Marcie: A better use of the money would be for a public works project that would create jobs.
Speaker 1 Summary
Jessica believes that the budget surplus should be used only to increase government payments to unemployed people.
Speaker 2 Summary
Marcie argues that a better use of the surplus would be for a public works project that would create jobs
Objective
Disagreement: Jessica and Marcie disagree about how the surplus can be best spent
A
Using the budget surplus to increase government payments to those who are unemployed is putting the money to good use.
Jessica certainly agrees with this statement, but Marcie does not provide any opinion. While Marcie believes the money could be better spent, that does not mean she dislikes increasing government payments to unemployed people.
B
The public deserves to have jobs created when there are many people who are unemployed.
Jessica does not give an opinion on this. It is unclear whether Marcia would agree with this because there is no indication that “many people” are currently unemployed.
C
When there is a choice between increasing payments to the unemployed and funding a public works project, the latter should usually be chosen.
Both speakers do not give an opinion on this. The stimulus is purely related to how a budget surplus should be spent; this answer choice is far too broad for the speakers to give an opinion.
D
Creating jobs through a public works project will ultimately benefit the public.
Marcie certainly agrees with this, but Jessica does not mention any positive/negative sentiments about a public works project.
E
There is a better way to use the budget surplus than increasing government payments to those who are unemployed.
Jessica disagrees with this statement because she believes increasing government payments is best. Marcie agrees with this statement because she wants to fund a public works project with the surplus.
All potatoes naturally contain solanine, which is poisonous in large quantities. Domesticated potatoes contain only very small amounts of solanine, but many wild potatoes contain poisonous levels of solanine. Since most of the solanine in potatoes is concentrated in the skin, however, peeling wild potatoes makes them at least as safe to eat as unpeeled domesticated potatoes of the same size.
Summary
For a given size of potato, a peeled wild potato is at least as safe as an unpeeled domesticated potato. Why? Because in any potato, most of the solanine (which is poisonous) is contained in the skin.
Missing Connection
The conclusion draws a comparison between the safety of peeled wild potatoes and unpeeled domesticated potatoes. But the premises only allow us to compare between peeled and unpeeled potatoes of the same kind. (A peeled potato should have less poison than an unpeeled potato of the same kind.)
How to get from premises to conclusion? We need to know how solanine content actually compares between peeled wild potatoes and unpeeled domesticated ones. If we knew that the solanine content that’s left over in a peeled wild potato is no higher than the entire solanine content of a same-size unpeeled domesticated potato, we could reach the conclusion.
A
The proportion of a potato’s solanine that is contained in its skin is larger in wild potatoes than in domesticated potatoes.
This compares proportions, but we need to compare absolute quantities. How much solanine is actually left over in a peeled wild potato, and how does that compare to an unpeeled domesticated one? (A) doesn’t answer either of those questions.
B
The amount of solanine concentrated in the skin of a wild potato is large enough by itself to be poisonous.
This only tells us about the poison content of wild potato skin, which is irrelevant. We need to know the amount of solanine left over in a wild potato without skin, and how that compares to the amount in a domesticated potato with skin. (B) ignores both sides of the comparison.
C
There is no more solanine in a peeled wild potato than in an unpeeled domesticated potato of the same size.
This compares the solanine content of a peeled wild potato and a same-size unpeeled domesticated one, and confirms that the wild potato comes in at the same amount of solanine or less. So we can conclude that peeled wild potatoes are indeed at least as safe.
D
There are no poisonous substances in domesticated potatoes other than solanine.
This ignores wild potatoes, so it can’t help us reach the comparison in the conclusion. The fact that solanine is the only poison in domesticated potatoes doesn’t tell us how much poison is in a peeled wild potato, or how that compares to the poison in a domesticated potato.
E
Wild potatoes are generally much smaller than domesticated potatoes.
Irrelevant. The conclusion is only about wild and domesticated potatoes of the same size.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The experimenters hypothesize that diminished activity in the premotor cortex is a cause of hyperactivity. Their evidence is a study that shows adults with significantly less brain activity in the premotor cortex were hyperactive, while those with normal activity levels were not.
Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the experimenters assumes that less brain activity in the premotor cortex causes hyperactivity. This means they assume that the relationship isn’t the reverse (i.e., hyperactivity causing less brain activity in the premotor cortex), and also that there isn’t some other, hidden cause that’s actually responsible for both hyperactivity and less brain activity in the premotor cortex.
A
Some of the nonhyperactive adults in the study had children who suffer from hyperactivity.
Perhaps their children had less brain activity in the premotor cortex. There’s no reason to assume it’s 100% hereditary.
B
The hyperactive adults who participated in the experiment varied in the severity of their symptoms.
Even if they varied in the severity of their symptoms, they all generally had lower levels of brain activity in the premotor cortex than other participants.
C
The neuropsychologists who designed the experiment were not present when the tests were performed.
This doesn’t cast doubt on the study. There’s no reason to believe those same neuropsychologists had to be present for the experiment to be performed correctly.
D
All of the hyperactive adults in the study had been treated for hyperactivity with a medication that is known to depress activity in some regions of the brain, while none of the nonhyperactive adults had been so treated.
While there’s a correlation between premotor cortex brain activity and hyperactivity, there’s no direct causal relationship. Instead, premotor cortex brain function is diminished by a treatment for hyperactivity.
E
The test was performed only on adults because even though the method by which the test measured brain activity is harmless to adults, it does require the use of radiation, which could be harmful to children.
It doesn’t matter what’s harmful to the participants. This is especially true since, according to this answer, the participants wouldn’t have been harmed by the radiation.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that something is discouraging people who would be well-liked teachers from becoming teachers at all. This is based on a study where secondary students’ favorite teachers tended to have personality type X. However, only 5 percent of teachers are type X, compared to 20 percent of all people. In other words, teachers are much less likely to have personality type X.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that whatever is causing so few type X people to be teachers is happening before people take on teaching jobs, not afterwards. For example, people’s personality type may change after becoming a teacher, or type X people may quit teaching jobs more frequently.
A
People with the personality type constitute 5 percent of the medical profession.
This does not weaken the argument. The author’s hypothesis is limited to teachers, and there’s no apparent link that would make medicine analogous to teaching. And even if there were, we still don’t know why type-X people are only 5 percent of medical professionals.
B
People with the personality type constitute 5 percent of college students pursuing a degree in education.
This does not weaken the argument. Aside from anything else, we don’t know the relationship between education degrees and teaching jobs. Maybe lots of people without education degrees pursue teaching jobs. So this statistic doesn’t tell us much about teaching applicants.
C
Students of teachers with the personality type are intensely recruited for noneducational professions.
This does not weaken the argument. What happens to students of type X teachers has nothing to do with whether type X people are being discouraged from taking teaching jobs.
D
Students with the personality type are more likely to be liked by teachers than those with other personality types.
This does not weaken the argument. How teachers feel about their students is totally irrelevant to how we can explain the lower proportion of teachers with personality type X.
E
Teachers with the personality type are more likely to quit teaching than those with other personality types.
This weakens the argument. If type X teachers are more likely to quit teaching, that shifts the problem to a later stage than the author identifies. The author assumes that type X people aren’t taking on teaching jobs, but this undermines that assumption.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
Everyone who is levelheaded is neither excessively generous nor bold.
A
Everyone who is excessively generous is not bold.
This could be false. All we know from the stimulus is that everyone who is excessively generous is not levelheaded—the information in the stimulus doesn’t tell us that they are also not bold.
B
Everyone who is not bold is excessively generous.
This could be false. Being not bold is not a sufficient condition for anything, given the information in the stimulus.
C
No one who is not bold lacks excessive generosity.
In clearer terms, (C) says everyone who is not bold is excessively generous. This could be false. Being not bold is not a sufficient condition for anything, given the information in the stimulus.
D
If someone is levelheaded, then that person is neither bold nor excessively generous.
This must be true. As shown below, when we take the contrapositive of the conditional claims in the stimulus, we can see that all levelheaded people are neither bold nor excessively generous.
E
If someone is not levelheaded, then that person is either bold or excessively generous.
This could be false. Being not levelheaded is not a sufficient condition for anything, given the information in the stimulus.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that forensic science in general wasn’t responsible for the miscarriage of justice in the Barker case. This is because the forensic scientists acted with allegiance to the prosecution, rather than impartiality to the prosecution and defence.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that allegiance to the prosecution isn’t an essential aspect of forensic science; if it was, then forensic science in general indeed would be to blame for the miscarriage of justice. The author also assumes that forensic science can be differentiated than forensic scientists themselves.
A
Most forensic scientists acknowledge a professional obligation to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution.
Allegiance to the prosecution isn’t an integral aspect of forensic scientists. Most forensic scientists know this, which means these particular forensic scientists simply made a mistake.
B
The type of injustice that occurred in the Barker case has occurred in other cases as well.
If that injustice has appeared in other cases, perhaps routinely, then this suggests forensic science may actually be flawed. We’re looking to strengthen the opposite claim.
C
Most prosecuting lawyers believe that forensic scientists owe a special allegiance to the prosecution.
We don’t care what forensic scientists believe.
D
Many instances of injustice in court cases are not of the same type as that which occurred in the Barker case.
There’re lots of ways for justice to be miscarried. However, we only care about this specific way.
E
Many forensic scientists do not believe that any miscarriage of justice occurred in the Barker case.
This suggests many forensic scientists consistently believe they have an allegiance to the prosecution, which constitutes a miscarriage of justice. If virtually entire discipline believes this to be true, the forensic science is to blame. This could be a weakener.
Summarize Argument
The representative comes to the implied conclusion that the public need not be concerned about chemicals leaking into the river from the company’s plant. In support, the representative states that every new chemical must legally be tested for safety before being sold, and that this requirement is analogous to the testing required for new pharmaceuticals.
Notable Assumptions
The representative assumes that because pharmaceuticals are tested for their safety when consumed, industrial chemicals are also tested at this standard. But maybe chemical testing uses a different standard of “safety,” for example merely being safe to work with.
The representative also assumes that the chemical company’s dump only contains chemicals that were tested to the current standard. Maybe standards have changed, or maybe not all suppliers respect the law.
The representative also assumes that the chemical company’s dump only contains chemicals that were tested to the current standard. Maybe standards have changed, or maybe not all suppliers respect the law.
A
When pharmaceutical substances are tested for safety pursuant to federal requirements, a delay is imposed on the entry of potentially lifesaving substances onto the market.
This does not weaken the argument, because it doesn’t give us any reason to doubt the representative’s implied conclusion. Whether the testing delays the entry of substances onto the market tells us nothing about chemical safety standards.
B
Leakage from the dump has occurred in noticeable amounts only in the last few months.
This does not weaken the argument. The representative says that the chemicals are safe due to testing requirements, and like (D), how long they’ve been leaking has no relevance to that claim.
C
Before the federal law requiring testing of nonpharmaceutical chemicals went into effect recently, there were 40,000 such chemicals being manufactured, many of them dangerous.
This weakens the argument by casting doubt on whether all the chemicals in the company’s “long-established” dump would actually meet current safety requirements. This claim makes it totally possible that there are many dangerous untested chemicals in the dump.
D
The concentration of the chemicals leaking into the river is diluted, first by rainwater and then by the water in the river.
This does not weaken the argument, because like (B), the amount of likely exposure isn’t really the issue here. The representative’s claim is that the chemicals are safe, not that they’re potentially unsafe but diluted. This doesn’t address the chemicals’ actual safety.
E
The water in the river is murky because of the runoff of silt from a number of nearby construction projects.
This does not weaken the argument. Whether or not the river water is murky, or what other substances are in the river, is totally irrelevant to the issue of chemical safety. This just does not affect the argument at all.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Lopez and Simmons were foolish to reveal their marriage to Evritech. This is because one of them will lose their job offer due to the reveal, and they could’ve simply kept their marriage a secret until after they were hired.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes either that it wouldn’t have been wrong, in a moral or professional sense, for Lopez and Simmons to have hidden their marriage and lied about getting married after being hired, or that the problematic aspects of lying are outweighed by the fact Lopez and Simmons would’ve both been hired. The author also assumes that because Evritech doesn’t have a policy of terminating one of two employees who marry each other, Evritech doesn’t have a policy of terminating both employees.
A
Corporations that have rules against hiring more than one member of the same family should also prohibit their employees from marrying one another.
We have no idea what corporations should do. We care about what Lopez and Simmons should’ve done.
B
Corporations should adopt a policy of refusing to hire more than one member of the same family if that policy promotes overall fairness in its hiring practices.
Like (A), we’re not interested in what corporations should do. We care about what Lopez and Simmons should’ve done.
C
Job applicants are no more entitled to withhold information that is requested on application forms than they are entitled to lie on such application forms.
We have no idea how entitled Lopez and Simmons were to withhold information or lie. We have no idea if such information was ever requested.
D
Job candidates should refuse to accept positions in corporations whose personnel policies they cannot adhere to.
The author says Simmons and Lopez should’ve taken the positions.
E
Job candidates have no obligation to reveal to a prospective employer personal information such as marital status, regardless of the employer’s policies.
Simmons and Lopez weren’t wrong to withhold their marital status. This strengthens the author’s claim that Simmons and Lopez should’ve withheld their marital status by removing one possible problem of doing so.
Summary
English literature reflects the rich and diverse vocabulary of the English language. This richness and diverse vocabulary were caused by influences from the Anglo-Saxon and French languages. The French language is a direct descendant of Latin, and was not influenced by the Celtic language.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The nature of English literature was influenced by the Anglo-Saxon and French languages.
A
The origin of English played a role in shaping English literature.
The nature of English literature was caused by the English language being influenced by the Anglo-Saxon and French languages.
B
The vocabulary of the Anglo-Saxon language was richer than that of the French language.
We don’t know how the richness of the Anglo-Saxon language compares to the French language. We only know that these two languages influenced the richness and diverse vocabulary of the English language.
C
The vocabulary of English is larger than the vocabulary of French.
We don’t know how the size of vocabulary compares between the French and English languages. We only know that the English language has a diverse vocabulary, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the French language does not.
D
Simple and clear literature cannot be written in a language with a rich and diverse vocabulary.
We don’t know if it is impossible to write simple and clear literature with a language that has a rich and diverse vocabulary. We know that French literature is simple and clear, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that English literature is not.
E
English literature and French literature have had little influence on one another.
We don’t in what way, if any, English and French literature are connected. We only know that the French language, in part with the Anglo-Saxon language, influenced the English language.
Summary
The difference between manners and morals is that manners are necessarily social in natural whereas morals are not necessarily social in nature. Therefore, the rules of etiquette do not apply when someone is alone.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If a situation involves etiquette, then that situation involves manners.
If a situation is social, then a person in that situation cannot be alone.
There are some situations involving morality that are not social in nature.
If a situation is social, then a person in that situation cannot be alone.
There are some situations involving morality that are not social in nature.
A
One could be immoral without ever having caused any other person any harm.
This answer is strongly supported. If morals do not necessarily require any social situation, then there are some situations of morality that are not social in nature. Therefore, someone could act immorally and not affect another person.
B
No immoral act could be a violation of the rules of etiquette.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus never provided a connection between morality and manners. There could be some situations that involve both morality and manners.
C
The rules of morality apply only when one is alone.
This answer is unsupported. We know from the stimulus that morals are not necessarily social in nature. This does not mean that there are no situations involving morals that are social. It only means that social connections are not required for morals.
D
It is more important to be moral than to have good manners.
This answer is unsupported. The author never makes a value judgement about whether morals or manners are more important.
E
What is social in nature could not be a matter of morality.
This answer is unsupported. We know from the stimulus that morals are not necessarily social in nature. This does not mean that there are no social situations that involve morals. It only means that social connections are not required for morals.