Though many insects die soon after reproducing for the first time, some may live for years after the survival of the next generation has been secured. Among the latter are some insects that work for the benefit of the ecosystem—for example, bees.

Summary
Many insects die soon after reproducing the first time.
Some insects live for years after reproducing the first time. Some of these insects that live for a longer time help the ecosystem. Bees are one example of these beneficial insects.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
At least some bees do not die soon after reproducing for the first time.

A
Survival of the species, rather than of the individual, is the goal of most insect populations.
We don’t know what insect populations find to be the most important goal. We might have enough to say they want to reproduce. But we don’t know that this is the most important goal for insects.
B
Insects that do not play a vital role in the ecosystem are more likely to die after reproducing for the first time.
We don’t know about comparative likelihood of death after reproduction. We know some bees die soon after, and some don’t. We don’t know what kind of insect is more likely to be a kind that dies soon after vs. later.
C
Most bees live well beyond the onset of the generation that follows them.
We know that bees live for “years after the next generation has been secured.” But we don’t know whether this is “well beyond the onset of the generation that follows.” Maybe bees die very soon into the next geneneration’s life. This can still be “years after the next generation has been secured.”
D
Those bees that reproduce do not always die soon after reproducing for the first time.
Strongly supported, because we know bees are among the insects that live for years after reproducing for the first time. So some bees do not die soon after reproducing for the first time.
E
Most insects are hatched self-sufficient and do not need to be cared for by adult insects.
We don’t know what proportion of insects are self-sufficient after hatching.

4 comments

Lea: Contemporary art has become big business. Nowadays art has less to do with self-expression than with making money. The work of contemporary artists is utterly bereft of spontaneity and creativity, as a visit to any art gallery demonstrates.

Susan: I disagree. One can still find spontaneous, innovative new artwork in most of the smaller, independent galleries.

Speaker 1 Summary

Lea tells us that art today is more about making money and less about self-expression. She also asserts that the work of artists today doesn’t have any spontaneity or creativity, and that we can see this by going to any art gallery.

Speaker 2 Summary

Susan states that we can still find spontaneous, innovative art today in smaller, independent art galleries.

Objective

We’re looking for a point of disagreement. They disagree about whether there exists artwork today that is spontaneous and creative/innovative. Lea thinks there isn’t. Susan thinks there is.

A
large galleries contain creative artwork

Susan has no opinion. We know she thinks we can find innovative work in most of the smaller, independent galleries. But we don’t know what she thinks about large galleries.

B
most galleries contain some artwork that lacks spontaneity and creativity

Susan has no opinion. We know her opinion about smaller, independent galleries. But we don’t know whether these galleries make up over half of all galleries. So we don’t know what Susan thinks about most galleries.

C
contemporary art has become big business

Susan has no opinion. We don’t know what she thinks about whether art is more about making money or self expression.

D
some smaller art galleries still exhibit creative new artwork

This is a point of disagreement. Lea thinks there isn’t any spontaneous, creative contemporary artwork in any gallery today. Susan thinks we can find this kind of work in most of the smaller, independent galleries.

E
contemporary art, in general, is much less concerned with self-expression than older art is

Susan has no opinion. We don’t know whether she thinks art today is more based on making money or on self expression.


9 comments

Philosopher: People are not intellectually well suited to live in large, bureaucratic societies. Therefore, people can find happiness, if at all, only in smaller political units such as villages.

Summarize Argument

The philosopher concludes that, if people can find happiness at all, they can only do so in smaller communities, like villages. She supports this by saying that people aren’t intellectually well suited to live in large, bureaucratic societies.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The philosopher’s reasoning is flawed because she makes a key assumption. By concluding that people can only find happiness in small communities because they aren’t intellectually well suited to large ones, the philosopher must assume that people cannot find happiness in a society that they aren’t intellectually well suited to.

She ignores the fact that some people might be able to find happiness in large bureaucratic societies, even though they’re not intellectually well suited to them.

A
no one can ever be happy living in a society in which she or he is not intellectually well suited to live

In order to draw her conclusion, the philosopher takes for granted that people cannot be happy in a society that they aren’t intellectually well suited to. But what if some people can be happy in large, bureaucratic societies, even though they’re not well suited to live there?

B
the primary purpose of small political units such as villages is to make people happy

The author never makes this claim, nor does she take it for granted. She says that “people can find happiness, if at all, only in smaller political units.” She never claims that these communities’ purpose is to make people happy, or even that they will make people happy at all.

C
all societies that are plagued by excessive bureaucracy are large

The author never makes this claim, nor does she take it for granted. She just says that people aren’t well suited to live in large, bureaucratic societies. Maybe small bureaucratic societies exist, or maybe they don’t; it doesn’t affect the argument either way.

D
anyone who lives in a village or other small political unit that is not excessively bureaucratic can find happiness

The author doesn't make this assumption. She says that “people can find happiness, if at all, only in smaller political units.” She never assumes that people in small political units actually can or will find happiness.

E
everyone is willing to live in villages or other small political units

The author doesn’t make this assumption. Her argument isn’t addressing where people may or may not be willing to live. It’s just addressing where people must live in order to potentially find happiness.


2 comments

Standard archaeological techniques make it possible to determine the age of anything containing vegetable matter, but only if the object is free of minerals containing carbon. Prehistoric artists painted on limestone with pigments composed of vegetable matter, but it is impossible to collect samples of this prehistoric paint without removing limestone, a mineral containing carbon, with the paint. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the age of prehistoric paintings on limestone using standard archaeological techniques.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that standard archeology cannot measure the ages of ancient paintings on limestone. Why? Because carbon always comes along with vegetable-based paint samples collected from limestone, and anything with carbon and vegetable matter can’t be aged using standard techniques.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that neither vegetable matter nor carbon can be removed from the samples after collection. If either material can be separated out, then the remaining paint would not be restricted by the author’s general rule and standard techniques may be usable.

A
There exist several different techniques for collecting samples of prehistoric pigments on limestone.
The author states that all such techniques involve removing limestone. This does not imply that any method allows paint to be collected without carbon coming along.
B
Laboratory procedures exist that can remove all the limestone from a sample of prehistoric paint on limestone.
This disputes the assumption that the samples must retain their carbon. If limestone can be removed, then the carbon-free paint can be isolated and may be measurable using standard techniques.
C
The age of the limestone itself can be determined from samples that contain no vegetable-based paint.
This suggests a method to determine the limestone’s age, not the paint’s age. The author does not say that knowing the limestone’s age allows archaeologists to know the paint's age.
D
Prehistoric artists did not use anything other than vegetable matter to make their paints.
This does not imply the samples are free of carbon, since the carbon comes from the limestone. It eliminates the possibility that vegetable matter can be separated from the remaining paint, thus strengthening the argument.
E
The proportion of carbon to other elements in limestone is the same in all samples of limestone.
This implies the amount of carbon in a sample can be known, not that it can be removed. The author states that the presence of carbon, not the variability of carbon, makes standard techniques unusable.

15 comments

A group of 1,000 students was randomly selected from three high schools in a medium-sized city and asked the question, “Do you plan to finish your high school education?” More than 89 percent answered “Yes.” This shows that the overwhelming majority of students want to finish high school, and that if the national dropout rate among high school students is high, it cannot be due to a lack of desire on the part of the students.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that most students want to finish high school and that if there’s a high high school dropout rate, it’s not due to students’ lack of desire. He supports this with a survey of 1,000 randomly selected students from three high schools in a medium-sized town, where over 89% said they planned to finish high school.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is a cookie-cutter example of a flawed survey. The author draws a conclusion about all high school students based on an unrepresentative survey. Even though the students surveyed were randomly selected, they were still only chosen from three high schools in one medium-sized town. The author mistakenly assumes that 1,000 students from this town represent all high school students.

A
fails to justify its presumption that 89 percent is an overwhelming majority

The author doesn’t need to justify this presumption because 89 percent is an overwhelming majority. He isn’t making an unreasonable assumption here.

B
attempts to draw two conflicting conclusions from the results of one survey

The author does draw two conclusions— that most students want to finish high school and that a high high school dropout rate wouldn’t be due to students’ lack of desire— from one survey. But these conclusions don’t conflict with one another.

C
overlooks the possibility that there may in fact not be a high dropout rate among high school students

The author doesn’t overlook this possibility. In fact, he explicitly addresses it by saying, “If the national dropout rate...is high...”

D
contradicts itself by admitting that there may be a high dropout rate among students while claiming that most students want to finish high school

The author does claim that most students want to finish high school and he admits the possibility of a high dropout rate. But these statements don’t contradict each other. There could be many students who drop out of school despite wanting to finish.

E
treats high school students from a particular medium-sized city as if they are representative of high school students nationwide

This explains the author’s key flaw. He draws a conclusion about all high school students based on a survey of 1,000 students from a single city.


Comment on this

To acquire a better understanding of the structure and development of the human personality, some psychologists study the personalities of animals.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do scientists study animals’ personalities to understand human personalities?

Objective
The correct answer must fail to identify a difference between humans and animals that explains why scientists would choose to study animal personalities rather than human personalities.

A
The actions of humans and animals are believed to be motivated by similar instincts, but these instincts are easier to discern in animals.
This explains why psychologists would study animals to learn about human personalities. Animals provide results more readily, and those results can be translated to understand human behavior.
B
The law forbids certain experiments on humans but permits them on animals.
This explains why psychologists would study animals to learn about humans. Some experiments would be illegal to perform on humans, but are legal to perform on animals.
C
It is generally less expensive to perform experiments on animals than it is to perform them on humans.
This explains why psychologists would opt to experiment on animals rather than humans. Animal studies are less expensive and thus more accessible for researchers.
D
Proper understanding of human personality is thought to provide a model for better understanding the personality of animals.
This flips the desired relationship on its head. Psychologists are studying animals to understand human personalities, not the reverse.
E
Field observations of the behavior of young animals often inspire insightful hypotheses about human personality development.
This explains why psychologists would opt to study animals over humans. Observing animals can generate insights into human personality that studies of humans alone cannot.

Comment on this

Although wood-burning stoves are more efficient than open fireplaces, they are also more dangerous. The smoke that wood-burning stoves release up the chimney is cooler than the smoke from an open flame. Thus it travels more slowly and deposits more creosote, a flammable substance that can clog a chimney—or worse, ignite inside it.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that wood-burning stoves are more dangerous than open fireplaces. This is because the smoke that wood-burning stoves release up the chimney is cooler than open fireplace smoke, which means that it deposits more creosote. The creosote can clog a chimney or ignite.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there are no other dangerous features of an open fireplace that could outweigh the danger posed by the greater amounts of creosote from wood-burning stoves. The author also assumes that cooler smoke travels more slowly and deposits more creosote.

A
The most efficient wood-burning stoves produce less creosote than do many open fireplaces.
The author’s conclusion is just about wood-burning stoves in general compared to open fireplaces. In addition, the stimulus says wood-burning stoves deposit more creosote. It’s about the amount deposited, which might be different from the amount produced.
B
The amount of creosote produced depends not only on the type of flame but on how often the stove or fireplace is used.
Frequency of use may be a factor, but we have no reason to think open fireplaces are inherently used more frequently than wood-burning stoves.
C
Open fireplaces pose more risk of severe accidents inside the home than do wood-burning stoves.
This is a factor that could outweigh the danger posed by creosote. If open fireplaces are more likely than wood-burning stoves to lead to severe accidents in the home, this could make open fireplaces equally or more dangerous overall, despite depositing less creosote.
D
Open fireplaces also produce a large amount of creosote residue.
The stimulus told us that wood-burning stoves deposit more creosote. So, even if open fireplaces produce a lot, the stoves deposit more.
E
Homeowners in warm climates rarely use fireplaces or wood-burning stoves.
The argument concerns what kind of fire source is more dangerous. Whether homeowners ever actually use those sources doesn’t impact whether one would be more dangerous than the other.

15 comments

Sociologist: Some people argue that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism. Critics of such a view argue that more people were executed for theft in preindustrial England than were executed in England after industrialization. But such a criticism overlooks the fact that industrialization and capitalism are two very different social phenomena, and that the latter predated the former by several centuries.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The sociologist disagrees with critics who use pre- and post-industrialization statistics to argue against a claim about capital punishment and British capitalism. To show why the critics’ argument is poor, the sociologist explains that capitalism and industrialization are distinct, and didn’t even begin at the same time. This establishes that the critics’ criticism (about industrialization) is missing the point of the original claim (about capitalism).

Identify Argument Part

The claim that capitalism and industrialization are distinct is used as a rebuttal to the critics discussed in the argument.

A
It is cited as some evidence against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author never provides evidence either for or against the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. Arguing against critics is not the same as supporting the claim they criticize.

B
It is cited as a direct contradiction of the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author never contradicts the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. Specifically, a distinction between industrialization and capitalism does’t contradict that claim.

C
It is an attempt to conclusively prove the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author never attempts to prove the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. The point is to argue against the critics, not to prove the original claim.

D
It is cited as a fact supporting the critics of the view that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author’s whole goal is to refute the critics. Nothing in the argument supports the critics, and the distinction between industrialization and capitalism specifically rebuts them.

E
It is an attempt to undermine the criticism cited against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

This is a good description of the role played by the distinction between industrialization and capitalism. The author uses the distinction to show that the critics missed the point of the claim they criticize, thus undermining them.


4 comments

Professor Chan: The literature department’s undergraduate courses should cover only true literary works, and not such frivolous material as advertisements.

Professor Wigmore: Advertisements might or might not be true literary works but they do have a powerfully detrimental effect on society—largely because people cannot discern their real messages. The literature department’s courses give students the critical skills to analyze and understand texts. Therefore, it is the literature department’s responsibility to include the study of advertisements in its undergraduate courses.

Summarize Argument
Professor Wigmore concludes the literature department is responsible for covering advertisements in its undergraduate courses. Why? Because those courses give students skills to understand texts, and society is negatively affected by people’s inability to understand the real messages of advertisements.

Notable Assumptions
Professor Wigmore assumes the department has the ability and obligation to reduce the harm caused to society by advertising. She assumes covering advertisements in literature courses would allow enough people to understand the real messages of advertisements that it would reduce the amount by which advertisements harm society. In addition, she assumes literature courses will be more effective at helping students understand advertisements if they cover advertisements directly.

A
Advertisements ought to be framed in such a way that their real messages are immediately clear.
This normative judgment doesn’t affect Professor Wigmore’s argument. She does not refer to the way advertisements would ideally be framed.
B
Any text that is subtly constructed and capable of affecting people’s thought and action ought to be considered a form of literature.
This supports calling advertisements literature—but that’s not Professor Wigmore’s point. She argues advertisements should be covered in literature courses, whether they count as literature or not.
C
All undergraduate students ought to take at least one course that focuses on the development of critical skills.
This doesn’t support the argument. Undergraduate literature courses help students develop critical skills in understanding texts, whether or not they cover advertisements, according to Professor Wigmore.
D
The literature department’s courses ought to enable students to analyze and understand any text that could have a harmful effect on society.
This makes concrete a key assumption by Professor Wigmore: that the department has an obligation to reduce the harmful effect on society created by people’s inability to understand advertisements.
E
Any professor teaching an undergraduate course in the literature department ought to be free to choose the material to be covered in that course.
This doesn’t affect Professor Wigmore’s argument. She concludes that undergraduate literature courses should cover advertisements, not that professors should be forced to cover advertisements even if they don’t want to.

Comment on this