Dr. Z:
Many of the characterizations of my work offered by Dr. Q are imprecise, and such characterizations do not provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of my work.
Summary
Regarding Z’s work, many (i.e., some) characterizations by Q are imprecise characterizations.
Imprecise characterizations don’t provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Z’s work.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
Some characterizations by Q don’t provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Z’s work.
A
Some of Dr. Q’s characterizations of Dr. Z’s work provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr. Z’s work.
Unsupported. We’re given no information on what provides an adequate basis for sound criticism. We can infer that at least some of Q’s characterizations fail to provide an adequate basis, but that doesn’t imply that any of his characterizations do provide an adequate basis.
B
All of Dr. Q’s characterizations of Dr. Z’s work that are not imprecise provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr. Z’s work.
Unsupported. We’re given no information on what provides an adequate basis for sound criticism. We do know that if any of Q’s characterizations provides an adequate basis for sound criticism, it must not be an imprecise characterization. But (B) gets that relationship backward.
C
All of the characterizations of Dr. Z’s work by Dr. Q that do not provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr. Z’s work are imprecise.
Unsupported. This gets the sufficient and necessary conditions backward. The stimulus says that if a characterization is imprecise, it fails to provide an adequate basis for sound criticism. We don’t know if the reverse relationship is also true.
D
If the characterization of someone’s work is precise, then it provides a sound basis for criticizing that work.
Unsupported. We’re given no information on what provides a sound basis for criticism. Also, the stimulus only addresses what’s true of Z’s work—we don’t know what’s true of “someone’s work” more generally.
E
At least one of Dr. Q’s characterizations of Dr. Z’s work fails to provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of that work.
Very strongly supported. Many (i.e., some, meaning one or more) of Q’s characterizations are imprecise, and an imprecise characterization always fails to provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Z’s work.
P: Your hypothesis is laughable! What would have been the point of such a person’s writing Homeric epics down? Surely a person who knew them well enough to write them down would not need to read them; and no one else could read them, according to your hypothesis.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
P concludes that M’s hypothesis that the Greek alphabet was invented by someone who wanted to record Homeric epics is laughable. As support, P questions the purpose of such a person recording Homeric epics, since that person would know the epics well enough to not need to read them. Additionally, nobody else would be able to read the stories if the person was writing them in a newly invented language.
Describe Method of Reasoning
P responds to M by making M’s hypothesis seem ridiculous. P claims that the type of person who M claims would have invented the Greek alphabet would not have had a reason to write down Homeric epics in Greek.
A
attacking M’s understanding of the literary value of oral poetry
P does not discuss the literary value of oral poetry, so P’s argument did not contain an attack against M’s understanding of the literary value of oral poetry.
B
disagreeing with M’s thesis without attempting to refute it
P does attempt to refute M’s thesis. P does so by illustrating that the type of person who M claims would have invented the Greek alphabet would not have had a reason to write down Homeric epics in Greek.
C
challenging M’s knowledge of the Phoenician writing system
P does not challenge M’s knowledge of the Phoenician writing system; P does not mention the Phoenician writing system nor does she question M’s knowledge.
D
attempting to undermine M’s hypothesis by making it appear absurd
P concludes that M’s hypothesis is laughable, and attempts to show that the person who M claims invented the Greek alphabet would not have any reason to write down Homeric epics, thus making M’s argument seem absurd.
E
providing an alternative interpretation of evidence put forward by M
Neither P nor M provides evidence, and P does not give an alternative interpretation of any previously discussed evidence.
Miguel: No, lowering the current allowable blood alcohol level would have little effect on highway safety, because it would not address the most important aspect of the drunken driving problem, which is the danger to the public posed by heavy drinkers, who often drive with a blood alcohol level of twice the current legal limit.
Speaker 1 Summary
The allowable blood alcohol level for drivers should be cut in half. Why? Because this will deter social drinkers from drinking and driving, which would result in increased highway safety.
Speaker 2 Summary
We should not cut the allowable blood alcohol level for drivers in half. Why? Because heavy drinkers, who often drive at twice the legal limit, are the greatest danger posed to the public. Cutting the limit in half would not address them and therefore would not increase highway safety.
Objective
We need a statement that Steven and Miguel disagree on. They disagree whether the allowable blood alcohol limit for drivers should be cut in half. Steven thinks it should because it would deter social drinkers from drinking and driving. Miguel thinks it shouldn’t because the strategy wouldn’t address the danger of heavy drinkers.
A
Social drinkers who drink and drive pose a substantial threat to the public.
The speakers disagree on this statement. Steven agrees that social drinkers pose a substantial threat, and this is reason for advocating the legal limit to be cut in half. Miguel disagrees and thinks heavy drinkers are the most important aspect of the drunken driving problem.
B
There is a direct correlation between a driver’s blood alcohol level and the driver’s ability to drive safely.
The speakers agree on this statement. Both speakers agree that a driver’s blood alcohol level affects their ability to drive safety. The speaker’s dispute is regarding what level poses the greatest risk to the public.
C
A driver with a blood alcohol level above the current legal limit poses a substantial danger to the public.
The speakers agree on this statement. Steven is disputing that this limit is too high and should be cut in half. Miguel states that heavy drinkers who drink well beyond the limit are the most significant threat to the public.
D
Some drivers whose blood alcohol level is lower than the current legal limit pose a danger to the public.
Miguel does not express and opinion on this statement. Miguel only states that the current level should not be cut in half because heavy drinkers pose the greatest public threat.
E
A driver with a blood alcohol level slightly greater than half the current legal limit poses no danger to the public.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. We don’t know whether either speaker believes that there are any drivers that pose no danger to the public.
Summary
The argument concludes that people in a certain region who have jobs are not reducing their consumer spending in response to widespread layoffs in the area. The argument supports this with the claim that these people with jobs are not saving more money than usual.
Notable Assumptions
The argument assumes that if the people in question were reducing their consumer purchases, then they would save more money. In other words, that there isn’t some third way that people might be spending their money, leading them to reduce consumption while also not saving more.
A
If people in the region who continue to be employed have debts, they are not now paying them off at an accelerated rate.
Debts would be a third way to spend money, meaning that people might not be saving more even though they’re reducing their purchases. So in order for the argument to function, it must assume that debt repayment hasn’t suddenly increased.
B
People in the region who continue to be employed and who have relatives who have lost their jobs commonly assist those relatives financially.
Assisting relatives financially could be a way to use money that involves neither consumption nor saving—but the argument’s assumption is that something like that isn’t happening. So to assume that this is happening isn’t necessary at all.
C
If people in the region who have lost jobs get new jobs, the new jobs generally pay less well than the ones they lost.
The argument is only concerned with people who “still have their jobs” and not people who are having financial difficulties due to losing their jobs, so this is an irrelevant consideration.
D
People in the region who continue to be employed are pessimistic about their prospects for increasing their incomes.
How people with jobs feel about their likelihood of making more money is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they’re currently cutting back on consumer purchases.
E
There exist no statistics about sales of goods in the region as a whole.
The argument is trying to infer information about sales of goods from statistics about saving habits. Whether actual statistics about sales of goods exist is irrelevant to that inference.
Summarize Argument
Some doctors argue that asthmagon should be banned for asthma patients. Their support is that 20% of asthma patients suffered serious side effects from asthmagon during studies.
Notable Assumptions
The doctors assume that asthmagon should be banned based on its side effects. This means that they believe the serious side effects outweigh any potential benefits that asthmagon affords asthma patients. The doctors also assume that asthmagon hasn’t changed as a drug since these studies were undertaken, and that the studies weren’t compromised by some external factor.
A
In Rhiago, where asthmagon had been the most widely prescribed of the beta-2 agonists, the number of asthma deaths increased between 1981 and 1987.
If asthma deaths increased in an area where asthmagon was prescribed, that suggests the drug isn’t working all that well. This certainly doesn’t weaken the claim that asthmagon should be banned.
B
Many of the patients under observation to whom asthmagon was administered had not previously taken a beta-2 agonist.
Regardless of what the patients had previously taken, asthmagon had serious side effects. That alone, at least for the doctors, is enough to ban it. This doesn’t weaken that claim.
C
Despite the growing concern about the drug, many physicians in Rhiago still prescribe asthmagon to asthma sufferers.
We don’t care what doctors do. We care about whether or not asthmagon should be banned because of its side effects.
D
Among the patients observed, only those who had very high cholesterol counts suffered side effects after taking asthmagon.
Asthmagon does cause side effects, but only for a certain subset of patients. It doesn’t follow to ban asthmagon for everyone, which is what the doctors are recommending.
E
Asthmagon increases the severity of asthma attacks in some people because the drug can cause damage to heart tissues.
This is yet another reason to ban asthmagon. We’re looking for an answer that weakens the doctors’ stance.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the factory’s former employees filed for benefits to help weather unemployment, rather than for legitimate injury-related reasons. He supports this stance by pointing to the increase in injury claims made after the factory closed, compared to while the factory was open.
Notable Assumptions
Based on a correlation between injury claims and employment status, the author assumes the latter is causing the former. The author also assumes that former employees don’t have legitimate injuries they withheld making claims for until after their employment came to an end. And the author assumes that nothing happened shortly before the factory closed that would’ve caused a legitimate increase in injury claims.
A
Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearing loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.
Since workers can’t file for compensation until after their employment ends, it makes sense claims went up after the factory closed. This certainly weakens.
B
In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.
Employees were afraid to file injury claims, since the ones who did lost their jobs. This explains the sharp increase in claims once the factory shut down.
C
Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.
If most workers file for compensation right away, then why did all these employees wait until after the factory closed? This doesn’t give us nearly enough information to weaken the author’s argument.
D
Workers who incur partial disabilities due to injuries on the job often do not file for compensation because they would have to stop working to receive compensation but cannot afford to live on that compensation alone.
Workers chose not to file injury claims since they would’ve had to have stopped working. Once the factory was closed, they were free to file those claims since they no longer had jobs to protect.
E
Workers who are aware that they will soon be laid off from a job often become depressed, making them more prone to job-related injuries.
Workers actually sustained more workplace injuries shortly before the factory closed, hence why they filed more claims.