Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if you want to protect your dog from arthritis, you should not neuter your dog until it is full-grown. This is based on the fact that when dogs are neutered in early puppyhood, their leg bones don’t develop properly, and improper bone development can lead to arthritis problems in dogs as they get older.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author’s premises establish that neutering during early puppyhood can lead to arthritis problems. But the author never establishes that neutering during later times during puppyhood, before the dog is full-grown, can lead to arthritis problems. The author assumes a false dichotomy between early puppyhood and full-grown.
A
It fails to state exactly what percentage of dogs neutered in early puppyhood experience improper bone development.
The argument does not need to state the exact percentage. We accept as a premise that neutering in early puppyhood usually leads to improper leg bone development, and that this leads to arthritis problems.
B
It fails to explain the connection between improper bone development and arthritis.
The argument does not need to explain the connection. We accept as a premise that improper bone development leads to problems with arthritis. The exact causal mechanism does not need to be explained in order for us to accept this premise.
C
It fails to address the effects of neutering in middle or late puppyhood.
The author fails to show that neutering in middle or late puppyhood would lead to arthritis problems. Thus, the author hasn’t proven that we should wait until a dog is full-grown in order to neuter if we want to protect a dog from arthritis.
D
It fails to consider the possibility that the benefits of neutering a dog early might outweigh the risk of arthritis.
The author does not conclude that we should not neuter a dog early. The conclusion is conditioned on our desiring to protect a dog from arthritis. If we don’t find that to be important, then the author doesn’t express a view on whether we should neuter in early puppyhood.
E
It fails to consider the possibility that dogs with properly developed bones can develop arthritis.
The author never assumes that dogs with proper bone development never get arthritis. The author believes a dog will be less likely to get arthritis if it’s not neutered early, but that doesn’t mean the author believes it’s impossible for such a dog to get arthritis.
Political scientist: One of the most interesting dilemmas in contemporary democratic politics concerns the regulation of political campaign spending. People certainly should be free, within broad limits, to spend their money as they choose. On the other hand, candidates who can vastly outspend all rivals have an unfair advantage in publicizing their platforms. Democratic governments have a strong obligation to ensure that all voices have an equal chance to be heard, but governments should not subsidize expensive campaigns for each candidate. The resolution of the dilemma, therefore, is clear: _______.
Summary
The political scientist tells us about a dilemma regarding campaign spending. People should generally get to spend their money freely, but it’s also unfair that some candidates are able to far outspend others. The government should ensure that all candidates’ voices have a more equal chance to be heard. However, the government should not subsidize everyone’s expensive election campaigns.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
One strongly supported conclusion is that the government should intervene rather than allowing the unfair status quo to continue. Another is that the government should level the playing field by limiting campaign spending, which wouldn’t require subsidies.
A
only candidates with significant campaign resources should be permitted to run for public office
This is anti-supported. The political scientist says that the government should allow all voices an equal chance, and banning candidates who don’t have lots of money would do the opposite.
B
an upper limit on the political campaign spending of each candidate is warranted
This is strongly supported by the stimulus. The political scientist tells us that campaign finance discrepancies are unfair, and the government should ensure more equality. However, we shouldn’t subsidize campaigns, so the remaining option is spending limits.
C
government subsidization of all political campaigns at a low percentage of their total cost is warranted
This is anti-supported by the stimulus. The political scientist thinks that we should reduce the unfair spending advantage of some candidates over others, and paying for an equal portion of all campaigns would leave everyone just as unequal as ever.
D
all wealthy persons should be prohibited from spending their own money on political campaigns
This is anti-supported. The political scientist claims that in general, people should be allowed to spend their money freely, with only certain “broad” limits. An extreme limitation like this would be totally at odds with that principle.
E
each candidate should be allowed to spend as much money on a political campaign as any other candidate chooses to spend
This claim is anti-supported. The political scientist’s point is that allowing total freedom in campaign spending results in an unfair advantage for some candidates, which we should be trying to fix, not allowing to go ahead.
Summary
Revolutionary political parties that oppose the dominant party’s reign and ideology always produce groups that are as different from each other as these groups are different from the dominant party. Even though these groups ignore each other’s differences, these differences are eventually revealed upon victory.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Therefore, a winning revolutionary group must address the differences between the other revolutionary groups if that group wants to stay in power.
A
no victorious insurgent party ever manages to stay in power for as long as the party it displaces did
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus the timeline for any political party to stay in power. To say that no revolutionary party that wins ever stays in power for as long as the displaced party is too strong.
B
a victorious insurgent party must address the disagreements between its factions if it is to stay in power
This answer is strongly supported. If these group’s differences aren’t addressed, then it is probable that the remaining groups will band together to dethrone the new dominant party.
C
the heretofore insurgent party will not always promulgate a new ideology to justify its own policies, once it is victorious
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether or not the winning revolutionary party will promote a new ideology. We only know that the ideologies in these parties differ from the party in power, not necessary that these ideologies are “new.”
D
a victorious insurgent party always faces opposition from the party it recently ousted
This answer is unsupported. Whether the revolutionary party will face opposition from the party it dethrones is an assumption that we don’t know will “always” be true.
E
it is impossible for the different factions of a victorious insurgent party to effect the compromises necessary to keep the new party in power
This answer is unsupported. It is too strong to say that agreement among the different revolutionary groups is “impossible.”
Council member Q: To think that there is a lot of pollution based on the discovery of a serious single instance of pollution is simply an application of the widely accepted principle that actions tend to follow the path of least resistance, and it is surely easier to pollute than not to pollute.
Speaker 1 Summary
P supports an unstated conclusion that alarmists do not have sufficient support to conclude that pollution is a major character fault of society. By explaining that alarmists fail to distinguish polluting behavior from people’s tendency not to pollute, P implies that a societal character flaw of pollution does not follow from specific instances of pollution.
Speaker 2 Summary
Q indicates an unstated conclusion that alarmists’ claim is reasonably supported. Q supports this by explaining that actions generally follow the path of least resistance, and it is easier to pollute than not to pollute. This implies that a single incident of pollution is good evidence that more people will be doing the easy thing and polluting.
Objective
We need to find a disagreement. P and Q disagree about whether or not pollution indicates that people generally tend to pollute.
A
pollution should be considered a problem
Neither speaker directly claims that pollution should or shouldn’t be considered a problem. Both P and Q’s arguments are consistent with the idea that pollution is problematic; the dispute is about how widespread we should believe pollution is, not whether it’s a problem.
B
actions tend to follow the path of least resistance
Q makes this claim, but P never disagrees. In fact, P does not express any opinion about whether actions tend to follow the path of least resistance or some other path.
C
people are responsible for pollution
D
people can change their behavior and not pollute
Neither speaker talks about whether polluters can or cannot change their behavior. The discussion focuses on how widespread pollution might be based on available evidence, not the next steps to limit pollution.
E
people are inclined to pollute
P disagrees with this and Q agrees, making this the point of disagreement. P explicitly states that people have a disposition not to pollute. Q claims that actions follow the path of least resistance, which is to pollute, thus implying that people tend to pollute.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that dramatic changes, such as switching to a vegetarian diet, may be necessary for people to reduce their cholesterol levels. As support, the author says that moderate dietary changes are often unsuccessful in lowering cholesterol levels.
Identify Argument Part
The statement in question stem provides support for the conclusion that dramatic changes may be necessary by eliminating the option to take a more moderate path.
A
It is presented to counter doctors’ suggestions that cholesterol levels can be reduced through dietary changes.
The doctors’ recommendations do not specify moderate or dramatic changes, so the claim that moderate changes are often unsuccessful cannot be said to counter the doctors’ suggestions.
B
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that vegetarian diets are more healthful than any diets containing meat.
The argument does not claim that vegetarian diets are more healthful in general; the scope of the argument is limited to cholesterol levels.
C
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that reducing cholesterol levels may require greater than moderate dietary changes.
The statement in the question stem is a premise that supports the claim that dramatic changes may be necessary, because moderate changes often are not enough.
D
It is offered as an explanation of the success of vegetarian diets in reducing cholesterol levels.
The statement in the question stem does not explain why vegetarian diets can be successful; it just demonstrates that moderate dietary changes may not be enough to cause lower cholesterol levels.
E
It is a conclusion for which the claim that dramatic changes in one’s diet are sometimes required to reduce cholesterol levels is offered as support.
(E) mixes up the support relationship; the claim in the question stem is a premise, and the conclusion is the claim that dramatic changes may be needed.
Summarize Argument
Barr concludes that tea is not more popular now than in previous years. As support, he references the fact that the Survey Group, a neutral polling company, found no change in the amount of tea sold over the past 20 years.
Notable Assumptions
Barr assumes that the survey conducted by the Survey Group was conducted with a representative sample that was large enough to produce generalizable results. Barr also assumes that the survey was high quality, and not conducted in a way that would bias the results.
A
The National Tea Association has announced that it plans to carry out its own retail survey in the next year.
The fact that the National Tea Association plans to do its own study does nothing to cast doubt on the validity of the Survey Group’s study; this is irrelevant to Barr’s argument.
B
A survey by an unrelated polling organization shows that the public is generally receptive to the idea of trying new types of tea.
Barr’s argument is about whether or not tea is more popular; the public’s willingness to try new types of tea is irrelevant to how popular tea is in general.
C
The Survey Group is funded by a consortium of consumer advocacy groups.
(C) doesn’t provide any information about how the survey was actually conducted, so it doesn’t weaken the argument.
D
The stores from which the Survey Group collected information about tea sales are all located in the same small region of the country.
This weakens the argument because it shows that the survey wasn’t representative. If all of the stores were from the same small region of the country, then we can only make a conclusion about that specific region; we can’t make broad, generalized conclusions.
E
Tea has been the subject of an expensive and efficient advertising campaign funded, in part, by the National Tea Association.
The argument is about whether or not tea is more popular now; we don’t care about factors that could have impacted the popularity of tea.