Summarize Argument
The author concludes that car insurance premiums should increase as one drives more frequently. As support, she says that the chance of being involved in an accident increases in proportion to the number of times they drive.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that people who drive more frequently drive with a comparable amount of skill or safety to those who drive less frequently.
A
People who drive infrequently are more likely to be involved in accidents that occur on small roads than in highway accidents.
The location of accidents (whether they occur on small roads or on highways) is not relevant to the argument. The argument does not distinguish between different types of accidents; the argument is about accidents generally.
B
People who drive infrequently are less likely to follow rules for safe driving than are people who drive frequently.
(B) tells us that those who drive infrequently drive less safely than those who drive frequently. This means that the claim that those who drive more frequently should have higher premiums has less support.
C
People who drive infrequently are less likely to violate local speed limits than are people who drive frequently.
This gives us a reason to believe that people who drive infrequently may be safer drivers than those who drive frequently. This does not weaken the argument (and may marginally strengthen it).
D
People who drive frequently are more likely to make long-distance trips in the course of a year than are people who drive infrequently.
We have no information that compares the safety of longer trips with that of shorter trips, so this is outside the scope of the argument.
E
People who drive frequently are more likely to become distracted while driving than are people who drive infrequently.
Distracted driving poses a risk, so (E) gives a reason why frequent drivers may drive less safely than infrequent drivers, so this marginally strengthens the argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a person’s insurance premiums should increase as they drive more frequently. As support for this conclusion, the author cites the positive correlation between time spent driving and chance of being involved in an accident.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is the conclusion of the argument: that insurance premiums should increase as driving frequency increases.
A
a premise of the argument
The claim in the question stem does not provide support for any other part of the argument, so it is not a premise.
B
the conclusion of the argument
The claim in the question stem is the conclusion. It gets support from the final sentence in the stimulus, which is the premise; the two sentences that come before the claim in the question stem provide context.
C
evidence offered in support of one of the premises
The claim in the question stem is the conclusion; it is not offered in support of any other part of the argument.
D
an assertion phrased to preclude an anticipated objection
The claim in the question stem does not anticipate a potential objection.
E
a clarification of a key term in the argument
The claim in the question stem is a conclusion, not a clarification that supports another part of the argument.
Summarize Argument
The chemist concludes the anthropologist committed fraud. No evidence is given for this claim.
Notable Assumptions
The chemist believes that the anthropologist committed fraud by not revealing the test results, which ran contrary to her hypothesis. Thus the chemist assumes that not revealing such results constitutes fraud.
A
Reporting results for an experiment that was not conducted and reporting a false result for an actual experiment are both instances of scientific fraud.
The anthropologist didn’t report any results.
B
Scientists can commit fraud and yet report some disconfirmations of their hypotheses.
The anthropologist didn’t report any disconfirmation.
C
Scientists can neglect to report some disconfirmations of their hypotheses and yet be innocent of fraud.
The anthropologist was, according to the chemist, guilty of fraud.
D
Scientists commit fraud whenever they report as valid any test result they know to be invalid.
The anthropologist didn’t report any test result.
E
Scientists who neglect to report any experiment that could be interpreted as disconfirming their hypotheses have thereby committed fraud.
The anthropologist didn’t report the disconfirming results of her test. Thus, she committed fraud.
Summarize Argument
According to the author, the similarities between two products recently released by different companies are no coincidence, despite the companies’ claims to the contrary. The author supports this by explaining that the products look alike as well as working in the same way, as well as by giving some specific examples of suspicious similarities. This evidence is designed to show us that the products are too similar for it to be coincidental, thereby supporting the conclusion that it’s not a coincidence at all.
Identify Conclusion
The author’s conclusion is that the similarities between the two products “are too fundamental to be mere coincidence.”
A
the two products have many characteristics in common
This claim is used to support the conclusion that the similarities between the products are not coincidental, so it’s not the main conclusion itself.
B
ErgoTech must have copied the design of its new product from OCF’s design
The author never says this. We don’t get any detail about why the products are similar (who copied whom, or if the companies merely colluded), just a denial that it’s an accident.
C
the similarities between the two products are not coincidental
This is exactly what the author concludes. The argument as a whole supports the claim that the similarities are not a “mere coincidence” by giving examples of similarities too specific to have occurred accidentally.
D
product designers sometimes reach the same solution to a given problem without consulting each other
This is not stated in the argument. The author also argues against the claim that these companies independently developed such similar products, which this statement would support.
E
new products that at first appear to be unique are sometimes simply variations of other products
The author doesn’t say this. It’s also not relevant to the argument, because these products never seemed unique to begin with.
Nakai: We should keep the current system for as long as we can. The cost in time and money of converting to the new system would be greater than any predicted benefits.
Speaker 1 Summary
Naima concludes that we should try to accomplish the conversion to the new computer system as soon as possible. This is because the new system, once fully implemented, will be more smooth and efficient than the current system.
Speaker 2 Summary
Nakai thinks we should keep the current system for as long as possible. This is because the costs of converting to the new system would be greater than any benefits from the new system.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether and how quickly we should change to the new system. Naima thinks we should change as quickly as possible. Nakai prefers not to change to the new system, and if we have to change, to do hold off on the change as long as possible.
A
the predicted benefits of the new computer system will be realized
Nakai doesn’t express an opinion. He believes the costs of switching to the new system will be greater than “any” predicted benefits. This doesn’t imply he thinks the benefits will occur. Only that if they occur, they’ll still be lower than the costs of changing to the system.
B
it is essential to have the best computer system available
The speakers either agree or have no opinion. Neither speaker discusses whether either the current or the new systems are the “best” available. But, arguably both speakers want the best; they disagree about which system is the best.
C
accomplishing the conversion is technically impossible
The speakers likely share the same opinion. Naima thinks the conversion is possible, since she advocates for switching. Nakai doesn’t directly say the conversion is possible, but arguably implies that it’s possible because he only complains about the cost of doing the conversion.
D
the current computer system does not work well enough to do what it is supposed to do
Naima doesn’t express an opinion. She thinks we should convert as soon as possible, and that the new system will be more smooth and efficient. That doesn’t mean she thinks the current system can’t do what it’s supposed to do.
E
the conversion to a new computer system should be delayed
This is a point of disagreement. Naima thinks the conversion should not be delayed. Nakai thinks it should be delayed.
Summarize Argument
The anthropologist claims that she didn’t commit fraud. This is because her test results were invalid after being accidentally exposed to an acidic solution.
Notable Assumptions
The anthropologist assumes exposure to an acidic solution rendered the test results invalid. She also assumes that she was not obliged to report these results in any form.
A
The anthropologist had evidence from field work that the medicinal powder was typically prepared using toxin T.
The anthropologist isn’t arguing about T. She’s arguing about whether she committed fraud by not revealing the test results.
B
The activity level of toxin T tends to decline if the powder is stored for a long time.
Like (A), the anthropologist isn’t arguing about T. She’s arguing about whether she committed fraud by not revealing the test results.
C
When it is put into an acidic solution, toxin T becomes undetectable.
The acidic solution totally compromises any experiment involving the toxin T. Thus, the test results truly were invalid.
D
A fresh batch of powder for a repeat analysis was available at the time of the test.
This seems to harm the anthropologist’s argument. She could’ve repeated the test but chose not to, presumably because she was worried about the disconfirming results.
E
The type of analysis used was insensitive to very small amounts of toxin T.
The test used a significant amount of toxin T.
Summary
People are generally better at finding mistakes in others’ work than in their own. So, one should always have their work checked by someone else.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
One should always have someone check their work because it is easier to spot mistakes in work that is not their own.
A
The best elementary school math teachers are not those for whom math was always easy. Teachers who had to struggle through math themselves are better able to explain math to students.
There is no mention of someone checking someone else’s work.
B
One must make a special effort to clearly explain one’s views to someone else; people normally find it easier to understand their own views than to understand others’ views.
Although someone expresses their “view” to someone else, there is no mention that it is “checked” or vetted in any way.
C
Juries composed of legal novices, rather than panels of lawyers, should be the final arbiters in legal proceedings. People who are not legal experts are in a better position to detect good legal arguments by lawyers than are other lawyers.
This is close, but still not correct. Nobody checks the jury’s work for review.
D
People should always have their writing proofread by someone else. Someone who does not know in advance what is meant to be said is in a better position to spot typographical errors.
This is an accurate illustration of the principle. Someone’s writing (work) is checked by someone else. And this is done because other people can more easily spot mistakes.
E
Two people going out for dinner will have a more enjoyable meal if they order for each other. By allowing someone else to choose, one opens oneself up to new and exciting dining experiences.
There is no “checking for mistakes” here. Also, the following sentence is completely unrelated to the principle in the stimulus.