Summarize Argument
The author concludes that any patriotism in Arton's plays was meant ironically. He supports this by pointing out that when she wrote them, her country was struggling with high unemployment, food costs, and crime, which led to low general morale and patriotism in the country.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author draws a conclusion about Arton’s patriotism based on the general morale of her country at the time. In doing so, he assumes that Arton felt the same way about her country as the general population did. But perhaps Arton still felt patriotic, even though general morale and patriotism were low.
A
posits an unstated relationship between unemployment and crime
The author never claims that unemployment and crime rates in Arton’s country were related to each other. He just says that both were high.
B
takes for granted that straightforward patriotism is not possible for a serious writer
The author never assumes that patriotism is not possible for a serious writer, nor does he make any claims about whether Arton is a serious writer. Instead, he argues that straightforward patriotism is not possible in Arton’s work, given the state of her country at the time.
C
takes for granted that Arton was attuned to the predominant national attitude of her time
By claiming that the patriotism in Arton’s plays was ironic because of low morale and patriotism in her country, the author assumes that Arton shared the predominant national attitude of her time.
D
overlooks the fact that some citizens prosper in times of high unemployment
The author doesn't address this, but it isn’t a flaw in his argument. Some citizens may have prospered despite the high unemployment, but we can’t assume that Arton herself prospered. Either way, (D) fails to address the assumption that Arton shared her country’s general morale.
E
confuses irony with a general decline in public morale
“Irony” and “a general decline in public morale” are used unambiguously to refer to two distinct pieces of the author’s argument.
Summary
The author concludes that the reason Vermeer used recurring items in his paintings is not because he lacked props. This is based on the fact that many of the recurring items in his paintings were expensive.
Missing Connection
All we know from the premise is that many recurring items in Vermeer’s paintings are expensive. But this doesn’t prove anything about the reason Vermeer used the recurring items as props. How can the author reach the conclusion that the reason is not because he lacked props? We want to get from the fact many props were expensive to the conclusion that the reason Vermeer used recurring items is not because he lacked props:
If he used many expensive props → lacking props is not the reason he used recurring props
OR
If lacking props IS the reason he used recurring props → he would NOT have used many expensive props
If he used many expensive props → lacking props is not the reason he used recurring props
OR
If lacking props IS the reason he used recurring props → he would NOT have used many expensive props
A
Vermeer often borrowed the expensive props he represented in his paintings.
The fact he borrowed the props doesn’t tell us anything about whether he lacked props or didn’t lack props.
B
The props that recur in Vermeer’s paintings were always available to him.
The constant availability of the props that he used doesn’t tell us anything about whether he lacked props or didn’t lack props. Maybe he had only a few props, and those props were always available to him.
C
The satin jacket and wooden chairs that recur in the paintings were owned by Vermeer’s sister.
Whether the props were owned by his sister doesn’t tell us anything about whether he lacked props or whether this lack of props is the reason he used recurring items in his paintings.
D
The several recurrent items that appeared in Vermeer’s paintings had special sentimental importance for him.
The fact some recurring items in his paintings had sentimental importance to him does not imply that the reason he used those recurring items had nothing to do with lacking props. It’s possible he did lack props and that this why he used the same items over and over.
E
If a dearth of props accounted for the recurrent objects in Vermeer’s paintings, we would not see expensive props in any of them.
“Dearth” means lack. (E) connects the premise to the conclusion. If a lack of props was the reason for the recurring items, we wouldn’t see expensive props in the paintings. But since we do see expensive props in the paintings, (E) establishes that a lack of props was NOT the reason for the recurring items.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people who choose not to exercise impose “significant” additional costs on society. Why? Because a calculation showed the average sedentary person contributes $1,650 in extra healthcare costs to society over their lifetime.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a burden of $1,650 over each sedentary person’s lifetime adds up to a “significant” total. In addition, she assumes that people who live a sedentary life do so because they choose not to exercise.
A
Many people whose employment requires physical exertion do not choose to engage in regular physical exercise when they are not at work.
Such people may not be counted as sedentary. There’s no indication the 1991 calculation relied on an estimate of how many people live a sedentary lifestyle.
B
Exercise is a topic that is often omitted from discussion between doctor and patient during a patient’s visit.
Patients may still seek medical care for conditions caused by a sedentary lifestyle, even if that lifestyle is not identified as the cause. This helps explain why some people choose not to exercise, but doesn’t address any burden they might place on society.
C
Physical conditions that eventually require medical or nursing-home care often first predispose a person to adopt a sedentary life-style.
This implies those physical conditions are responsible for much of the healthcare burden, rather than voluntary decisions not to exercise. It challenges the author’s assumption that sedentary people simply choose to avoid exercise.
D
Individuals vary widely in the amount and kind of exercise they choose, when they do exercise regularly.
This refers to people who exercise regularly, not those with a sedentary lifestyle. It doesn’t say the collection of people with a sedentary lifestyle is ill-defined.
E
A regular program of moderate exercise tends to increase circulation, induce a feeling of well-being and energy, and decrease excess weight.
This offers more detail to the argument. These benefits of exercise help explain why a sedentary lifestyle is unhealthy—they don’t address the apparent burden people who don’t exercise place on society.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why is the later portion of the Upper Paleolithic period, when the Magdalenian culture was dominant, associated with a much higher number of lamps than earlier in the Upper Paleolithic period?
Objective
This is an EXCEPT question. The four wrong answers should tells us about a difference between the late Upper Paleolithic and the earlier parts of the Upper Paleolithic that could lead to a greater number of lamps being associated with the late period.
A
Artifacts from early in the Upper Paleolithic period are harder to identify than those that originated later in the period.
This suggests we might be less able to identify artifacts from the earlier period as lamps, which could explain why the late period is associated with a greater number of lamps.
B
More archaeological sites have been discovered from the Magdalenian culture than from earlier cultures.
If we’ve found more sites from the Magdalenian culture than from earlier cultures, this suggests the greater number of lamps from the late Upper Paleolithic may be due to finding more sites (and hence, more artifacts) from this period than from earlier periods.
C
More efficient lamp-making techniques were developed by the Magdalenian culture than by earlier cultures.
If the Magdalenians had more efficient lamp-making techniques than earlier cultures, that suggests they could make more lamps within a given time, which could explain why the late Upper Paleolithic is associated with more lamps.
D
Fire pits were much more common in caves early in the Upper Paleolithic period than they were later in that period.
If fire pits were more common in the earlier Upper Paleolithic, that could suggest less of a need for lamps, which could explain why the earlier period is associated with fewer lamps than is the later period.
E
More kinds of lamps were produced by the Magdalenian culture than by earlier cultures.
More kinds of lamps simply means a greater variety of lamps. But it doesn’t explain why there’s a greater number of lamps associated with the late Upper Paleolithic. We wouldn’t expect a culture with 5 different styles of lamps to have more lamps than a culture with only 1 style.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that Henry was popular because it followed That’s Life and not because people actually liked it. This is evident in the fact Henry was relatively unpopular before it was scheduled to follow That’s Life, and unpopular again once it was moved to a different time spot.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that Henry itself didn’t change in a way that attracted a larger audience (i.e. better writing, better acting, more compelling storylines) after it was moved to follow That’s Life. The author also assumes that Tuesdays aren’t a particularly strong day for TV shows in general. If this were the case, then Henry’s popularity could be explained by the day of the week it was scheduled on, rather than by the show that preceded it.
A
Henry has been on the air for three years, but That’s Life has been on the air for only two years.
We don’t care how long That’s Life had been on air for. We care about Henry’s popularity over the years.
B
The show that replaced Henry on Tuesdays has persistently had a low number of viewers in the Tuesday time slot.
This weakens the claim that Henry was popular because of its Tuesday time slot. We’re looking to do the opposite.
C
The show that now follows That’s Life on Tuesdays has double the number of viewers it had before being moved.
Tuesday after That’s Life is a great time slot for shows. Henry improved its numbers, as did this other show. This strengthens the claim that the time slot, rather than the show, is what matters ratings-wise.
D
After its recent move to Wednesday, Henry was aired at the same time as the second most popular show on television.
This might explain why Henry did poorly on Wednesday. But we have no idea if a similar phenomenon was happening when Henry was aired on Tuesday, so we can’t draw any conclusions from this.
E
That’s Life was not widely watched during the first year it was aired.
We don’t care about That’s Life. We know it ended up being popular.