Summarize Argument
The author concludes that experiencing an earthquake can cause people to dream about earthquakes. This is based on a study where students in California who had experienced an earthquake later dreamed about earthquakes, while students in Ontario who hadn’t experienced an earthquake didn’t dream about earthquakes.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the students in California hadn’t dreamed about earthquakes before experiencing one. If that were the case, then the connection between experiencing an earthquake and dreaming about earthquakes would be tenuous.
A
Before the California earthquake, no more of the students in California than of those in Ontario recorded dreams about earthquakes.
Since the students in California were no more likely to dream about earthquakes before the earthquake struck, the earthquake seems to have caused the dreams. This strengthens the causal relationship.
B
The students in California were members of a class studying dreams and dream recollection, but the students in Ontario were not.
This weakens the author’s argument. Perhaps the students in Ontario didn’t remember their earthquake dreams because they hadn’t studied dream recollection.
C
Before they started keeping records of their dreams, many of the students in California had experienced at least one earthquake.
We don’t care about other earthquakes. We know that the students dreamed of earthquakes after the one that struck, and we’re trying to strengthen the causal relationship between those dreams and that earthquake.
D
The students in Ontario reported having more dreams overall, per student, than the students in California did.
We don’t care about overall dreams. We know the students in Ontario didn’t dream about earthquakes.
E
The students in Ontario who reported having dreams about earthquakes recorded the dreams as having occurred after the California earthquake.
Perhaps those students heard about the earthquake and dreamed about it. The fact remains that the vast majority of students in Ontario didn’t dream about earthquakes.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it’s surprising airports are expanding their passenger terminals. This is because air traffic volume is down, and airport expansion can only be justified by increased air traffic volume.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that airports can’t plan ahead for increased air traffic later on. If airports were simply taking the lull in air traffic as an opportunity to make expansions for later, then the author’s argument would be seriously weakened.
A
It is generally more difficult to finance major construction projects when the economy is in a period of decline.
We have no idea if the economy is currently in decline.
B
Low volume in passenger air travel permits airport expansion with relatively little inconvenience to the public.
Airports are taking the opportunity to expand without disrupting people using the airports. This explains why they’ve decided to undertake those expansions at the present moment.
C
A rise in fuel costs that is expected in the near future will drive up the cost of all forms of transportation, including airline travel.
We don’t care about transportation costs. We care about airport expansions.
D
When passenger volume begins to grow again after a period of decline, most airlines can, initially, absorb the increase without adding new routes or new planes.
Irrelevant. We care about expansions.
E
A sustained decline in passenger travel could lead to the failure of many airlines and the absorption of their routes by those airlines that survive.
Irrelevant. We care about expansions.