now eradicated, the Meditations turn to the a priori, knowledge that is independent of experience, such as mathematics and logic. This proves a more difficult task, so Descartes must introduce the possibility of a Great Deceiver, a malevolent being with godlike powers who deludes us at every turn. If I cannot prove that such an entity does not exist, then “how do I know that I am not deceived every time that I add two and three, or count the sides of a square, or judge of things yet simpler, if anything simpler can be imagined?” Readers of Orwell’s 1984 might have an easier time of imagining this, recalling that Winston Smith under torture genuinely comes to believe that 2 + 2 = 5.

If even arithmetic can be cast into doubt, then how could anything be known for sure? Descartes provides an answer in the second Meditation. Even if the Deceiver tricks me about everything else, he cannot delude me about my own existence: “Let him deceive me as much as he will, he can never cause me to be nothing so long as I think that I am something.” Of course, this “I” that exists for certain does not include the physical body, which may just be an illusion, but is simply the thinking self or mind. Even so, Descartes builds on this proposition in the remainder of the Meditations, arguing first for the existence of a benevolent God who would not deceive us about anything perceived “clearly and distinctly,” subsequently enabling him to claim certainty for all knowledge that results from clear perception and careful reasoning.

But is Descartes’s foundation really so certain? Is it not possible to doubt the existence of one’s own mind? In the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche raises the possibility of an even more radical skepticism. Though Nietzsche uses the example of lightning, the same point might be clearer to English speakers with the statement “it is raining.” Although “it” seems to suggest some agent independent of the action, the phrase simply means that raining is happening. Rather than saying with certainty that “I think,” perhaps Descartes should have merely concluded that “thinking happens.”

Passage Analysis

Paragraph 1

In this example we can see that not all paragraphs are created equal! Here, paragraph 1 lays out three different arguments—that of the so-called “skeptics”, that of René Descartes, and that of the author. Most of the rest of the passage is simply supporting evidence for the author’s argument in particular. With such a rich first paragraph, let’s make sure to spend some serious brain power teasing apart the beliefs of the skeptics, Descartes, and the author herself.

The passage opens with a question intended to introduce the reader to the author’s central concern: “Can we truly know anything with certainty?” The goal of this passage, as is the case with many passages that open with a single question, will be to answer this question—but at this point it is too early to tell how the author will answer it. As might be suspected, this question could be answered yes or no, and the author presents in the second sentence a contrast between the skeptics (who would say, no, we can be certain about nothing) and their critics (who would say, yes, we can know some things for sure). At this point, the author then introduces the figure who will soon be the star of this passage, René Descartes, and his book, the Meditations. In this third sentence, Descartes is clearly identified as a critic (“challenger”) of the skeptics, and the author spells out clearly (in case you were unsure) that the skeptics reject the possibility of certainty, while critics accept it.

This explicit identification of the sides of the debate is our first clue that the author is targeting a more generalized audience, though the relatively high difficulty of some of the language suggests the author expects this general audience to be well educated.

After reading this chapter, you probably paused when you saw the mention of Descartes’s “elaborate argument” in the third sentence. We’re not told yet precisely what that argument is, but we can get some sense of his conclusion (namely, that human knowledge can be certain) based on the fact that Descartes is described as a critic of skepticism. Remember that an argument is conclusion plus evidence, and all we’re told about Descartes’s evidence is that it has something to do with “the indubitability of one’s own existence,” whatever that means.

The next-to-last sentence is a crucial one. The use of the transition “However” is a clue; Contrast keywords like this one are discussed in Chapter 5. Despite the relatively neutral tone of this sentence, it reveals an important author opinion: that Descartes’s argument doesn’t actually do what Descartes wants it to do! Instead, according to this author, Descartes’s argument actually strengthens the case of those skeptics he was supposedly criticizing! The final sentence of this paragraph acts as a first piece of evidence for the author’s conclusion, suggesting there are even more reasons to doubt Descartes’s argument, though they’re not yet spelled out. Because the author is challenging Descartes’s argument in these last two sentences, we can see that she is making what we have identified as a counterargument.

A well-constructed opening paragraph like this one can actually reveal a lot about the passage that follows, allowing you to set expectations that make the remainder of the passage more manageable to read. Not all CARS passages contain such a helpful introduction, but when they do you should try to make the most of them. This paragraph allowed us to get a sense of the topic (the certainty of knowledge), the author’s tone (largely neutral, with some notable opinions), the intended audience (educated general public), and even a sense of the author’s goal (answering the question about certainty of knowledge in some way that involves Descartes). We were also able to determine the conclusion in Descartes’s argument (that some knowledge can be known with certainty), as well as the conclusion in the author’s counterargument (that Descartes’s argument actually backfires and supports the anti-certainty position, rather than the pro-certainty position he intended). As we’ll see, with so much vital information already extracted, subsequent paragraphs can be analyzed more briefly.

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 2 presents us with some background on Descartes and his argument. The author suggests that Descartes was dissatisfied with the dogmatism that passed for knowledge because he would only be happy with what can be “known with certainty.” The upshot of these two dense sentences is that Descartes uses a method that might seem counterintuitive: “radical doubt,” which is more or less what “skepticism” is, the view that Descartes is supposedly against! When reading this, we might begin to get the sense of how the author is going to suggest that Descartes helps the anti-certainty position more than the pro-certainty one.

Paragraph 3

Paragraph 3 gives us some details about how Descartes uses his method of doubt, so this paragraph as a whole serves as evidence for Descartes’s larger conclusion. Within the paragraph, though, there is a distinctive argument attributed to Descartes (this is a case of a piece of evidence serving as a kind of subconclusion with its own subevidence). The conclusion is that “empirical knowledge,” which the author defines as knowledge that comes from sensory experience, can’t be known with certainty. To support this, Descartes uses as evidence the claim that we can’t really tell whether we’re asleep or awake. This evidence, which might seem pretty controversial by itself, is in turn supported by its own subevidence, namely, the common experience of false awakenings in dreams. The author (channeling Descartes) poses this last evidence in the form of a rhetorical question: “Who has not dreamt of ‘waking up’ while still asleep?” This allows the author to be more persuasive than if she simply asserted that all people have had this experience, because a claim about all human beings will often seem controversial, while a rhetorical question will look like it has one obvious and simple answer.

We can sketch out the argument presented as follows (although it does not appear in this order in the paragraph):

We have all dreamt of “waking up” while still asleep.

arrow pointing down

It is impossible to distinguish waking consciousness from dreaming.

arrow pointing down

All knowledge that derives from sensory experience cannot be certain.

MCAT EXPERTISE

On Test Day, you do not have to understand every component of an argument. If pressed for time, focus on identifying the conclusion and simply knowing the location of the supporting evidence.

Paragraph 4

Paragraph 4 begins with some potentially frightening Latin terms—a posteriori and a priori. But the author helpfully defines the second one as experience-independent knowledge, and implies that the first term refers to the experience-dependent knowledge discussed in the previous paragraph. From that first sentence, we can expect to see something similar in paragraph 4 as we saw in paragraph 3: a subargument that concludes that experience-independent knowledge is uncertain. If you didn’t follow all of the evidence presented in this paragraph, that’s okay and not as important as recognizing the conclusion. But if a question required you to delve into it, you’d want to note that the central piece of evidence for paragraph 4’s argument is “the possibility of a Great Deceiver,” some kind of demon that tricks us whenever we try to do mental math. The author references a much later literary work (1984) to try to make this strange idea more plausible (in other words, to provide subevidence for the Great Deceiver subconclusion).

Paragraph 5

Paragraph 5 opens with a question that also helpfully rehashes the major point of paragraph 4 (that mathematics and other experience-independent knowledge are uncertain). Remembering paragraph 3 too, we’ve seen Descartes argue that both experience-dependent and experience-independent knowledge are uncertain. So what’s left? The author (quoting Descartes) answers: self-knowledge, specifically the knowledge that I, a thinking being, exist. After all, how could some hypothetical Great Deceiver fool me, unless I existed in the first place? So again we have another argument, though presented quite briefly. The conclusion is that knowledge of self-existence is certain, and the evidence is that you can’t be fooled about your own existence.

The remainder of the paragraph gives us more broad details about Descartes’s big argument in favor of certain knowledge (as you can see, real-life arguments can contain many, many pieces of evidence; the passage here only points to a small fraction of the evidence Descartes uses in his book). The author tells us that he argues for the existence of God (without her telling us what evidence Descartes uses) and then asserts that this subconclusion is used to provide certainty for a lot more knowledge (the references to “perception” and “reasoning” suggest both the categories of knowledge discussed in paragraphs 3 and 4). So, at the end of Descartes’s argument, we see that there is reason to believe that some experience-dependent and some experience-independent knowledge can be known with certainty, despite what earlier steps in his argument seemed to suggest.

Paragraph 6

The questions at the beginning of the final paragraph are truly rhetorical questions (unlike many of the open-ended questions that appear in this passage, all of which the author tries to answer explicitly)—the author’s use of “really” and “not” should be dead giveaways that she wants you to answer by saying no, Descartes’s foundation is not really so certain, and yes, it is possible to doubt the existence of your mind. Unlike paragraphs 2–5, all of which presented Descartes’s argument as he made it (with the author generally trying to make a good case for it, so it’s clear that she’s not being unfair to him), paragraph 6 at last tells us what the author thinks herself. And, in fact, the conclusion she reveals with these rhetorical questions is very much the one we saw at the end of paragraph 1: that Descartes’s argument actually undermines the possibility of certain knowledge. To support this conclusion, the author presents a counterargument against the certainty of self-knowledge, which was the key piece of evidence at the very foundation of Descartes’s argument. To support this counterargument, she draws on a point inspired by Nietzsche: just as there is no “it” that does the raining when you recognize “it is raining,” there may be no “I” that does the thinking when you recognize “I am thinking.” The author finishes the passage with the suggestion that Descartes could only really be sure about the existence of thinking, not about the existence of a self that thinks, a conclusion that follows from the evidence she just presented.

We can summarize the author’s counterargument as follows:

There is no “it” that rains.

arrow pointing down

There may be no “I” that thinks.

arrow pointing down

Knowledge of even your own existence is uncertain.

arrow pointing down

Descartes’s argument fails to show that certain knowledge is possible.

Goal

Now that we’ve examined every paragraph and extracted their key rhetorical and argumentative features, we can reflect on the passage as a whole. As we expected, the author maintained a relatively neutral tone but was willing to be critical of Descartes, especially in the first and last paragraphs. The language was often high level, but the author continued to define abstract terms and break down complex arguments where she could, confirming an intended audience of educated non-experts. And now, we can more exactly formulate the author’s goal and understand how she would answer the question that she opens the passage with. Her main purpose seems to be to make a counterargument against Descartes’ argument, which was in favor of the possibility of certain knowledge. So she might answer that first question by saying, no, knowledge cannot be certain, because Descartes’ argument for certainty fails. In short, we might summarize her goal as: to challenge Descartes’ argument that knowledge can be certain.

Conclusion

As we saw in this chapter, rhetoric and logic can enhance our understanding of MCAT CARS passages. While CARS questions will seldom explicitly ask you to identify, say, the genre of a given passage, recognizing common rhetorical structures and features can aid your answering of other questions. Arguments, on the other hand, are often explicitly referenced in questions, so there’s no debate that recognizing conclusions and their evidence is a vital Test Day skill.

Rhetoric and logic are not just ancient disciplines passed down from the Greeks, nor are they only useful when taking a standardized test like the MCAT. With the expansion of evidence-based medicine, you may find yourself answering clinical questions through a meticulous analysis of the research on the topic. For example, you may find yourself asking, Which breast cancer screening guidelines should I follow? Do I opt for the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which tends to be more conservative with screening, or the American Cancer Society (ACS), which is more rigorous? Or what about the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which is somewhere in between? An effective physician would read each group’s recommendations with an eye toward the identity of each group (the authors), their arguments, and each group’s goals. In short, understanding logic and rhetoric is indispensable to success on the MCAT, in medical school, and beyond.

Concept and Strategy Summary

Key Components of Rhetoric

Key Components of Arguments

Analyzing Passages with Rhetoric and Arguments

← Using Your Test Day Tools All chapters Previewing the Passage →