Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years, there has been a sixfold increase in government funding for the preservation of wetlands, while the total area of wetlands needing such preservation has increased only twofold (although this area was already large ten years ago). Even when inflation is taken into account, the amount of funding now is at least three times what it was ten years ago. Nevertheless, the current amount of government funding for the preservation of wetlands is inadequate and should be augmented.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Funding for wetland preservation has effectively tripled, while the extent of wetlands needing preservation has only doubled. So why is funding for wetland preservation considered inadequate?
Objective
The correct answer must be a hypothesis that explains why the recent funding increases are still insufficient. It will show that, somehow, the need for preservation remains greater than what the current funding provides for.
A
The governmental agency responsible for administering wetland-preservation funds has been consistently mismanaged and run inefficiently over the past ten years.
This doesn’t explain why the need for preservation outstrips the available funding. Even if (A) is true, we know that this funding has nevertheless increased at a faster rate than the land area in need of preservation. We must explain why more money is still needed.
B
Over the past ten years, the salaries of scientists employed by the government to work on the preservation of wetlands have increased at a rate higher than the inflation rate.
The available funding has also increased at a rate much higher than inflation. For (B) to be an adequate explanation, it would need to suggest that salary growth has outstripped the funding increase and that those salaries are a significant draw on that funding.
C
Research over the past ten years has enabled scientists today to identify wetlands in need of preservation well before the areas are at serious risk of destruction.
This doesn’t explain why the available funding is insufficient. Even if wetlands are more proactively identified for preservation, the fact remains that funding has increased at a faster rate than the land area in need of preservation. Why is that funding still not enough?
D
More people today, scientists and nonscientists alike, are working to preserve all natural resources, including wetlands.
This doesn’t explain why the available funding for wetlands is insufficient. Even if (D) is true, we know that funding for wetlands has effectively tripled. The correct answer must explain why even that amount of money is not enough.
E
Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent ten years ago.
If the amount of funding was very small to begin with, then even a tripling of that amount is still a small amount. Meanwhile, the total wetland area in need of preservation was large to begin with and is now twice that size. So, the amount of funding has always been too little.
Summarize Argument
A play called Mankind must have been written between 1431 and 1471. This is because a certain coin referenced in the play wasn’t in circulation until 1431, and because a certain king referenced in the play as a living monarch died in 1471.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the rose noble coin didn’t exist before it went into circulation. The author also assumes that because Henry VI was mentioned as living in the play’s means he was really alive. This means the author assumes that the dedication is historically accurate and representative of the time the play was written, rather than tacked on by a later playwright or compiler.
A
The Royal Theatre Company includes the play on a list of those performed in 1480.
We’re not interested in when the play was performed. We care about when it was written.
B
Another coin mentioned in the play was first minted in 1422.
Even if that coin was first minted in 1422, it could well have been in circulation later. The reason the rose noble is so important is because it wasn’t in circulation until 1431.
C
The rose noble was neither minted nor circulated after 1468.
Even if the coin was out of circulation 1468, it still could’ve been mentioned in the play. This doesn’t weaken the claim that Mankind was written between 1431 and 1471.
D
Although Henry VI was deposed in 1461, he was briefly restored to the throne in 1470.
At best, this simply means Mankind was written between 1431-61 and 1470-71, which doesn’t weaken the argument. But even if Henry VI was deposed in the 1460s, he was still a “living monarch” at the time—just one not currently ruling the country.
E
In a letter written in early 1428, a merchant told of having seen the design for a much-discussed new coin called the “rose noble.”
This pushes the possible date for Mankind to have been written back three years. Even if the rose noble wasn’t in circulation, there was a chance the playwright had heard of it.
Summarize Argument
The author argues that there are no shared values across cultures as long as there are distinct cultures. She supports this by citing anthropological evidence: distinct cultures differ in their moral codes.
Notable Assumptions
Based on the fact moral codes differ between cultures, the author assumes that no two distinct cultures share the same moral value. This means she believes that all the values contained in a moral code are unique to that moral code. She also believes that when cultures differ on moral codes, they differ entirely rather than by degree or at the margins.
A
Anthropologists rely on inadequate translation techniques to investigate the values of cultures that use languages different from the anthropologists’ languages.
The study is flawed, so any conclusions drawn from the study are questionable. Here, anthropologists might not’ve correctly identified if moral codes really differ between cultures or not.
B
As a result of advancing technology and global communication, we will someday all share the same culture and the same values.
Whether or not we all share the same culture has no bearing on distinct cultures, even if those cultures exist only as hypotheticals. Since the author concludes about distinct cultures, this doesn’t weaken.
C
Although specific moral values differ across cultures, more general moral principles, such as “Friendship is good,” are common to all cultures.
Specific values differ, but foundational values show similarities among cultures. This means that some values, in a broad sense, may be shared among cultures.
D
The anthropologists who have studied various cultures have been biased in favor of finding differences rather than similarities between distinct cultures.
Anthropologists provide flawed studies, which means we can’t draw conclusions from them. This weakens the argument, which is supported only by an anthropological study.
E
What appear to be differences in values between distinct cultures are nothing more than differences in beliefs about how to live in accordance with shared values.
Contrary to the author’s conclusion, cultures actually do share values. The differences are actually about beliefs.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the overall driving-age population of Australia must have more skillful drivers now compared to five years ago. This is based on the fact that, even though the driving age population has grown over the last five years, the annual number of traffic deaths has gone down over that time.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no other causal explanation for the decrease in annual traffic deaths other than an increase in the skill of drivers.
A
Three years ago, a mandatory seat-belt law went into effect throughout Australia.
This is a potential alternate explanation for the decrease in traffic deaths. Maybe the law caused more people to wear seat belts, which saved more lives.
B
Five years ago, Australia began a major road repair project.
This is a potential alternate explanation for the decrease in traffic deaths. Maybe repairs improved road quality, which allowed for safer driving.
C
Because of increases in the price of fuel, Australians on average drive less each year than in the preceding year.
This is a potential alternate explanation for the decrease in traffic deaths. Maybe average time spent driving went down, which we’d expect to result in fewer deaths from driving.
D
The number of hospital emergency facilities in Australia has doubled in the last five years.
This is a potential alternate explanation for the decrease in traffic deaths. Maybe the increase in emergency facilities made it easier to get to the hospital after an accident, which we’d expect to reduce the number of deaths from those accidents.
E
In response to an increase in traffic fatalities, Australia instituted a program of mandatory driver education five years ago.
We can interpret this as supporting the author’s hypothesis. The driver education program could have contributed to more skillful drivers in the population. Since we can read this as supporting the author’s hypothesis, it’s the correct answer to this Weaken-EXCEPT question.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Jones is the best qualified, because none of the other candidates has the same set of qualifications as Jones.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The conclusion is that Jones is the best qualified, but the support is merely that she has different qualifications from the other candidates. What makes her unique set of qualifications better than anyone else’s qualifications? The author doesn’t say, so his argument fails to provide evidence that supports the comparison made in the conclusion.
Moreover, the author notes that everyone has a unique set of qualifications. So the reason for choosing Jones—unique qualifications—equally applies to every other candidate. The argument singles out one member of a set based on a trait held by all members of that set.
A
uses flattery to win over those who hold an opposing position
No opposing position is identified. And although the author notes that Jones is the “best qualified,” nothing suggests that this is flattery—rather, this is simply the author’s conclusion about who the best candidate is.
B
refutes a distorted version of an opposing position
No opposing position is identified or refuted.
C
seeks to distinguish one member of a group on the basis of something that applies to all
The author tries to distinguish Jones as the best candidate on the basis of something—unique qualifications—that applies to all candidates. This is a flaw; if all candidates, like Jones, have unique qualifications, then we’re given no reason to choose Jones over anyone else.
D
supports a universal claim on the basis of a single example
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of overgeneralization. But the author doesn’t make a generalized or universal claim. His conclusion is a claim specifically about one candidate, and he supports that claim on the basis of a consideration of all candidates.
E
describes an individual in terms that appropriately refer only to the group as a whole
This is the cookie-cutter “whole to part” flaw, where a trait belonging to a group is inappropriately applied to a single member. The author doesn’t do this—he describes each candidate in terms of her qualifications, which is a trait that rightly applies to individuals.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author looks at a trend of job losses and concludes that, contrary to what some people say, those who have managed to keep their jobs are spending just as much money as they ever have, rather than reining in spending. As evidence, the author points out that these employed people haven’t been increasing the size of their savings accounts.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author counters a position held by others. She does this by first predicting a cause-and-effect relationship that we’d expect to see if that other position were true: if employed people really were reducing their spending, their savings accounts would likely grow as a result. The author then shows that the effect (more savings) hasn’t occurred, which undermines the likelihood that the cause (reduced spending) has occurred either.
A
concluding that since an expected consequence of a supposed development did not occur, that development itself did not take place
The supposed development is a reduction in spending by people who are still employed, and the expected consequence is unusual growth in those people’s saving accounts. The author concludes that since there’s been no unusual growth, there’s been no reduction in spending.
B
concluding that since only one of the two predictable consequences of a certain kind of behavior is observed to occur, this observed occurrence cannot, in the current situation, be a consequence of such behavior
The author only identifies one predictable consequence of reducing spending—namely, a growth in savings accounts. Also, the conclusion isn’t about whether something is the consequence of a certain behavior—rather, the conclusion is that the behavior itself isn’t occurring.
C
arguing that since people’s economic behavior is guided by economic self-interest, only misinformation or error will cause people to engage in economic behavior that harms them economically
The author never raises the subjects of economic self-interest, misinformation, error, or economically harmful behavior.
D
arguing that since two alternative developments exhaust all the plausible possibilities, one of those developments occurred and the other did not
This ignores reasoning by cause-and-effect, which is central to the author’s argument. Instead, (D) describes the following, very different argument: since employed people either did or did not reduce spending, it must be that they did not reduce spending.
E
concluding that since the evidence concerning a supposed change is ambiguous, it is most likely that no change is actually taking place
The only evidence presented is clear, not ambiguous. The author states, without any ambiguity, that there’s been no unusual increase in the size of employed people’s savings accounts.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The resident concludes that closing the recreation center would make the situation unacceptable. He supports this by claiming that recreation facilities are a neighborhood necessity, and pointing out that the neighborhood already had more residents per center than any other neighborhood in the city.
Notable Assumptions
The resident assumes that the recreation center was being used enough to justify remaining open. This also means that he assumes a recreation center remaining open should depend on how well-used that center is. The resident also assumes that recreation center in a nearby neighborhood wouldn’t be able to provide adequate access to recreation facilities.
A
A large number of the neighborhood’s residents are unable to travel outside their locality to gain access to recreational facilities.
This means that another recreation center wouldn’t provide adequate access to recreation facilities for neighborhood residents. This supports the resident’s argument that closing the recreation center is unacceptable.
B
Children, the main users of recreational facilities, make up a disproportionately small segment of the neighborhood’s population.
True, the neighborhood has more residents per recreation center than any other neighborhood. But most people who use recreation centers are children, and this neighborhood has very few chilren.
C
Often the recreation center in the neighborhood is open but not being used.
Even when the recreation center is open, people choose not to go. This weakens the resident’s claim that the recreation center is a neighborhood necessity.
D
Programs that are routinely filled at other recreation centers must be canceled at the neighborhood’s recreation center due to lack of interest.
Like (C), this says that people simply aren’t using the recreation center. It weakens the resident’s claim that the recreation center is a neighborhood necessity.
E
As people become more involved in computers and computer games, recreation centers are becoming increasingly less important.
People would rather play video games than go to the recreation center. It simply won’t be used enough to remain open.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that in the early 19th century, floors made out of narrow floorboards were likely a status symbol designed to convey a homeowner’s wealth. This is based on the fact that bigger houses tended to use narrower floorboards than smaller houses, and that bigger houses tended to be built for people who were richer than those for whom smaller houses were built.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no more likely explanation for the use of narrower floorboards in the bigger houses besides the idea that the floorboards were status symbols. This overlooks the possibility that there may have been other reasonable explanations, such as stylistic trends associated with bigger houses, or perhaps narrower floor boards were more functional for bigger houses or were cheaper to use in bigger houses.
A
More original floorboards have survived from big early nineteenth-century houses than from small early nineteenth-century houses.
The comparative number of surviving floorboards has no clear impact. We have no reason to think that having more floor boards survive helps show that the narrower floorboards were used as a status symbol.
B
In the early nineteenth century, a piece of narrow floorboard was not significantly less expensive than a piece of wide floorboard of the same length.
This eliminates an alternate explanation that narrower boards were used because they were much cheaper. In theory, homeowners might have been trying to save by using boards that were much cheaper. (B) says that’s not true, which makes the status symbol hypothesis more plausible.
C
In the early nineteenth century, smaller houses generally had fewer rooms than did bigger houses.
The number of rooms doesn’t have a clear impact on the purpose of the narrower floorboards. (C) helps show that narrower floorboards, which were used in bigger houses, tended to be used for a greater number of rooms. That doesn’t signify anything about the boards’ purpose.
D
Some early nineteenth-century houses had wide floorboards near the walls of each room and narrower floorboards in the center, where the floors were usually carpeted.
If anything, (D) might weaken by suggesting owners wanted to hide the use of narrower floorboards, but wanted to show off wider boards. This goes against the theory that owners used narrower boards as status symbols.
E
Many of the biggest early nineteenth-century houses but very few small houses from that period had some floors that were made of materials that were considerably more expensive than wood, such as marble.
So, some owners of bigger houses used materials that were more expensive than wood. But that doesn’t suggest anything about the purpose of narrower wooden floorboards. Perhaps other materials were used a status symbol; narrower boards may or may not also be a status symbol.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The economist concludes that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value—i.e. the amount of money we would be willing to spend to protect it. This is supported by the claim that we wouldn’t spend all of the world’s economic resources to protect the ozone layer. This leads to the sub-conclusion that there must be an upper limit to how much the ozone layer is worth.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The economist concludes that a certain value is calculable because there is an upper limit to that value. However, even if there is an upper limit to the ozone layer’s value, that still doesn’t establish that the exact monetary value of the ozone layer can be calculated.
A
uses evidence that the monetary value of a particular natural resource is less than a certain amount in order to establish that the monetary value of any natural resource is less than that amount
The economist never discusses natural resources other than the ozone layer, nor makes any claims about other natural resources.
B
presupposes that the ozone layer should not be protected and then argues to that claim as a conclusion
The economist just doesn’t conclude that the ozone layer shouldn’t be protected. The conclusion here is that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value, not whether or not we should protect it.
C
takes advantage of an ambiguity in the term “value” to deflect the environmentalists’ charge
There is no ambiguity in how the term “value” is used here, by either the economist or the environmentalists. Everyone involved uses “value” to mean “monetary value” and nothing else.
D
gives no reason for thinking that merely establishing an upper limit on a certain monetary value would allow the calculation of that monetary value
The economist establishes that the ozone layer’s monetary value has an upper limit, but doesn’t give us any reason to think that that its exact monetary value can be calculated from there.
E
does not directly address the argument of the environmentalists
The economist does directly address the environmentalists’ argument: the environmentalists claim that the ozone layer does not have a calculable monetary value, and the economist argues directly against that claim.