Summary
European music has had a strong influence throughout the world, and it is a sophisticated achievement.
One reason for this is that the original function of the music gradually became an aspect of its style, but didn’t define the music.
For example, dance music can stand independent of dance, and sacred music can stand independent of religion.
European music has so much internal coherence that it doesn’t depend on anything besides the music itself.
One reason for this is that the original function of the music gradually became an aspect of its style, but didn’t define the music.
For example, dance music can stand independent of dance, and sacred music can stand independent of religion.
European music has so much internal coherence that it doesn’t depend on anything besides the music itself.
Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference to draw here. I’d rely on process of elimination to identify what must be false.
A
African music has had a more powerful impact on the world than European music has had.
Could be true. We’re never told European music has had the most powerful impact on the world. So it could be true that another kind of music had a more powerful impact.
B
European military and economic expansionism partially explains the global influence of European music.
Could be true. We were told about one reason European music has been so influential. So there can be other reasons, too.
C
The original functions of many types of Chinese music are no longer their defining forces.
Could be true. Perhaps Chinese music is also influential and sophisticated because the original function of the music isn’t a defining force.
D
Music that is unintelligible when it is presented independently of its original function tends to be the most sophisticated music.
Incompatible. We were told that one of the reasons European music is sophisticated is that it can stand apart from its original function. So it doesn’t make sense for the music unable to stand apart from original function to tend to be the most sophisticated.
E
Some works of art lose their appeal when they are presented to serve a function other than their original one.
Could be true. Some works might lose their appeal when they’re presented to serve a function other than the original. European music, however, is different from these works.
Cora: To ask this question, you must be making a mistaken assumption: that typing speed was to be maximized. The real danger with early typewriters was that operators would hit successive keys too quickly, thereby crashing typebars into each other, bending connecting wires, and so on. So the idea was to slow the operator down by making the most common letter sequences awkward to type.
Bernard: This is surely not right! These technological limitations have long since vanished, yet the keyboard is still as it was then.
Summarize Argument
Bernard concludes that the standard typewriter keyboard could not have been designed to slow the typer down. This is because the technological limitations that could lead to problems from fast typing are no longer around, but the keyboard design is still the same.
Notable Assumptions
Bernard assumes that the standard keyboard would be changed to allow for faster typing once the technological limitations around when the keyboard was originally designed are no longer present. (Maybe there are strong reasons that the keyboard wouldn’t be changed, even if we don’t need to slow people down anymore.)
A
Typewriters and word-processing equipment are typically sold to people who have learned to use the standard keyboard and who, therefore, demand it in equipment they buy.
This is a reason the keyboard design wouldn’t change, even when the technological limits are no longer present. People grew up with the slower-typing design and still want it today. This is why the fact people still use the design today doesn’t undermine Cora’s explanation.
B
Typewriters have been superseded in most offices by word-processing equipment, which has inherited the standard keyboard from typewriters.
Bernard believes the fact people still use the same design shows that the design couldn’t have been intended to slow people down. (B) simply affirms that the same design is used today, which we already knew. But it doesn’t suggest why the same design is used today, unlike (A).
C
The standard keyboard allows skilled operators to achieve considerable typing speeds, though it makes acquiring such skills relatively difficult.
Pointing out that the design still allows fast typing doesn’t engage with Bernard’s reasoning. We want to show how the design could have been intended to slow people down, despite the fact we still use the design today.
D
A person who has learned one keyboard layout can readily learn to use a second one in place of the first, but only with difficulty learn to use a second one alongside the first.
This supports Bernard’s reasoning. After all, why aren’t people changing to a faster layout if we don’t need to slow people down anymore? Bernard’s suggestion is that the lack of change implies slowing people down couldn’t be the original purpose of the design.
E
It is now possible to construct typewriters and word-processing equipment in which a single keyboard can accommodate two or even more different keyboard layouts, each accessible to the operator at will.
This supports Bernard’s reasoning. If the keyboard can be changed to accommodate a different layout, then why hasn’t the keyboard changed if it was originally intended to slow people down? To Bernard, the lack of change implies the original purpose wasn’t to slow down typing.
Summary
A study in Denmark examined people’s views on banning cigarette advertising. The sample was asked similar questions ten years ago, and their answers did not change much. 31% were in favor of the ban, 24% were against it, 38% were in favor, but only for certain types of media, and 7% had no opinion.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Most of Denmark’s population supports some form of a ban on cigarette advertising.
A
People’s opinions never change very much.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that people’s views on this issue did not change very much, not that people’s opinions *never* change on everything else.
B
A minority of Denmark’s population feels that banning cigarette advertising would set a bad precedent.
There is no support for *why* the people who oppose the ban. They might just really enjoy cigarette advertisements.
C
Most of Denmark’s population is not seriously concerned about cigarette advertising.
There is information about the percentage of people who are “seriously concerned.” Also, most of the respondents were in favor of some form of ban.
D
Most of Denmark’s population favors some sort of ban on cigarette advertising.
31% + 38% = 69% (a majority) of the population. Although the 38% have some reservations about the ban’s implementation, they still support some form of the ban.
E
Most of Denmark’s population does not smoke cigarettes.
There is no information about the percentage of Denmark’s population that smokes. You must assume that if you are in favor of a ban, you do not smoke.
Summary
Organisms can be created through endosymbiosis, which is when organism A absorbs organism B, so organism B becomes part of organism A. We’ve also learned that a particular plant, “C,” contains a strange nucleomorph. Nucleomorphs are similar to cell nuclei, and contain DNA. The nucleomorph in plant C is strange because its DNA has two copies of a certain gene, which we would only expect if the nucleomorph had originally been an absorbed organism’s nucleus.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The facts above strongly support the conclusion that the nucleomorph in plant C was originally an organism that was absorbed, meaning that plant C is a product of endosymbiosis.
A
Only organisms of types that originated through endosymbiosis contain nucleomorphs.
This is not supported. The stimulus doesn’t reveal much about where nucleomorphs come from. We can infer that the nucleomorph in plant C comes from endosymbiosis based on the facts given, but that doesn’t tell us about the origins of other nucleomorphs.
B
A nucleomorph within the chlorarachniophyte holds all of the genetic material of some other organism.
This is not supported. We know that the nucleomorph in plant C contains some DNA, but we definitely don’t have enough information to say that the DNA is a full copy of another organism’s genetic material.
C
Nucleomorphs originated when an organism endosymbiotically engulfed a chlorarachniophyte.
This is anti-supported. From the facts, we know that plant C itself contains at least one nucleomorph, so it wouldn’t make sense for nucleomorphs to originate from plant C getting absorbed. For that to work, plant C would have to absorb itself, which is far-fetched.
D
Two organisms will not undergo endosymbiosis unless at least one of them contains a nucleomorph.
This is not supported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest much about the relationship between endosymbiosis and nucleomorphs. We definitely can’t say that an organism already containing a nucleomorph is necessary for endosymbiosis to occur.
E
Chlorarachniophytes emerged as the result of two organisms having undergone endosymbiosis.
This is strongly supported. The stimulus strongly implies that the nucleomorph within plant C used to be another organism that was absorbed, and we know that endosymbiosis is the name for that process. Thus, plant C probably comes from endosymbiosis.
David: Forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements for striking employees would be profoundly unfair. Such companies would have little leverage in their negotiations with strikers.
Lin: No, the companies would still have sufficient leverage in negotiations if they hired temporary replacements.
Summary
David claims that disallowing companies to hire permanent replacements for striking employees is unfair because the companies would have little leverage to negotiate with striking employees. Lin disagrees, and claims that companies would have sufficient leverage to negotiate even if they hired temporary replacements.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
David and Lin disagree about the amount of leverage companies would have if those companies were forbidden from hiring permanent replacements for striking employees.
A
David does not believe that the freedom to hire temporary replacements gives companies any leverage in their negotiations with strikers.
We don’t know whether David believes that hiring temporary replacements would result in a company not having any leverage for negotiations. We only know that, unless the companies were allowed to hired permanent replacements, David believes companies would have little leverage.
B
David and Lin believe that companies should be allowed as much leverage in negotiations as the striking employees.
We don’t know whether David or Lin believe that companies should have an equal amount of leverage compared to striking employees.
C
David and Lin disagree over the amount of leverage companies lose in their negotiations with strikers by not being able to hire permanent replacements.
David believes that companies have little leverage for negotiations if companies are forbidden from hiring permanent replacements. Lin believes that companies have sufficient leverage for negotiations even if companies hired temporary replacements.
D
David and Lin disagree over how much leverage should be accorded companies in their negotiations with strikers.
We don’t know what David or Lin believe to be an appropriate amount of leverage for companies. Rather, their disagreement is about how much leverage companies have based on the types of replacements the companies are allowed to hire.
E
Lin believes it is unfair to forbid companies from hiring permanent replacements for their striking employees.
We don’t know whether Lin believes forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements is unfair. We only know that she believes companies have sufficient leverage for negotiations even if the companies hire temporary replacements.