Summarize Argument
The author concludes that beauty isn’t subjective. This is because earlier cultures’ beauty standards largely align with today’s.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if today’s beauty standards align with those of early cultures, those beauty standards must be rooted in something objective rather than subjective. The author also assumes that we can know which works any given culture considered “most beautiful.” Finally, the author assumes that today’s beauty standards aren’t influenced by those of earlier cultures. If this were true, it would mean those standards are at least partially subjective.
A
Few contemporary artists have been significantly exposed to the art of earlier cultures.
We’re not concerned with contemporary artists. We need to know how people perceive beauty, and if that perception is rooted in something subjective or objective.
B
The arts held a much more important place in earlier cultures than they do in our culture.
It doesn’t matter how important the arts are to a given culture. We need to know about beauty.
C
Our own standard of beauty was strongly influenced by our exposure to works that were considered beautiful in earlier cultures.
If our standards of beauty today were influenced by older cultures, then those standards must be subjective. An objective, innate standard can’t be influenced by something else.
D
Much of what passes for important artistic work today would not be considered beautiful even by contemporary standards.
We need to know if our aesthetic reactions to earlier cultures’ art means that beauty is objective. This only talks about important artworks today.
E
In most cultures art is owned by a small social elite.
Ownership isn’t important. We’re concerned with how people judge and react to art.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that today, more than in the past, publishers are even more interested in making money than in publishing books demonstrating intrinsic merit. This is because there’s been a decline in the number of books of intrinsic merit that are published.
Notable Assumptions
There’s no other explanation for the decline in the number of books of intrinsic merit being published aside from an increase in the publishers’ interest in making money.
A
Book publishers have always been very interested in making money.
The author never denied that publishers were very interested in making money in the past. The author’s point is just that their desire for money has increased.
B
There has been a notable decline in the quality of books written in recent years.
This provides an alternate explanation for the decline in publication of books of intrinsic merits. If there’s been a decline in the quality of books written, that could reasonably mean there are fewer books of intrinsic merit available for publication.
C
In the past, often books of intrinsic value would unexpectedly make a sizable profit.
If the profits were “unexpected,” the publishers didn’t know which books of intrinsic merit would lead to profits. So, we can’t read (C) as suggesting that the past publication of books of intrinsic merit was due to a desire to make profit.
D
There have always been authors unwilling to be published unless a profit is guaranteed.
This answer doesn’t suggest any reason to think there’s been an increase in the number of authors unwilling to publish. So, this doesn’t explain a decrease in the number of books of intrinsic merit being published.
E
In recent years, profits in the book publishing industry have been declining.
This doesn’t provide an alternate explanation for a decline in the publication of books of intrinsic merit. If anything, it could support the author’s theory by suggesting that declining profits might have lead publishers to become more competitve and more concerned about money.
Accountant: If you look at individual restaurants, however, you find that the number of meals sold actually decreased substantially at every one of our restaurants that was in operation both last year and the year before. The desirability of our meals to consumers has clearly decreased, given that this group of restaurants—the only ones for which we have sales figures that permit a comparison between last year and the year before—demonstrates a trend toward fewer sales.
Summarize Argument
The account concludes that the desirability of the company’s meals has decreased. Her evidence is that a certain group of restaurants—those that permit a year-by-year comparison—shows that fewer overall meals are selling.
Notable Assumptions
The accountant assumes that a decrease in sales means that the company’s meals must be less desirable than before. This means that she believes desirability is the only factor that contributes to sales. The accountant also assumes that what’s true of the restaurants in question—those that permit a year-by-year comparison—is generally true of the company’s restaurants.
A
The company’s restaurants last year dropped from their menus most of the new dishes that had been introduced the year before.
We don’t know whether these new dishes were desirable or not. Even if we did know, it wouldn’t weaken the accountant’s argument.
B
Prior to last year there was an overall downward trend in the company’s sales.
We need to know about what happened last year. The years before don’t matter to the accountant’s argument.
C
Those of the company’s restaurants that did increase their sales last year did not offer large discounts on prices to attract customers.
Even if price discounts were attracting customers, there could be some other factor aside from desirability causing the increase in sales. We need to attack the connecting between desirability and declining sales.
D
Sales of the company’s most expensive meal contributed little to the overall two-year sales increase.
We’re not interested in specific meals. We need to know if the restaurants in question are representative of the company’s restaurants in general, and if we can draw a conclusion about desirability from those restaurants.
E
Most of the company’s restaurants that were in operation throughout both last year and the year before are located in areas where residents experienced a severe overall decline in income last year.
The restaurants in question aren’t necessarily a representative example of the company’s restaurants at large. These restaurants are in areas that experienced an economic downtown, which suggests the issue was personal finance rather than desirability.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. This is based on the following:
All that any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent said.
If the agent told every reporter everything, then each reporter knows the same amount as every other reporter.
If each reporter knows the same amount as every other reporter, a scoop is not possible.
But, the press agent did not tell every reporter everything.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that if the agent did not tell every reporter everything, that at least one reporter knows more than every other reporter. This assumption is faulty because it’s possible each reporter still knows the same amount as every other reporter, even if the agent withheld some information.
A
The press agent did not tell everything about the accident to any reporter.
This possibility doesn’t show why the reasoning is flawed. One reporter can still know more than all others, even if nobody knows everything. So this doesn’t show why a reporter might not be able to scoop the others.
B
Even if some reporter knows more about the accident than all of the other reporters, that reporter need not scoop any other reporter.
Whether a reporter “needs” to or will scoop others is irrelevant. The argument concerns whether at least one reporter “can,” meaning has the ability to, scoop other reporters. A reporter might have the ability to scoop others, even if they don’t actually scoop the others.
C
Some reporter may have been told something about the accident that the reporter tells all of the other reporters.
This possibility does not show why the argument is flawed. If one reporter shares something they were told to all other reporters, it’s still possible for one reporter to know more than all the others. So (C) doesn’t show why scooping might not be possible.
D
The press agent may not know any more about the accident than the most knowledgeable reporter.
This possibility does not show why the argument is flawed. One reporter can still know more than all others, even if that reporter doesn’t know more than the press agent. So (D) doesn’t show why scooping might not be possible.
E
No reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter.
If this possibility were true, then it’s impossible for one reporter to scoop another, because each reporter would know the same amount as every other reporter. The agent might not have told everything, but the reporters can still end up knowing the same information.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
Scientists are super confused about penicillin-resistant bacteria in patients who don’t use penicillin. (Their confusion implies that resistance normally only occurs when people use penicillin.) However, the scientists have a solution: the bacteria are being naturally selected by mercury instead. This is supported by the bacteria being immune to mercury poisoning. We also learn that mercury-resistance genes are related to penicillin-resistance genes. Finally, the patients in question have mercury in their cavity fillings, giving us a source of mercury exposure.
Identify Argument Part
The assumption that some patients who take penicillin develop bacteria with an immunity to penicillin is part of what makes penicillin resistance without exposure to penicillin confusing.
A
It is a hypothesis that is taken by the scientists to be conclusively proven by the findings described in the passage.
Nothing in the argument is taken to prove a hypothesis that penicillin use can lead to penicillin-resistant bacteria. It’s also not a hypothesis at all, it’s an assumption that’s taken for granted and treated as a fact.
B
It is a generalization that, if true, rules out the possibility that some people who do not take penicillin develop bacteria resistant to it.
The scientists do not believe that penicillin leading to resistance would mean that penicillin is the only way to create resistance. The entire argument is based on the belief that some other factor could lead to resistance, and the scientists just have to figure out what.
C
It is a point that, in conjunction with the fact that some patients who do not take penicillin develop penicillin-resistant bacteria, generates the problem that prompted the research described in the passage.
This is exactly what the assumption about penicillin causing resistance does in the argument. It’s the reason that resistance in the absence of penicillin is confusing, leading to the scientists doing this research in the first place.
D
It is the tentative conclusion of previous research that appears to be falsified by the scientists’ discovery of the mechanism by which bacteria become resistant to mercury poisoning.
Nothing in this argument falsifies anything else. Mercury causing penicillin resistance doesn’t mean that penicillin can’t also cause penicillin resistance. Both are treated as compatible.
E
It is a generalization assumed by the scientists to conclusively prove that the explanation of their problem case must involve reference to the genetic makeup of the penicillin-resistant bacteria.
This is a trap; complicated does not mean correct. The assumption that penicillin can cause resistance doesn’t prove anything. It’s context for why the scientists are confused to start with.
Summary
Clothes made from natural fibers, unlike artificial fibers, often shrink when washed at high temperatures. Why? Because natural fibers are tightly curled in their original state. The manufacture of cloth requires straight fibers, so natural fibers are straightened before being made into cloth. High temperatures cause all fibers to return to their original states.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
In their original state, artificial fibers are straight.
A
Washing clothes made from natural fibers at low temperatures causes the fibers to straighten slightly.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what effect washing clothes at low temperatures causes. We only know that high temperatures cause natural fibers to shrink.
B
High temperatures have no effect on the straightness of fibers in clothes made from a blend of natural and artificial fibers.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what happens when clothes are made from a blend of fibers.
C
Clothes made from natural fibers stretch more easily than do clothes made from artificial fibers.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about stretching ability of either type of fiber from the stimulus.
D
If natural fibers that have been straightened and used for cloth are curled up again by high temperatures, they cannot be straightened again.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether or not the process used to straighten the fibers originally could be used again once the fibers return to their original state.
E
Artificial fibers are straight in their original state.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that artificial fibers do not shrink when washed at high temperatures. We also know that high temperatures cause all fibers to return to their original state. Therefore, artificial fibers are originally straight.