A
The argument confuses a mere coincidence with a causal relationship.
The argument doesn’t discuss a coincidence and no causal relationship is presented.
B
The argument confuses the percentage of the budget spent on a program with the overall amount spent on that program.
This is the flaw the argument commits. While over 90% of students, parents, and teachers believe an appropriate percentage of their school’s budget is going toward student counseling programs, we have no idea if they agree with the sheer number of dollars going to the programs.
C
The argument fails to justify its presumption that what is true of a part of the budget is also true of the total budget.
The argument doesn’t make this presumption. The argument doesn’t make any claims about the total budget of schools or the views of students, parents, and teachers about total budgets.
D
The argument fails to consider the possibility that money could be saved by training students as peer counselors.
The argument isn’t concerned with how money could be saved. It only addresses the views of students, parents, and teachers about their school’s spending on student counseling programs.
E
The argument fails to consider that if more money is spent on a program, then more money cannot also be used for other purposes.
It’s not clear that the argument doesn’t consider this. We don’t know whether the argument has considered that a school spending more money on one program could mean the school can’t spend more money on a different program.
Summary
Caffeine can be as physically addictive as other psychoactive substances.
Some people become unusually depressed, drowsy, or irritable if they don’t have the level of caffeine they’re used to.
As many people consume caffeine as consume any of the other addictive psychoactive substances. So, for example, if 100 people eat psychoactive substance X, then at least 100 people consume caffeine.
Some people become unusually depressed, drowsy, or irritable if they don’t have the level of caffeine they’re used to.
As many people consume caffeine as consume any of the other addictive psychoactive substances. So, for example, if 100 people eat psychoactive substance X, then at least 100 people consume caffeine.
Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference that I’d have in mind. I’d just use process of elimination for the answer choices.
A
There is no psychoactive substance to which more people are physically addicted than are addicted to caffeine.
Could be false. We know that as many people CONSUME caffeine as consume other psych subs. That doesn’t mean the caffeine-consumers are addicted to it. Also, caffeine CAN BE as physically addictive as psych. substances. That doesn’t tell us how many people actually are addicted.
B
A physical addiction to a particular psychoactive substance will typically give rise to diverse psychological symptoms.
Could be false. We know “some” people have certain symptoms if they don’t have enough caffeine. That doesn’t mean these symptoms are “typical” results of addiction. “Typical” means most of the time.
C
Not all substances to which people can become physically addicted are psychoactive.
Could be false. The stimulus only tells us about psychoactive substances. We have no idea whether there are substances that people can be addicted to that are NOT psychoactive.
D
If one is physically addicted to a psychoactive substance, one will become unusually depressed when one is no longer ingesting that substance.
Could be false. We know “some” people become depressed from not getting enough caffeine. That doesn’t mean if you’re addicted to a substance, you “will” become unusually depressed if you don’t get the substance. We don’t know that result is guaranteed.
E
If alcohol is a physically addictive psychoactive substance, there are not more people who consume alcohol than consume caffeine.
Must be true. Based on the last sentence. As many consume caffeine as consume any other addictive psych subs. So if alchohol is addictive psych subs., as many people consume caffeine as consume alcohol.
Summary
The same task causes different levels of environmental awareness in different individuals. For example, mathematical puzzles cause most individual’s environmental awareness to increase. Some people experience a decrease in awareness because they solve the puzzle visually in their mind’s eye. Other people may experience an increase of awareness because their brains signal a rest after every stage of problem solving.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
For at least some people, mathematical puzzles do not cause an increase in environmental awareness.
A
There are some people for whom mathematical puzzles do not cause an increase in their level of environmental awareness.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that some people, those who are visual problem solvers, mathematical puzzles can cause their awareness to decrease.
B
People who visually formulate answers differ from other problem solvers in that the former are aware of their surroundings.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about other problem solvers from the stimulus to make this comparison.
C
People tend to be more aware of their surroundings when solving mathematical problems than when solving nonmathematical problems.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what effect non-mathematical puzzles may have on a person’s environmental awareness. The stimulus is limited to the example of mathematical puzzles.
D
Mathematical problem solvers who rely on visual techniques become aware of their surroundings only during periods of rest.
This answer is unsupported. To say that these problem solves “only” become aware during periods of rest is too strong. We know that this may be one period, but not the only period.
E
Mathematical problem solving requires frequent periods of rest in the form of increased awareness of the problem solver’s surroundings.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what is required for a person to solve mathematical problems.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why does the silver ant leave its nest to scavenge at midday, when it is vulnerable to the heat?
Objective
The correct answer must present an unsatisfactory hypothesis, one that fails to explain why the silver ant leaves its nest at midday. Every wrong answer, meanwhile, will identify a difference between midday and other times of day that implies midday is a safer or more effective time for the ants to scavenge.
A
The chief predators of the silver ant must take cover from the sun during midday.
This is a reason for silver ants to risk the midday heat. The ants’ predators are hiding, so midday is safer than other times of day, despite the heat.
B
The cues that silver ants use to navigate become less reliable as the afternoon progresses.
This is a reason for silver ants to risk the midday heat. If the ants’ navigation becomes less reliable later in the day, they have an incentive to scavenge earlier.
C
Other scavengers remove any remaining corpses as soon as the temperature begins to drop in the afternoon.
This is a reason for silver ants to risk the midday heat. Their food will be taken by other scavengers in the afternoon, so the ants cannot wait for temperatures to drop before scavenging.
D
The temperature inside the silver ants’ nests often exceeds the surface temperature during the hottest times of the day.
This is a reason for silver ants to risk the midday heat. If the ants’ nest is warmer than the surface near midday, then they actually escape the heat by leaving.
E
Silver ants cool themselves by climbing onto small pieces of dried vegetation to take advantage of random light breezes.
This does not explain why the ants choose midday for scavenging. It identifies a mechanism the ants use to cool down, but states nothing about midday that explains the ants’ scavenging schedule.
Consultant: Most workers do not have every item they produce judged for quality, but each piece a freelance writer authors is evaluated. That is why freelance writers produce such high-quality work.
Summary
A Consultant argues freelance writers produce high-quality work because they have each piece of their work evaluated by someone else. This is unlike most other workers whose products are not all individually evaluated.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Having all of one’s work evaluated causes some people to produce better work.
A
A piece authored by a freelance writer is generally evaluated more strictly than the majority of items most workers produce.
The stimulus does not say anything about the “strictness” of an evaluation. Thus, there is no support for the notion that freelance writers are evaluated more strictly even though more of their work is evaluated.
B
By having every piece of their work evaluated, some workers are caused to produce high-quality work.
The stimulus says that freelance writers produce high-quality work because each piece is evaluated. Thus, it is supported that the process of evaluating causes some workers (freelance writers) to produce high-quality work.
C
No other workers produce higher quality work than do freelance writers.
This is far too strong to support. The stimulus says that freelance writers produce high-quality work, not the *highest-quality* work.
D
Only freelance writers have every item they produce evaluated for quality.
The stimulus does not say that *only* freelance writers have every item they produce evaluated. It only says that most other professions do not.
E
Some workers produce high-quality work in spite of the fact that not every item they produce is judged for quality.
While this could be true, nothing in the stimulus says that there are people who produce high-quality work without being evaluated. The stimulus only tells us that freelance writers produce high-quality work.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes paper products currently hurt the country’s environment more than plastic products. Why? Because paper trash and plastic trash do roughly the same damage, but there’s more paper trash out there, by weight and by volume.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s nothing else about plastic or paper that makes plastic products more harmful to the environment. This means assuming that plastic does no more harm than paper over a given product’s entire life cycle, including before it becomes garbage.
A
A given weight of paper product may increase in volume after manufacture and before being discarded as trash.
This doesn’t affect the argument. It doesn’t say paper does more or less harm—or exists in greater or lesser amounts—at earlier stages of its life cycle than plastic does.
B
According to popular opinion, volume is a more important consideration than weight in predicting the impact of a given quantity of trash on the environment.
This doesn’t affect the argument. The study found more paper than plastic by weight and by volume, so the conclusion is supported equally whether this is true or false.
C
The sum of damage caused to the environment by paper trash and by plastic trash is greater than that caused by any other sort of trash that was studied.
This doesn’t affect the argument. The author compares paper and plastic trash to each other, not to other types of trash.
D
The production of any paper product is more harmful to the environment than is the production of an equal weight or volume of any plastic.
This is another reason paper usage does more damage to the environment than plastic usage. It rules out the possibility that plastic products do more harm to the environment during manufacturing than paper products do.
E
The proportion of plastic trash to paper trash varies from one part of the country to another.
This is accounted for in the study described, so it doesn’t affect the argument. The study examined “representative areas” across the country—differences between those areas do not imply the study was flawed.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author argues that plastic use in a certain nation is actually less harmful to the environment than the use of paper products. This is supported by the claim that a given amount of trash does about the same amount of harm, whether plastic or paper. Additionally, a recent study found that the nation produces more paper trash than plastic trash.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion that the argument supports is the author’s statement that “the current use of plastics actually does less harm to the environment nationwide than that of paper products.”
A
plastics constitute a smaller proportion of the nation’s total trash than do paper products
This statement is used in the argument to support the claim that paper trash is currently more harmful than plastic trash, and is not supported by anything else. That makes this a premise.
B
the ratio of weight to volume is the same for plastic trash as it is for paper trash
The author never discusses the ratio of weight to volume for any kind of trash. All we know is that plastic trash has a smaller weight and volume than paper trash, not the ratios.
C
popular opinion regards the use of paper products as less harmful to the environment than the use of products made from plastic
The author’s mention of popular opinion just adds context and flavor to the argument. Nothing in the argument is meant to support a claim about popular opinion, so this can’t be the main conclusion.
D
contrary to popular opinion, a shift away from the use of paper products to the use of plastics would benefit the environment nationwide
The author never makes any claims about how potential changes in product use would impact the environment. The argument is purely about what’s going on right now.
E
at this time more harm is being done to the environment nationwide by the use of paper than by the use of plastics
This accurately restates the conclusion. The rest of the argument supports the author’s statement that plastic trash is currently less harmful than paper trash; or in other words, that paper trash is more harmful right now.
Michiko: But the idea of the modern Olympics is to showcase the world’s finest athletes, regardless of their backgrounds or resources. Hence, professionals should be allowed to compete.
Summarize Argument
Juan argues that allowing professional athletes to compete alongside amateurs in the Olympics violates the games’ essential spirit of fairness. This is because professionals usually have access to more resources than amateurs. Juan claims that amateurs are thus unlikely to ever seriously challenge the professionals against whom they compete.
Notable Assumptions
Juan assumes that a significant number of amateur athletes would be more able to challenge professional athletes if they had access to more financial and material resources. In other words, he assumes that amateurs’ current lack of resources hinders their performance.
A
In general, amateur athletes tend to outnumber professional athletes in the modern Olympics.
This does not weaken Juan’s argument. First, if there are more amateurs and they still rarely challenge professionals, that just strengthens the appearance of inequality. Second, this doesn’t address the question of how much resources actually make a difference.
B
In certain events in the modern Olympics the best few competitors are amateurs; in certain other events the best few competitors are professionals.
This does not weaken Juan’s argument. Juan only talks about events where amateurs and professionals compete—we don’t know if that includes events where amateurs win. Also, even if amateurs sometimes beat professionals, that doesn’t rebut an argument about general trends.
C
The concept of “amateur” and “professional” athletics would have been unfamiliar to the ancient Greeks on whose games the modern Olympics are based.
This does not weaken Juan’s argument. The argument is specifically about the modern Olympic games (in other words, its domain is limited). This means that observations about the ancient Olympics are irrelevant.
D
In the modern Olympics there has been no noticeable correlation between the financial or material resources expended on the training of individual athletes and the eventual performance of those athletes.
This weakens Juan’s argument. If there’s no correlation between athletes’ access to resources and their performance, then Juan’s assumption that amateurs’ lack of resources hinders their performance is undermined. That removes support from the conclusion (i.e. weakens).
E
Many amateur athletes who take part in international competitions receive no financial or material support from the governments of the countries that the amateurs represent.
This does not weaken Juan’s argument. It just affirms Juan’s claim that amateurs have less access to resources than professionals, and doesn’t challenge the assumption that resources make a difference to athletic performance.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Sheila rejects other’s claims that adding color to a movie originally filmed in black and white damages the integrity of the original film and instead concludes the integrity of these original films is not damaged. As evidence, Sheila points out that nobody argues film adaptations of novels or short stories similarly damage the integrity of the book or story. Just as film adaptations are new works that stand on their own, colorized film is a new work that should be judged on its own merit.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Sheila counters a position held by others. She does this by presenting an analogous argument with an obviously false conclusion: nobody argues we should not create film adaptations because doing so would erode the value of the original story.
A
It appeals to an analogy between similar cases.
The analogy is between colorized films and film adaptations of written works.
B
It offers a counterexample to a general principle.
The argument pertaining to film adaptations is not a counterexample, it is an analogous argument.
C
It appeals to popular opinion on the matter at issue.
Sheila does not appeal to popular opinion. She does not conclude that colorized film does not damage the integrity of the original black and white film just because most people believe it does not damage the integrity.
D
It distinguishes facts from value judgments.
Sheila does not address a value judgment.
E
It draws an inference from a general principle and a set of facts.
Sheila does not draw an inference.