Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that early humans could appreciate aesthetics. This is shown by the phenomenon that early humans often polished stones more than was needed for hunting purposes.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the only reason early humans would polish flints beyond what was necessary for hunting is to appreciate the aesthetics of the highly polished stones. The author further assumes that there are no other explanations for this degree of polishing.
A
Most flints used by our cave-dwelling ancestors were not highly polished.
This does not affect the argument. The premise states that “many” of the early humans’ flints were highly polished; most of them not being highly polished is compatible with the argument.
B
The caves in which the highly polished flints were found are unadorned by cave paintings.
This does not affect the argument. A lack of cave paintings does not undermine the idea that early humans possessed an aesthetic sense—perhaps they appreciated the aesthetics of highly polished flints but did not care for the aesthetics of cave paintings.
C
There is evidence that these highly polished flints were used for display in religious ceremonies.
This strengthens the argument. If the purpose of the highly polished flints was for display in religious ceremonies, early humans must have had an aesthetic sense that motivated them to polish the flints for this purpose.
D
Flints were often used by early humans for everyday chores other than hunting.
This weakens the argument by offering an alternative explanation for the described phenomenon. The highly polished flints—while not necessary for hunting—could have been used in everyday chores. This explanation gives no reason to suggest that early humans had an aesthetic sense.
E
Any benefits that an aesthetic sense would have given to cave-dwelling humans are poorly understood.
This does not affect the argument. Our poor understanding of the benefits early humans could have derived from an aesthetic sense does not undermine the assertion that they may nevertheless have possessed an aesthetic sense.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do smokers who smoke one pack a day have identical levels of nicotine in their blod at the end of the day regardless of whether they smoke a pack of high-nicotine cigarettes or low-nicotine cigarettes?
Objective
The correct answer should give us a reason that the difference between high-nicotine packs and low-nicotine packs might not lead to a difference in nicotine levels in blood at the end of the day for smokers who smoke one pack.
A
Blood cannot absorb more nicotine per day than that found in the smoke from a package of the lowest-nicotine cigarettes available.
This establishes a ceiling for nicotine in one’s blood and that low-nicotine packs already lead to nicotine levels at that ceiling. High-nicotine packs have more nicotine, but won’t go above the ceiling of nicotine levels in people’s blood.
B
Smokers of the lowest-nicotine cigarettes available generally smoke more cigarettes per day than smokers of high-nicotine cigarettes.
The statistic in the stimulus involves smokers who smoke just one pack a day. This controls for varying amounts of cigarettes.
C
Most nicotine is absorbed into the blood of a smoker even if it is delivered in smaller quantities.
Even if this is true, if low-nicotine packs have less nicotine overall, we would still expect less nicotine in their blood.
D
The level of tar in cigarettes is higher in low-nicotine cigarettes than it is in some high-nicotine cigarettes.
We have no reason to suspect the level of tar in cigarettes impacts the level of nicotine in one’s blood.
E
When taking in nicotine by smoking cigarettes is discontinued, the level of nicotine in the blood decreases steadily.
We’re concerned about nicotine levels after smoking. What happens to nicotine when people stop smoking doesn’t help explain the identical nicotine levels observed after smoking.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Bardis concludes that television does not cause people to be violent. He supports this by drawing a distinction between shows with violent imagery and commercials, saying that commercials are intended to persuade people to buy a product whereas violent shows are not intended to persuade anyone to be violent.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Bardis’s reasoning is flawed because he only attempts to refute one point made by the opposing side without offering any actual support for his own conclusion. He challenges the claim that violence on TV is analogous to commercials, arguing that they’re not comparable. However, even if he’s successfully refuted that point, he still hasn’t actually answered the question: does violent imagery on TV lead to violence or not? There’s no support for his claim that it doesn’t.
A
relies on an illegitimate inference from the fact that advertisements can change behavior to the claim that advertisements can cause violent behavior
Bardis never claims that advertisements can cause violent behavior. His conclusion is that violent imagery on TV does not cause violent behavior.
B
fails to distinguish a type of behavior from a type of stimulus that may or may not affect behavior
Bardis does in fact distinguish between a type of behavior (violence) and a type of stimulus (violent imagery) since his conclusion is that televised violent imagery does not cause violence.
C
undermines its own position by questioning the persuasive power of television advertising
Bardis does not question the persuasive power of advertising. He acknowledges that commercials cause certain behaviors, but distinguishes those commercials from media with violent imagery.
D
concludes that a claim is false on the basis of one purported fault in an argument in favor of that claim
This describes how Bardis responds to an argument that compares commercials to violent media, but offers no support for his claim that there’s no causal relationship between violent imagery and violent behavior.
E
fails to consider the possibility that the argument it disputes is intended to address a separate issue
The argument addressed by Bardis claims that violent imagery sometimes causes violent behavior, so it’s concerned with the same issue. Regardless, the problem is that there’s no support for Bardis’s conclusion that violent imagery does not cause violence.
Summary
The stimulus says that decentralization allows different parts of a large institution to function autonomously. Autonomous functioning means that the same people are making decisions and implementing policies, which in turn allows more realistic planning and encourages innovation. Finally, decentralization lets the institution’s administrators focus on big-picture issues instead of daily operations.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The stimulus supports these conclusions:
An institution whose divisions cannot function autonomously is not decentralized.
In institutions whose divisions do not function autonomously, planning is not always as realistic as possible.
If an institution’s central administrators are not able to focus on big-picture issues instead of daily operations, then the institution is not decentralized.
An institution whose divisions cannot function autonomously is not decentralized.
In institutions whose divisions do not function autonomously, planning is not always as realistic as possible.
If an institution’s central administrators are not able to focus on big-picture issues instead of daily operations, then the institution is not decentralized.
A
In large institutions whose divisions do not function autonomously, planning is not maximally realistic.
This is strongly supported. Based on the facts, when divisions function autonomously, planning becomes more realistic. That means that institutions without autonomous divisions could improve how realistically they plan—in other words, planning is not maximally realistic.
B
Innovation is not always encouraged in large centralized institutions.
This is not supported. Sure, decentralization encourages innovation, but that doesn’t mean that centralized institutions don’t encourage innovation. Maybe every type of institutional structure encourages innovation! We don’t know.
C
For large institutions the advantages of decentralization outweigh its disadvantages.
This is not supported. The stimulus discusses some advantages of decentralization, but we never learn about disadvantages at all. That means we can’t compare whether the advantages or disadvantages are more significant.
D
The central administrations of large institutions are usually partially responsible for most of the details of daily operations.
This is not supported. We know that decentralization allows administrators to not worry about daily operations, but that doesn’t tell us anything about how operations are usually managed. We don’t even know if most large institutions are decentralized or not!
E
The people directly involved in implementing policies are always able to make innovative and realistic policy decisions.
This is not supported. Based on the facts, this style of decision-making and implementation leads to more realistic planning and more innovation. But “more” is a comparison, not an absolute judgement. Even if planning gets more realistic, it might still be not very realistic.
Summary
The author concludes that there is no consistent causal link between major meteor impacts and mass extinctions. This is the based on the following:
Many extinctions didn’t follow major meteor impacts.
Many major meteor impacts were not followed by mass extinctions.
Many extinctions didn’t follow major meteor impacts.
Many major meteor impacts were not followed by mass extinctions.
Missing Connection
The premises don’t establish what implies that there’s “no consistent causal link” between major meteor impacts and mass extinctions. Although we know that many extinctions didn’t follow such impacts, and that many impacts weren’t followed by such extinctions, how do we know that this isn’t a consistent causal link?
We want to establish that if many extinctions didn’t follow major meteor impacts or if many major meteor impacts were not followed by mass extinctions, then this proves there’s no consistent causal link between such impacts and such extinctions.
We want to establish that if many extinctions didn’t follow major meteor impacts or if many major meteor impacts were not followed by mass extinctions, then this proves there’s no consistent causal link between such impacts and such extinctions.
A
If there were a consistent causal link between major meteor impacts and mass extinctions, then all major meteor impacts would be followed by mass extinctions.
(A) establishes that in order for there to be a consistent causal link between the impacts and mass extinctions, then ALL major meteor impacts would be followed by such extinctions. We know from one of our premises that many major meteor impacts were NOT followed by such extinctions. This triggers the contrapositive of (A), which would establish that there is NO consistent causal link.
B
Major meteor impacts and mass extinctions cannot be consistently causally linked unless many mass extinctions have followed major meteor impacts.
(B) establishes that in order for there to be a consistent causal link, it’s required that many mass extinctions have followed major meteor impacts. But we don’t know that this requirement hasn’t been met. Although we do know that many mass extinctions have followed major meteor impacts, it’s still possible that many such extinctions have followed such impacts.
C
Of the mass extinctions that did not follow any known major meteor impacts, few if any followed major meteor impacts of which the geological record contains no hints.
(C) doesn’t establish what is required for a “consistent causal link” between extinctions and meteor impacts, so it can’t make the argument valid.
D
If there is no consistent causal link between major meteor impacts and mass extinctions, then not all mass extinctions could have followed major meteor impacts.
(D) establishes what would be true IF there is no consistent causal link. But we’re trying to reach the conclusion that there is no consistent causal link. We don’t want “no consistent causal link” to appear in the “IF” part of an “If, then” answer. We want it to appear in the “then” part.
E
There could be a consistent causal link between major meteor impacts and mass extinctions even if not every major meteor impact has been followed by a mass extinction.
(E) tells us about one circumstance under which there can be a consistent causal link. But we’re trying to prove that there’s NO consistent causal link.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that dioxin released from paper mills is unlikely to be the cause of reproductive abnormalities in fish immediately downstream of the mills. This is because when the mills shut down, the fish recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly, even though dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment (which suggests the dioxin didn’t just disappear quickly from the area).
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the dioxin is still present around the fish immediately downstream of the paper mill during the mill shutdowns. This is why the author thinks the quick recovery of the fish shows that dioxin isn’t likely to be the cause of the fish’s problems. The author also assumes that the reproductive abnormalities in the fish are caused by abnormal hormone concentrations.
A
Some of the studies that show that fish recover quickly during shutdowns were funded by paper manufacturers.
Whoever funded the studies doesn’t change anything about what the studies found. We have no reason to think the source of funding affected how the study was done in a way that would lead us to question the results.
B
The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies depending on the conditions to which it is exposed.
A premise already establishes that dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment. Although the rate might not be exactly the same in all environments, we still know it decomposes very slowly. So, (B) doesn’t suggest that the dioxin might have decomposed quickly.
C
Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in the river far downstream in a few hours.
This shows dioxin might not be around the fish anymore during a shutdown. This is why the recovery of the fish during a shutdown does not constitute strong evidence that dioxin isn’t the cause. If dioxin isn’t around the fish at these times, that might be the reason fish recover.
D
Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from the physiological changes that were induced by the changes in hormone concentrations.
One assumption is that the reproductive abnormalities are caused by hormone concentrations. Even if we interpret “physiological changes” as including reproductive abnormalities (which is not clear), this affirms a link between hormones and reproductive abnormalities.
E
The connection between hormone concentrations and reproductive abnormalities is not thoroughly understood.
The fact the connection is not thoroughly understood does not undermine the assumption that hormone concentrations cause reproductive abnormalities. The issue is not how well we understand the relationship; it’s about whether there exists a causal relationship.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why are researchers warning that widespread use of the antidote could be dangerous, even though it has no serious side effects and is currently effective at limiting chicken pox?
Objective
The correct answer should tell us some negative effect of widespread use of the antidote. If we don’t have any negative effect from widespread use of the antidote, it will be difficult to explain why researchers are calling its widespread use dangerous.
A
The drug is extremely expensive and would be difficult to make widely available.
The fact that the drug will be difficult to apply widely doesn’t tell me why its widespread use would be dangerous.
B
The drug has to be administered several times a day, so patient compliance is likely to be low.
Unlikelihood of patient compliance doesn’t tell us why widespread use would be dangerous. Maybe patients wouldn’t get the full benefit; that doesn’t make the antidote dangerous if widely used.
C
The drug does not prevent the spread of chicken pox from one person to another, even when the drug eventually cures the disease in the first person.
But if the drug cures the disease in an individual person, why would widespread use be dangerous? We could just cure the disease in many individual people with widespread use.
D
When misused by taking larger-than-prescribed doses, the drug can be fatal.
Risk of overdose is present even when use isn’t widespread. There’s no reason widespread use would increase any particular individual’s chance of an overdose.
E
Use of the drug contributes to the development of deadlier forms of chicken pox that are resistant to the drug.
As the drug is used by and more people, the risk of more resistant, deadlier forms of chicken pox becomes greater. This helps connect how widely the antidote is used with danger, unlike (D).