"Surprising" Phenomenon
Children read aloud a short paragraph and a list of random words from the paragraph. More experienced readers made fewer pronunciation mistakes with whatever they read second, whether it was the paragraph or the list. Less experienced readers made fewer pronunciation mistakes with the paragraph than with the list. What explains the difference in mistake tendency?
Objective
Th correct answer should differentiate more experienced readers from less experienced readers in a way that would lead more experienced readers to make fewer mistakes with the second task and less experienced readers to make fewer mistakes with the paragraph.
A
Because several words were used more than once in the paragraph but only once in the list, the list was shorter than the paragraph.
This doesn’t differentiate more experienced from less experienced readers.
B
In reading the paragraph, the more experienced readers were better at using context to guess at difficult words than were the beginning readers.
This would lead more experienced readers to perform better on the paragraph, which contains context. But the more experienced readers performed better on the task performed second, even if it was the list of words.
C
The more experienced readers sounded out difficult words, while the beginning readers relied solely on context to guess at difficult words.
Since the paragraph contains context, this helps explain why less experienced readers performed better on the paragraph. And since more experienced readers sounded out difficult words, they might perform better the second time they’ve seen those difficult words.
D
Both tasks used the same words, so that the words the children read in whichever task was performed first would be recognized in the second task.
This doesn’t differentiate more experienced readers from less experienced readers.
E
The beginning readers made more pronunciation errors than the more experienced readers did in reading both the paragraph and the list.
This doesn’t explain why the less experienced readers performed better on the paragraph than on the list, or why the more experienced readers performed better on the second task.
Summary
The television station concludes that it can forewarn parents of how violent different programs are by having a panel review and rate each program. This is supported by an explanation of how the ratings would appear in newspapers.
Notable Assumptions
In order to believe that parents will be forewarned by program ratings published in newspapers, the station must assume that parents will read the newspapers. Otherwise, the information just wouldn’t reach them.
A
Parents would read and pay attention to the ratings listed in the newspapers.
For the station to infer that parents will be forewarned because of ratings published in the newspapers, this assumption is necessary. If we negated this assumption, and parents did not read the newspapers, the conclusion wouldn’t make sense.
B
There would be fewer shows rated with one gun than with four guns.
The number of shows with any given rating is irrelevant to the question of whether this system will actually forewarn parents.
C
The rating system described in the passage is the most effective system available.
This isn’t necessary because the rating system doesn’t have to be the most effective possible system in order to forewarn parents. The bar is much lower than that.
D
The local television station has an obligation to forewarn parents of the level of violence in television shows.
Whether the station is under an obligation or is voluntarily choosing to forewarn parents doesn’t affect the argument, which is just about whether the rating system will in fact work.
E
Television producers of programs rated as having high levels of violence would make an effort to reduce those levels.
The argument is just about forewarning parents, not about reducing the amount of violence on television, so this assumption isn’t necessary.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes passengers are safer on airplanes equipped with collision-avoidance radar. This is because the radar warns pilots when to take evasive action.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that pilots evading phantom planes doesn’t put passengers at more risk than usual. This means the author believes this happens rarely enough to not matter, or that swerving to avoid a phantom plane carries no safety risks.
A
Evasive action taken in response to the system’s warnings poses no risk to the passengers.
Evading phantom planes poses no safety risk to passengers. Thus, the radar is entirely beneficial.
B
Commercial passenger airplanes are in greater danger of colliding with other airplanes while on the ground than they are while in flight.
Irrelevant. The radar still helps them avoid collisions while in flight.
C
Commercial passenger airplanes are rarely involved in collisions while in flight.
Like (B), irrelevant. The radar still helps them avoid collisions while in flight.
D
A study by ground-based air traffic controllers found that 63 percent of the warnings by the system were invalid.
We need to know if those invalid warnings pose safety risks to passengers. This doesn’t tell us.
E
The collision-avoidance radar system is run by a computerized device on the plane that scans the sky and calculates the distances between planes.
This explains the mechanism behind the radar. We care about how the radar effects passenger safety.
Summary
Early pencil leads were made from solid graphite mined in Cumberland, in Britain. Modern pencil leads are manufactured from powdered graphite. Powdered graphite was made possible from research sponsored by the French government in the 1790’s. During that time period, France was at war with Britain and had no access to solid graphite from Cumberland.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
In the 1790’s, France was unaware of any other source of solid graphite the country could use to manufacture pencil lead.
A
The world’s only deposit of graphite suitable for manufacture of pencils is in Cumberland, in Britain.
This answer is unsupported. To say that solid graphite for pencil lead is “only” found in Cumberland is too strong. We only know from the stimulus that early pencil leads were manufactured from this source of graphite.
B
In the 1790s, France’s government did not know of any accessible source of solid graphite appropriate to meet France’s need for pencils.
This answer is strongly supported. France did not have access to the graphite mined in Cumberland due to the war with Britain. Therefore, they sponsored research to develop powdered graphite because they must not have been aware of any other accessible source of solid graphite.
C
One of the causes of war between France and Britain in the 1790s was the British government’s attempt to limit the amount of Cumberland graphite being exported to France.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about what caused the war between France and Britain from the stimulus.
D
Government-sponsored research frequently gives rise to inventions that are of great benefit to society.
This answer is unsupported. To say that this research “frequently” results in inventions is too strong. We only know of one example, powered graphite, from the stimulus.
E
Even today, all pencil leads contain Cumberland graphite.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about what modern pencil leads contain from the stimulus. We only know that modern methods of manufacturing involve powered graphite.
Summary
The argument concludes that it’s impossible to satisfy a recommendation that regions with many Caronian-speakers be allowed to form an independent, Caronian-majority nation. This is because Caronian-speakers live in scattered areas that wouldn’t fit into a single continuous border without including a majority population of non-Caronian-speakers.
Notable Assumptions
The argument disqualifies the idea of a Caronian-majority nation on the basis that such a nation would be impossible within a continuous border. This assumes that it’s impossible to create a Caronian-majority nation with a discontinuous border—that includes several disconnected regions.
A
A nation once existed in which Caronian-speakers formed the majority of the population.
The argument doesn’t rely on a Caronian-majority nation having previously existed. In fact, this doesn’t affect the argument at all one way or another, so is not necessary.
B
Caronian-speakers tend to perceive themselves as constituting a single community.
The argument’s analysis of whether it’s possible to create a Caronian-majority nation operates independently of how Caronian-speakers perceive themselves, making this not necessary.
C
The recommendation would not be satisfied by the creation of a nation formed of disconnected regions.
This must be assumed, because it’s the only way that the conclusion is supported by the premise that forming a continuous Caronian-majority nation would be impossible. If a disconnected nation were possible, the conclusion would be unsupported.
D
The new Caronian nation will not include as citizens anyone who does not speak Caronian.
The argument only cares about non-Caronian-speakers to the extent that they can’t form a majority in the proposed Caronian nation. Whether or not they will be citizens is irrelevant.
E
In most nations several different languages are spoken.
The typical language situation of most nations is irrelevant to whether it’s possible to create a new Caronian-majority nation.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Politician P concludes that an opponent is wrong to say that the government is obligated to raise taxes to better fund school and health care. In support, P says that such a policy would upset taxpayers.
Identify and Describe Flaw
P concludes that the government is not obligated to take a particular action, because that action would upset people. This doesn’t address the opponent’s core claim that an obligation exists.
A
presupposing that a claim is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views
P never mentions whether or not the opponent advocates for other unpopular views.
B
assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character
P doesn’t talk at all about anyone’s character, and doesn’t attack the opponent’s character.
C
concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness
P concludes that the opponent’s view about a government obligation to raise taxes is “mistaken,” meaning false, and as support only says that raising taxes would make people unhappy. This doesn’t actually address whether or not there’s an obligation.
D
appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue
P isn’t appealing to wholly irrelevant issues—taxpayers’ response to a tax policy change is still a relevant consideration, even if it doesn’t establish that the government has no obligation to better fund schools and health care.
E
insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists
P isn’t insisting that an obligation exists. Instead, it’s the opposite: P’s opponent claims that an obligation exists, and P claims that the obligation does not exist.
Trisha: Today’s family is declining in its ability to carry out its functions of child-rearing and providing stability for adult life. There must be a return to the traditional values of commitment and responsibility.
Jerod: We ought to leave what is good enough alone. Contemporary families may be less stable than traditionally, but most people do not find that to be bad. Contemporary criticisms of the family are overblown and destructive.
Speaker 1 Summary
Trisha claims that families should return to the traditional values of commitment and responsibility. As support, Trisha says that modern families are not as able to raise children and provide stability for adult life. This implies that a change is needed, and traditional values can provide that change.
Speaker 2 Summary
Jerod doesn’t think we should interfere with modern families. Why not? Because even if Trisha is right about the lack of stability, that just isn’t a problem for most people. Jerod also finds criticisms of the modern family to be exaggerated. Families are more or less fine, so we should leave them alone.
Objective
We need to find a disagreement about the state of families. The point of disagreement between Trisha and Jerod is whether modern families should be changed: Trisha thinks they should be, but Jerod thinks we should leave them alone.
A
adequate as it is
Trisha disagrees with this statement but Jerod agrees, meaning that this is the point of disagreement. Trisha argues that families must return to traditional values (meaning, change). On the other hand, Jerod thinks families are “good enough” and should be left alone.
B
changing over time
Trisha agrees, claiming that families are changing by becoming less supportive and stable. Jerod doesn’t disagree, though. In fact, Jerod says that modern families may be less stable. This could be a point of agreement, or Jerod could be neutral; either way, not a disagreement.
C
valued by most people
Neither speaker gives an opinion on whether most people value families, so we can’t say that they disagree.
D
not going to survive
Neither speaker claims that families will or will not survive. Because no one says anything about this claim, it can’t be a point of disagreement.
E
no longer traditional
Both speakers agree with this claim. Trisha’s contrast between modern families and traditional values implies that modern families aren’t traditional. Jerod also distinguishes between contemporary and traditional families. This is a point of agreement.
Summary
The stimulus says that when a child’s imagination develops, the child might be tormented by imagined monsters. However, a child in that situation could also use their imagination to defeat the monsters—for example, by imagining a powerful friend who can offer protection.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The stimulus allows us to infer the following principles:
A child’s developing imagination can cause torment as well as offering reassurance.
A child’s developing imagination can be a source of problems, but can also be a source of solutions for those problems.
It is possible to use imaginary allies to defeat imaginary threats.
A child’s developing imagination can cause torment as well as offering reassurance.
A child’s developing imagination can be a source of problems, but can also be a source of solutions for those problems.
It is possible to use imaginary allies to defeat imaginary threats.
A
Some newly developed capacities only give rise to problems.
This is not supported. Imagination is presented as a newly developed capacity that gives rise to both problems and solutions, not just problems. We don’t have any examples of capacities that only give rise to problems.
B
Sometimes the cause of a problem may also provide its solution.
This is strongly supported. Based on the stimulus, we can infer that a child’s imagination can cause problems but can also be used to solve the problems it causes. In other words, imagination is both the cause of the problem and provides its solution.
C
Children are not able to distinguish between real and imaginary threats.
This is not supported. The facts in the stimulus never suggest whether or not children can tell the difference between real and imaginary threats. We can’t assume that the child doesn’t know that the threats are imaginary.
D
The most effective way for children to address their fears is to acknowledge them.
This is not supported. The stimulus never indicates anything about children acknowledging their fears. Instead, we learn that children can solve a problem of imaginary monsters by turning to a new, imaginary ally. It’s not clear if acknowledgement is part of that at all.
E
Most problems associated with child-rearing can be solved with a little imagination.
This is not supported. The stimulus isn’t talking about most problems associated with child-rearing—it’s talking about a single, specific problem that children may face as their imagination develops. We can’t generalize that to “most” child-rearing problems.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The representative concludes that the insurance company should pay out a flight attendant’s life insurance policy, even though there is a question of whether the policy had become effective when he died. In support, the representative says that the flight attendant had been the only support for his beneficiary, his mother, and that she is also ill.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The representative is trying to counter the insurance company’s argument about the timing of the policy by appealing to emotional concerns about the beneficiary. This just doesn’t address the concern raised by the insurance company.
A
the conclusion is no more than a paraphrase of the evidence offered in support of it
The representative’s conclusion is that the insurance company should pay out the policy, which is totally different from the supporting evidence about the beneficiary being vulnerable and ill.
B
it appeals to the emotion of pity rather than addressing the issue raised
The representative’s support is entirely about the beneficiary being vulnerable and ill, which attempts to evoke pity as a reason to pay out the policy. This does not address the issue of timing raised by the insurance company.
C
it makes an unwarranted distinction between family obligations and business obligations
The representative never makes a distinction between family and business obligations.
D
it substitutes an attack on a person for the giving of reasons
The representative never attacks anyone.
E
a cause and its effect are mistaken for each other
The representative doesn’t make any claims about cause and effect.
Gregory: You are right that the current use of handwriting analysis as evidence is problematic. But this problem exists only because there is no licensing board to set professional standards and thus deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims. When such a board is established, however, handwriting analysis by licensed practitioners will be a legitimate courtroom tool for character assessment.
Summarize Argument
Gregory concludes that when a licensing board is established for handwriting experts, handwriting analysis by licensed practitioners will be a legitimate courtroom tool. This is based on his belief that current use of handwriting analysis as evidence is problemtic only because there isn’t a licensing board set up to deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that once a licensing board is established, handwriting analysis will be reliable enough for the courtroom.
A
Courts routinely use means other than handwriting analysis to provide evidence of a person’s character.
The existence of alternatives to handwriting analysis don’t impact whether handwriting analysis will be legitimate once a licensing board is established.
B
Many people can provide two samples of their handwriting so different that only a highly trained professional could identify them as having been written by the same person.
This suggests handwriting analysis might be difficult to do reliably for someone who’s untrained, but that doesn’t undermine Gregory’s position. To him, once a licensing board is established, professional standards will be set, which will lead to trained practitioners.
C
A licensing board would inevitably refuse to grant licenses to some responsible handwriting analysts for reasons having nothing to do with their reliability.
This doesn’t undermine the idea that the licensing board can raise professional standards and help handwriting analysis become legitimate. As long as the people who are licensed are qualified, it doesn’t matter that some qualified people are unlucky and don’t get a license.
D
The only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person’s character are irresponsible.
If true, (D) means that there wouldn’t be any analysts that could be licensed by the board. If the only analysts who would testify that handwriting analysis is reliable are irresponsible, the licensing board won’t help handwriting analysis become legitimate.
E
The number of handwriting analysts who could conform to professional standards set by a licensing board is very small.
Even if there’s a small number of analysts who can be licensed, they could be highly trained and responsible, and therefore still help make handwriting analysis legitimate in the courtroom.