Regulator: We tried to hire the 500 investigators but the starting salaries for these positions had been frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The regulator concludes that it was impossible to attract enough qualified investigators. As support, the regulator says that the starting salaries were frozen so low by the legislature that they did not have 500 qualified applicants.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The regulator responds to the legislator’s accusation that the regulation agency purposely limited hiring by highlighting new information that impacts the hiring process. The information raised by the regulator about the low starting salaries provides an alternate explanation that weakens the legislator’s argument. The new information suggests that it was the low salaries, rather than malice by the regulators, that explains the fact that no more than 400 regulators were hired.
A
shifting the blame for the scandals to the legislature
The regulator does not shift blame for the sandals. The regulator does not discuss who is responsible for the scandals referenced by the legislator.
B
providing information that challenges the conclusion drawn by the legislator
The regulator provides new information about the low starting salaries for the positions that challenges the legislator’s conclusion that the low hiring numbers were a result of the regulator’s desire to hide the scandals.
C
claiming that compliance with the legislature’s mandate would have been an insufficient response
The regulator does not address what would have happened if the agency actually had hired 500 investigators. The regulator doesn’t say whether or not that would have been a sufficient response.
D
rephrasing the legislator’s conclusion in terms more favorable to the regulator
The legislator’s conclusion is that the regulator purposely limited hiring in order to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed; the regulator does not rephrase this conclusion at all. The regulator gives a different conclusion.
E
showing that the legislator’s statements are self-contradictory
The regulator does not show that the legislator’s statements are self-contradictory; the regulator raises new information that weakens the legislator’s argument.
Adults who work outside the home spend, on average, 100 minutes less time each week in preparing dinner than adults who do not work outside the home. But, contrary to expectation, comparisons show that the dinners eaten at home by the two groups of adults do not differ significantly with respect to nutritional value, variety of menus, or number of courses.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Adults who work outside the home spend less time preparing dinner compared to adults who do not work outside the home, but both groups eat dinners at home that are similar in nutritional value, variety, and number of courses.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that offers a similarity between both groups. This similarity will explain how they have similar quality dinners at home even though adults who work outside the home spend less time preparing dinner than adults who do not work outside the home. It will resolve the apparent discrepancy in the stimulus, which is that if one spends less time preparing dinner, their dinners are presumably less nutritional, have less variety, or have less courses.
A
The fat content of the dinners eaten at home by adults who do not work outside the home is 25 percent higher than national guidelines recommend.
(A) compares the fat content of dinners eaten at home by adults who do not work outside the home to the national guidelines. (A) does not compare or provide information on the two groups in question (adults who work outside the home and adults who do not).
B
Adults who do not work outside the home tend to prepare breakfast more often than adults who work outside the home.
This does not help to explain the apparent discrepancy: the stimulus discusses dinner, not breakfast.
C
Adults who work outside the home spend 2 hours less time per day on all household responsibilities, including dinner preparation, than do adults who do not work outside the home.
This does not offer a similarity that helps to explain the apparent discrepancy: the stimulus already says that adults who work outside the home spend less time on dinner, which is at the core of the discrepancy.
D
Adults who work outside the home eat dinner at home 20 percent less often than do adults who do not work outside the home.
(D) draws a similarity between the groups, explaining that they may actually spend similar amounts of time preparing dinner at home. Adults who work outside the home eat less dinners at home, meaning the time they do spend on preparing dinner at home is spread across less meals.
E
Adults who work outside the home are less likely to plan dinner menus well in advance than are adults who do not work outside the home.
This deepens the discrepancy between adults who work outside the home and adults who do not. According to (E), adults who work outside the home do less cooking and less planning, yet their homemade dinners are somehow similar to the stay-at-home group's.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The scientist hypothesizes that the ferrous material promoted a great increase in the population of Antarctic algae. She supports this by noting that algae absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Notable Assumptions
The scientist assumes that more ferrous material leads to more algae, which in turn absorbs carbon dioxide. This means she assumes that the relationship isn’t the reverse (i.e. more algae leads to more ferrous material), and also that there isn’t some other, hidden cause that’s actually responsible for the amount of algae. The scientist also assumes that algae was actually present in Antarctica at this time, in quantities sufficient to draw her conclusion.
A
Diatoms are a microscopic form of algae that has remained largely unchanged since the last ice age.
Diatoms are just one example of algae, and this fact doesn’t change what we think about algae in general. We need to weaken the connection between ferrous material and algae.
B
Computer models suggest that a large increase in ferrous material today could greatly promote the growth of oceanic algae.
If anything, this supports the scientist’s argument. We want to weaken this same connection.
C
The dust found in the air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice contained other minerals in addition to the ferrous material.
Were these other minerals the cause of the algae? As it is, we don’t know enough about them to say they weaken the argument.
D
Sediment from the ocean floor near Antarctica reflects no increase, during the last ice age, in the rate at which the shells that diatoms leave when they die accumulated.
At least one type of algae didn’t actually increase at all in Antarctica during the period in question. This suggests the ferrous material wasn’t causing algae growth.
E
Algae that currently grow in the oceans near Antarctica do not appear to be harmed by even a large increase in exposure to ferrous material.
The scientist claims that ferrous material causes algae growth. This doesn’t weaken that claim, and in fact defends against a possible weakener—that too much ferrous material is harmful to algae.
Summary
The argument concludes that modifying all cars to prevent them from exceeding the speed limit would prevent most car accidents. This is supported by the claim that exceeding the speed limit is a significant factor in most accidents.
Notable Assumptions
The argument’s conclusion aims at preventing most accidents by preventing speeding, which is a “significant factor” in most accidents. This requires the assumption that speeding actually determines whether most accidents will happen—in other words, that there aren’t other significant factors that would still lead most accidents to happen.
It also requires assuming that preventing speeding would not cause so many additional accidents that the total number of accidents would stay high.
It also requires assuming that preventing speeding would not cause so many additional accidents that the total number of accidents would stay high.
A
A person need not be a trained mechanic to install the device properly.
The argument merely claims that installing these devices in all cars would prevent most accidents. How easy it is to install the devices, or who is able to do it, is irrelevant.
B
Most accidents are caused by inexperienced drivers.
The argument’s claim that preventing speeding would prevent most arguments doesn’t depend on who is causing accidents, so this isn’t necessary to assume.
C
A driver seldom needs to exceed the speed limit to avoid an accident when none of the other drivers involved are violating the speed limit.
If we negate this, meaning that drivers would frequently need to speed in order to avoid otherwise non-speeding accidents, that would be one way that installing the device would cause more accidents. And the argument relies on that not being the case!
D
Most drivers who exceed the speed limit do so unintentionally.
The argument that preventing speeding would prevent most accidents doesn’t rely on the intention behind speeding. That makes this irrelevant.
E
Even if the fines for speed-limit violations were increased, the number of such violations would still not be reduced.
The argument never claims that installing this device is the only way to reduce or prevent speeding, so this is irrelevant.
Summarize Argument
The director of concludes that a consultant’s recommendations for improving productivity by giving employees work that they enjoy and are good at would violate company policy. This is because the consultant says her recommendations will “fully exploit” the company’s workforce resources, and the company’s policy is not to exploit its workers.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter equivocation flaw: the director wrongly takes the term “exploit” to be the same between two different uses. When the consultant talks about “exploiting” the resources of the company, she’s just talking about making the best use of employees’ abilities. The company policy not to “exploit” workers refers to treating employees unfairly, which wouldn’t result from the consultant’s recommendations.
A
failing to distinguish two distinct senses of a key term
The director doesn’t distinguish between two uses of “exploit” that have different meanings in their respective contexts. The director wrongly takes the consultant’s use of “exploit” (optimize resources) to be the same as the company policy’s use of “exploit” (treat unfairly).
B
attempting to defend an action on the ground that it is frequently carried out
The director doesn’t try to defend any action in this argument. There also isn’t any example discussed of an action that is frequently carried out.
C
defining a term by pointing to an atypical example of something to which the term applies
The director doesn’t define any terms here. In fact, the flaw in the director’s argument is a failure to recognize two distinct definitions of the same term, “exploit”.
D
drawing a conclusion that simply restates one of the premises of the argument
The director concludes that the consultant’s recommendation would violate company policy, which is not a premise used earlier in the argument.
E
calling something by a less offensive term than the term that is usually used to name that thing
This argument doesn’t deal with offensive terminology, and the director doesn’t replace any usual terms with different ones.
Summary
In a recession, decreases in consumer spending causes some businesses to lay off workers or close. Workers who are laid off usually cannot find new jobs. This results in an increase of the total number of people who are jobless. Recovery from a recession involves an increase of consumer spending and increased business activity that requires more workers. However, businesspeople are not confident with the economy after a recession and as a result are slow to hire more workers.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Sometimes when an economy recovers from a recession, the number of people who are jobless does not immediately decrease.
A
Recessions are usually caused by a decrease in businesspeople’s confidence in the economy.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what factors cause an economy to enter into a recession. From the stimulus, we only know what results from an economy already in a recession.
B
Governmental intervention is required in order for an economy to recover from a recession.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if government intervention is required for an economy to recover. We only know what factors define an economy’s recovery from a recession.
C
Employees of businesses that close during a recession make up the majority of the workers who lose their jobs during that recession.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if workers that are laid off make up the majority of jobless people. We only know from the stimulus that businesses laying off workers causes the total number of jobless people to increase.
D
Sometimes recovery from a recession does not promptly result in a decrease in the number of people who are jobless.
This answer is strongly supported. Since businesspeople delay hiring for as long as possible, we know that there is not an immediate decrease in the total number of people who are jobless.
E
Workers who lose their jobs during a recession are likely to get equally good jobs when the economy recovers.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what types of jobs workers are likely to find when an economy recovers from a recession.
Summarize Argument
The taxpayer argues that the city has been fiscally irresponsible in spending too little each year to maintain the city’s bridges. Proper maintenance would prevent severe deterioration, limiting reconstruction costs to $10 million. However, due to the city’s inadequate maintenance spending, the city must now pay $400 million to reconstruct the bridges.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the taxpayer’s opinion the city has been fiscally irresponsible by not spending enough to maintain its bridges to prevent costly deterioration.
A
should have budgeted substantially more money for maintenance of its bridges
This a good paraphrase of the conclusion. The taxpayer argues that the city was fiscally irresponsible by underfunding bridge maintenance, leading to high emergency repair costs. He contends that the city should have spent “substantially more”—$15 million—to reduce such costs.
B
would have had a well-run bridge program if it had spent more money for reconstruction of its bridges
The taxpayer argues that the city should have spent more on maintaining, not rebuilding, the bridges. Moreover, he contends the city was fiscally irresponsible by underfunding maintenance but does not claim that more spending on reconstruction would ensure fiscal responsibility.
C
is spending more than it needs to on maintenance of its bridges
The taxpayer argues the opposite of this claim. The taxpayer contends that the city is spending less than it needs to maintain its bridges. The city only pays $1 million for bridge maintenance, but the taxpayer argues that a “well-run” budget would spend $15 million yearly.
D
is economizing on its bridge program to save money in case of emergencies
The taxpayer does not discuss why the city is economizing. The taxpayer argues that the city’s economizing is ineffective and will ultimately cost more, but the taxpayer does not explain why the city chose to spend so little on bridge maintenance.
E
has bridges that are more expensive to maintain than they were to build
The taxpayer discusses reconstructing the city’s bridges—not building them. Moreover, the taxpayer contends that the city’s bridges are more expensive to rebuild than maintain: maintaining the bridges costs only $15 million annually, but reconstructing them costs $400 million.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The teaching that a political assassination started World War 1 is misleading unless further qualified. Although it may be technically true, the assassination was not the most significant cause of the war. The alliances and military forces that were in place at the time were a necessary condition to war breaking out, and the assassination just happened to set them off. Since these other factors caused the war in a more meaningful sense, the assassination was only superficially the cause.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that teaching that a political assassination alone caused World War 1 is “is bound to mislead.”
A
The assassination did not cause the war, since the assassination was only the last in a chain of events leading up to the war, each of which had equal claim to being called its “cause.”
The author never claims that the assassination did not cause the war. Even though the author believes the assassination was only a cause “in a trivial sense”, it still counts as a cause.
B
The war was destined to happen, since the course of history up to that point could not have been altered.
The argument doesn’t make any claims about whether all of history leading up to the war was inevitable; although the author claims it was “inevitable” that the immediately prior conditions would lead to war, maybe something could have been changed earlier on.
C
Though the statement that the assassination caused the war is true, the term “cause” more fundamentally applies to the conditions that made it possible for that event to start the war.
This is a fair restatement of the conclusion. The author agrees that the assassination caused the war, but argues that the conditions of the time were a “deeper”, meaning more fundamental, cause. This is why teaching that the assassination alone caused the war is misleading.
D
If the assassination had occurred when it did but less military force had at that time been amassed, then the war’s outbreak might have been considerably delayed or the war might not have occurred at all.
The author doesn’t speculate about what might have happened if the conditions had been different. The argument is simply aimed at clarifying that the assassination was not the most important cause of the war.
E
Although the conditions prevailing at the time the war started made war inevitable, if the war had not been triggered by the assassination it would not have taken the course with which students of history are familiar.
The author doesn’t speculate about what might have happened if the assassination had not happened. The argument is about what can be called a “cause” of the war, not about a possible alternative history.