Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people can diagnose swimmer’s ear in themselves without ever needing to consult a physician. As support for this conclusion, the author cites a recent study where 84% of a sample of 1,000 people who believed that they had swimmer’s ear made an accurate diagnosis. The author also notes that this 84% accurate diagnosis rate is slightly higher than doctors’ accuracy.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a high rate of successful self diagnosis supports the idea that people never have to see a doctor for swimmer’s ear; we don’t know that the people in the study had never seen a doctor for swimmer’s ear.
A
Cases in which swimmer’s ear progresses to more serious infections are very rare.
The argument is concerned with whether or not doctors are required for accurate diagnosis of swimmer’s ear. The argument is not concerned with severity of infections, so this information does not weaken the argument.
B
Most of those who suspected incorrectly that they had swimmer’s ear also believed that they had other ailments that in fact they did not have.
(B) provides information about the 16% who made an incorrect self-diagnosis of swimmer’s ear. The argument is about the high rate of accurate self-diagnosis, so this information does not weaken the argument.
C
Most of the people who diagnosed themselves correctly had been treated by a physician for a prior occurrence of swimmer’s ear.
This information attacks the argument’s key assumption that, because of the high rate of accurate self-diagnosis, most people can diagnose themselves without ever seeing a doctor. (C) says that previous visits to a doctor may have informed these accurate self-diagnoses.
D
Physicians who specialize in ear diseases are generally able to provide more accurate diagnoses than those provided by general practitioners.
This does not change the fact that self-diagnoses are more accurate than doctors’ diagnoses in general. The key support for the argument is that self-diagnoses are highly accurate. (D) does not weaken the argument that most people can self diagnose without ever seeing a doctor.
E
For many people who develop swimmer’s ear, the condition disappears without medical or pharmaceutical intervention.
The argument is concerned with diagnosis, not treatment, of swimmer’s ear.
Summarize Argument
The town councillor concludes that the town shouldn’t ban skateboarding in the park. This is because children would instead skateboard in the street, which is more dangerous.
Notable Assumptions
The town councillor assumes that children generally would be in as much danger skateboarding in the street as in the park. If 50 kids were in danger skating in the park, and only 10 of those decided to go skateboard in the street once the ban was passed, then the danger posed to those 10 kids would have to be somehow greater than the danger posed to those 50 kids. Alternately, the town councillor may assume that either all or the vast majority of the kids would go skateboard in the street.
A
Ordinances that restrict the recreational activities of a town’s inhabitants should not be passed unless those activities pose a danger to participants.
Skateboarding in the park does pose a danger. Nevertheless, and contrary to this principle, the town councillor doesn’t believe the ban should be passed.
B
Since the town could be legally liable for accidents that occur on public property, town ordinances should restrict any unnecessarily dangerous activities in publicly owned areas.
Streets are also publicly owned. Besides, the town councillor doesn’t believe this ban should pass.
C
Since safety in a recreational activity depends on the level of skill of the participant in that activity, the regulation of children’s recreational activities should be left to the discretion of the children’s parents.
The town councillor doesn’t argue that the ban would interfere with parents’ rights. She argues that the ban would actually put children in more danger.
D
If recreational activities constitute a danger to the participants in those activities, then the town council should enact ordinances prohibiting those activities.
The town councillor doesn’t believe any such ordinance should be enacted.
E
Ordinances that seek to eliminate dangers should not be enacted if their enactment would lead to dangers that are greater than those they seek to eliminate.
The ban on skateboarding in the park would lead to the greater danger of skateboarding in the street. Thus, the ban shouldn’t be enacted.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that the florist must have made a mistake in sending roses to Drew. This is based on the following line of reasoning. First, if the flowers Drew received were sent by someone who knew Drew well, that person would have known Drew prefers violets to roses. But, he received roses. And, if the flowers Drew received were sent by someone who didn’t know Drew well, that person would have sent a card with the flowers. But he didn’t get a card.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a person who knows that Drew prefers violets over roses would send violets instead of roses. This assumption is why the author thinks that if the delivery was from someone who knew Drew well, there was a mistake. But, it’s possible someone might have known Drew’s preference, but decided not to send flowers that aligned with his preference.
A
Most people send roses when they send flowers.
What most people do doesn’t affect the reasoning, which is based on specific aspects of this flower delivery to Drew. Someone who knew Drew would know Drew prefers violets. What matters is what people would do knowing that preference. What people would do in other circumstances doesn't matter.
B
Some people send flowers for a reason other than the desire to please.
This questions the assumption that someone who knew Drew prefers violets to roses would have sent violets. It’s possible someone who knew Drew well sent him roses, despite knowing his preference. This is how it’s possible the florist didn’t make a mistake.
C
Someone who does not know Drew well would be unlikely to send Drew flowers.
This answer, if it does anything, would only suggest the flowers weren't sent by someone who didn't know Drew well. The author wasn't suggesting that the delivery had to come from such person, so (C) is consistent with the author's reasoning.
D
The florist has never delivered the wrong flowers to Drew before.
This doesn’t affect the reasoning of the argument, which was based on specific aspects of the flower delivery to Drew. The argument wasn’t citing to the florist’s past mistakes or general tendencies; an answer about the florist’s past doesn’t engage with the author’s reasoning.
E
Some people who know Drew well have sent Drew cards along with flowers.
The fact some people who know him well have sent him cards before, if it does anything, could only suggest another reason to think there was a mistake. Someone who knew him well could have sent a card, but he didn't get a card.
Summary
Addictive drugs are physically harmful.
Athletes are never justified in using addictive drugs.
Some people claim that, because nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, athletes should not be permitted to take large amounts of such drugs before competing.
There are lots of unnatural things used in sports—running shoes, boxing gloves—and these things are not prohibited.
We don’t currently do enough to address the serious problems in modern sports that cause unnecessary deaths and injuries.
Athletes are never justified in using addictive drugs.
Some people claim that, because nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, athletes should not be permitted to take large amounts of such drugs before competing.
There are lots of unnatural things used in sports—running shoes, boxing gloves—and these things are not prohibited.
We don’t currently do enough to address the serious problems in modern sports that cause unnecessary deaths and injuries.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
There are more serious problems in modern sports than nonaddictive drugs.
The use of nonaddictive drugs does not typically result in unnecessary deaths and injuries in modern sports.
A thing should not be banned from sports solely because that thing is unnatural.
The use of nonaddictive drugs does not typically result in unnecessary deaths and injuries in modern sports.
A thing should not be banned from sports solely because that thing is unnatural.
A
The fact that something is unnatural is not a sufficient reason for banning it.
Very strongly supported. The author both concedes that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural and affirms that they should not be banned. Together, these statements allow us to infer that a thing’s unnaturalness is not sufficient reason to ban it from sports.
B
There is nothing unnatural about the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes.
Anti-supported. The author cedes that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, although she does not believe that this is sufficient reason to prohibit their use.
C
The use of addictive drugs by athletes should be prohibited because addictive drugs are unnatural.
Anti-supported. The author does not believe that anything should be prohibited solely because it is unnatural. She believes that addictive drugs should be banned, but because they’re physically harmful, not because they’re unnatural.
D
Some of the unnecessary deaths and injuries in modern sports are caused by the use of addictive drugs by athletes.
Unsupported. While we do know that addictive drugs are physically harmful, we can’t infer that they cause unnecessary deaths and injuries. The physical harm they inflict could take another form, like illness.
E
The use of addictive drugs by athletes is a less serious problem than are unnecessary injuries.
Unsupported. We don’t know how addictive drug use stacks up against unnecessary deaths and injuries—the drugs could cause these things, for all we know! We know that the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes is less serious than unnecessary injuries, but that isn’t what (E) says.
Summary
For ten months, the total monthly sales of new cars within Calistan remained constant. During this period the monthly sales of new cars manufactured by Marvel Automobile Company doubled, and its share of the new car market increased. Emission standards were imposed on new cars at the end of the ten month period. For three months following this imposition, Marvel Automobile Company’s share of the market declined even though its monthly sales remained constant at the level reached in the last month of the ten-month period.
Notable Valid Inferences
Total monthly sales of new cars manufactured by companies other than Marvel Automobile Company decreased following Calistan’s new emission standards.
A
The total monthly sales within Calistan of new cars by companies other than Marvel Automobile Company decreased over the three months following the imposition of the emission standards.
Must be false. We know that Marvel’s sales remained constant while their market share decreased following the emission standards. If sales from other companies decreased during this time, there’s no way that Marvel’s market share could have decreased.
B
Over the three months before the imposition of the emission standards, the combined market share of companies other than Marvel Automobile Company selling new cars in Calistan decreased.
Could be true. We know that Marvel’s market share doubled during the ten-month period before the emission standards were imposed. It is possible that during this time other company’s market share decreased.
C
If the emission standards had not been imposed, Marvel Automobile Company would have lost an even larger share of the number of new cars sold in Calistan than, in fact, it did.
Could be true. We only know what happened following Calistan’s imposition of emission standards. We cannot be certain about would occur without these emission standards.
D
A decrease in the total monthly sales of new cars within Calistan will occur if the emission standards remain in effect.
Could be true. We know that marvel’s monthly sales of new cars remained constant following the emission standards. It is possible that total monthly sales of the entire new car market will decrease if other company’s monthly sales decrease.
E
Since the imposition of the emission standards, Marvel Automobile Company’s average profit on each new car sold within Calistan has increased.
Could be true. We know that Marvel’s monthly sales remained constant following the emission standards. It is possible that they are selling new cars at an increased price to maintain their monthly sales numbers.