Motorcoach driver: Professional drivers spend much more time driving, on average, than do other people and hence are more competent drivers than are other, less experienced drivers. Therefore, the speed limit on major highways should not be reduced, because that action would have the undesirable effect of forcing some people who are now both law-abiding and competent drivers to break the law.
Police officer: All drivers can drive within the legal speed limit if they wish, so it is not true to say that reducing the speed limit would be the cause of such illegal behavior.
Speaker 1 Summary
The motorcoach driver claims that we shouldn’t reduce highway speed limits. Why not? Because doing so would “force” some competent drivers to break the law, presumably by speeding. Who would these drivers be? We can infer the motorcoach driver is talking about professional drivers, who are better-than-average drivers because they spend more time driving. (The assumption is that the professionals wouldn’t reduce their speed to respect a new limit.)
Speaker 2 Summary
The police officer argues that lowering the speed limit would not actually be the cause of people speeding. This is because anyone can drive at the limit if they choose to—so the drivers’ choices, not the limit, would be to blame for speeding.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. The driver and the officer disagree about whether lowering the speed limit would cause any drivers to speed.
A
it would be desirable to reduce the speed limit on major highways
The motorcoach driver disagrees with this, but the police officer doesn’t state an opinion. The police officer never mentions whether or not we should change the speed limit.
B
professional drivers will drive within the legal speed limit if that limit is reduced
The motorcoach driver disagrees with this, but the police officer neither agrees nor disagrees. The police officer doesn’t say whether professional drivers actually will speed; the point is just that if they did so it would be their own fault.
C
reducing the speed limit on major highways would cause some professional drivers to break the law
The motorcoach driver agrees with this, but the police officer disagrees, so this is the point at issue. The police officer claims that the cause of speeding would not be the lower limit, but would instead be that the drivers chose to speed.
D
professional drivers are more competent drivers than are other, less experienced drivers
The motorcoach driver agrees with this, but the police officer doesn’t state an opinion. The police officer doesn’t say anything at all about the competency of professional versus non-professional drivers.
E
all drivers wish to drive within the speed limit
Neither speaker states an opinion about this claim. Neither the motorcoach driver nor the police officer makes any kind of statement about what drivers actually wish to do.
The argument also assumes that trimming the rhinos’ horns wouldn’t have unexpected consequences that could further endanger the species, such as making the rhinos more vulnerable to predators or lowering their reproductive rate.
A
Most poachers who are discouraged from hunting rhinoceroses are not likely to hunt other animals for their horns.
B
At least some rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able to attract mates.
C
Poachers hunt at least some immature rhinoceroses whose horns have not yet started to develop.
D
The demand for rhinoceros horns will remain constant even if the supply decreases after the periodic trimming-off of the rhinoceros horns has begun.
E
Rhinoceroses whose horns have been trimmed off are unable to defend themselves against predators.
A
attempts to force acceptance of a claim by inducing fear of the consequences of rejecting that claim
B
bases a conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with each other
C
rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself
D
relies on evidence presented in terms that presuppose the truth of the claim for which the evidence is offered
E
mistakes the observation that one thing happens after another for proof that the second thing is the result of the first
Without these assumptions, there’s no way that companies could reduce their losses by collecting debts themselves compared to selling the debts.
A
a company that pursues its debtors on its own typically collects more than 15 percent of the total amount of the long-outstanding bills that it is owed
B
the cost to a company of pursuing its debtors on its own for payment of long-outstanding bills does not exceed 15 percent of the total amount of those bills
C
collection agencies that are assigned bills for collection by companies are unsuccessful in collecting, on average, only 15 percent of the total amount of those bills
D
at least 15 percent of the customers that owe money to companies eventually pay their bills whether or not those bills are assigned to a collection agency
E
unless most of the customers of a company pay their bills, that company in the long run will not be profitable
Debbie: But consider this: a person for whom a doctor wants to schedule surgery can simply be told what pain to expect and can then decide whether or not to undergo the operation. So you see, pain protocols are unnecessary for human beings.
A
Not all operations that are performed on human beings are painful.
B
Some experimentation that is now done on animals need not be done at all.
C
Preparing pain protocols is not a time-consuming or costly procedure.
D
Some surgical operations performed on infants are painful.
E
Unalleviated pain after an operation tends to delay the healing process.
Debbie: But consider this: a person for whom a doctor wants to schedule surgery can simply be told what pain to expect and can then decide whether or not to undergo the operation. So you see, pain protocols are unnecessary for human beings.
A
showing that one of the claims on which Carl bases his conclusion is inaccurate
B
pointing out a relevant difference to undermine an analogy on which Carl bases his conclusion
C
claiming that Carl’s argument should be rejected because it is based on an appeal to sentimentality rather than on reasoned principles
D
drawing an analogy that illustrates a major flaw in Carl’s argument
E
offering a specific example to demonstrate that Carl’s argument is based on a claim that can be neither confirmed nor disproved
Paleontologist: No, the ability to perch in trees is not good evidence that Archeopteryx was a tree-dwelling bird. Chickens also spend time perched in trees, yet chickens are primarily ground-dwelling.
A
Modern tree-dwelling birds are the direct descendants of Archeopteryx.
B
Archeopteryx made use of the curvature of its claws.
C
There have never been tree-dwelling birds without curved claws.
D
Archeopteryx was in fact the earliest birdlike creature.
E
The curvature of the claws is the only available evidence for the claim that Archeopteryx was tree-dwelling.
Paleontologist: No, the ability to perch in trees is not good evidence that Archeopteryx was a tree-dwelling bird. Chickens also spend time perched in trees, yet chickens are primarily ground-dwelling.
A
questions the qualifications of the ornithologist to evaluate the evidence
B
denies the truth of the claims the ornithologist makes in support of the hypothesis
C
uses a parallel case to illustrate a weakness in the ornithologist’s argument
D
shows that the hypothesis contradicts one of the pieces of evidence used to support it
E
provides additional evidence to support the ornithologist’s argument
A commonly accepted myth is that left-handed people are more prone to cause accidents than are right-handed people. But this is, in fact, just a myth, as is indicated by the fact that more household accidents are caused by right-handed people than are caused by left-handed people.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The argument concludes that left-handed people are not more prone to cause accidents than right-handed people. This is supported by the point that more household accidents are caused by right-handed people than by left-handed people.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument is flawed because it confuses percentages and amounts. The claim that right-handed people cause a greater number of accidents doesn’t disprove that left-handed individuals are more prone to accidents. If most people are right-handed, then left-handed people may still cause more accidents relative to their population size, making them more prone to accidents.
A
makes a distinction where there is no real difference between the things distinguished
The only distinction the argument makes is between left-handed and right-handed people, where there is a real difference.
B
takes no account of the relative frequency of left-handed people in the population as a whole
The argument concludes that left-handed people aren’t more prone to accidents, but its support only addresses the number of accidents caused by left- and right-handed people. Without knowing the percentage of different-handed people, that evidence can’t support that conclusion.
C
uses the word “accidents” in two different senses
The argument uses “accidents” in a consistent sense. When the term “accidents” is used, it’s always referring to unintentional incidents that cause some kind of damage.
D
ignores the possibility that some household accidents are caused by more than one person
This possibility wouldn’t have any effect on the argument. We would still be accounting for all the left- and right-handed people involved in causing household accidents, even if they weren’t the sole cause.
E
gives wholly irrelevant evidence and simply disparages an opposing position by calling it a “myth”
The argument does give relevant evidence about the frequency of accidents caused by right- and left-handed people. It’s just missing clarifying evidence about the size of the right- and left-handed populations.