Ben: No, Azadeh, if you interviewed people who buy organic produce, you’d see that they’re actually as selfish as everyone else, since they’re motivated only by worries about their own health.
A
it is likely that a healthy planet can be maintained if most people continue in their present eating habits
B
people can become healthier by increasing their consumption of organic foods
C
people ought to be more concerned about the environment than they currently are
D
the rise in organic food production shows people to have a greater concern for the environment than they had before
E
people can be persuaded to have a greater concern for the environment than they now have
A
The public would not be effectively protected from violent dogs by breed-specific legislation.
B
A good home environment is more important than breeding to a dog’s disposition.
C
The home environment of dogs would not be regulated by breed-specific legislation.
D
Irresponsible dog owners are capable of producing dogs with bad dispositions regardless of generations of careful breeding.
E
The vicious-dog laws that are currently in effect do not address the effects of human behavior in raising and training dogs.
Legislator: To keep our food safe, we must prohibit the use of any food additives that have been found to cause cancer.
Commentator: An absolute prohibition is excessive. Today’s tests can detect a single molecule of potentially cancer-causing substances, but we know that consuming significantly larger amounts of such a chemical does not increase one’s risk of getting cancer. Thus, we should instead set a maximum acceptable level for each problematic chemical, somewhat below the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer but above zero.
Summarize Argument
The commentator concludes that there should be a maximum acceptable level for potentially cancer-causing substances in food that is above zero but below the amount shown to cause cancer. This is because an absolute prohibition, as proposed by the legislator, is excessive, as one can consume some amount of these substances without increasing their risk of cancer.
Notable Assumptions
The commentator assumes that while it may be safe to consume some amount of these substances in one food without increasing one’s risk of cancer, this risk does not increase significantly if one consumes this same amount in various foods. In the same vein, the commentator assumes that ingesting a safe amount of one problematic chemical in addition to safe amounts of other problematic chemicals does not significantly increase one’s cancer risk.
A
The level at which a given food additive has been shown to lead to cancer in children is generally about half the level at which it leads to cancer in adults.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. There is no reason to believe that the commentator’s suggested maximum acceptable levels for each substance do not account for children’s tolerance as well as that of adults.
B
Consuming small amounts of several different cancer-causing chemicals can lead to cancer even if consuming such an amount of any one cancer-causing chemical would not.
This weakens the commentator’s argument. It exploits the commentator’s assumption that the risk of cancer does not substantially increase when a safe amount of one problematic chemical is consumed in addition to a safe amount of another problematic chemical.
C
The law would prohibit only the deliberate addition of cancer-causing chemicals and would not require the removal of naturally occurring cancer-causing substances.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument, which discusses how chemicals should be regulated, not which chemicals should be regulated. If only some chemicals are covered, the commentator would just argue that acceptable limits should be set instead of complete prohibitions.
D
For some food additives, the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer is lower than the level at which the additive provides any benefit.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. The commentator does not compare the risk of cancer posed by additives to the potential benefit one derives from consuming them.
E
All food additives have substitutes that can be used in their place.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. The existence of alternatives for the additives does not offer insight into how well the commentator’s proposed approach would work for either the additives or the alternatives, especially in contrast to the legislator’s approach.
Without knowing how common this car model is, we have no way of knowing how likely it is to be stolen. What if this is simply the most popular model of car? In that case, even if it was stolen at the same rate as other models, the total number of stolen cars of this model would be higher.
A
fails to address adequately the possibility that the model of car that was stolen most often last year was the most common model of car in the consumer advocate’s country
B
fails to address adequately the possibility that the age of a car also greatly affects its chances of being stolen
C
fails to address adequately the possibility that the car model that was stolen most often last year was stolen as often as it was because it has a very high resale value
D
presumes, without providing justification, that someone considering whether or not to steal a particular car considers only what model the car is
E
presumes, without providing justification, that the likelihood of a car’s being stolen should override other considerations in deciding which car one should drive
Laird: Pure research provides us with new technologies that contribute to saving lives. Even more worthwhile than this, however, is its role in expanding our knowledge and providing new, unexplored ideas.
Kim: Your priorities are mistaken. Saving lives is what counts most of all. Without pure research, medicine would not be as advanced as it is.
Speaker 1 Summary
Laird doesn’t make an argument, instead just stating the claim that pure research provides more value through expanding our knowledge than it does by helping to save lives.
Speaker 2 Summary
Kim’s argument supports the unstated conclusion that the most important contribution of pure research is in fact its medical applications. This is supported by the principle that saving lives is the most important goal, and the statement that pure research has helped to improve medicine (thereby presumably saving lives).
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Laird and Kim disagree about whether medical advancements are the most valuable result of pure research.
A
derives its significance in part from its providing new technologies
Both speakers agree with this. Laird acknowledges that new technologies are an important result of pure research, just not the most important result. Kim places even more importance on the development of medical technology.
B
expands the boundaries of our knowledge of medicine
Both speakers almost certainly agree with this. Both Laird and Kim discuss the role of pure research in advancing medicine, which strongly implies that pure research has improved our knowledge of medicine.
C
should have the saving of human lives as an important goal
Kim agrees with this, but Laird never disagrees. Laird explicitly acknowledges the importance of pure research helping to save lives—the issue is just whether that’s the most important goal.
D
has its most valuable achievements in medical applications
Laird disagrees with this but Kim agrees, so this is the point at issue. Laird thinks that the most valuable achievements of pure research are in expanding our knowledge and providing new ideas, whereas Kim states that saving lives through medical advancement is more important.
E
has any value apart from its role in providing new technologies to save lives
Laird agrees with this, but Kim never disagrees. Kim’s argument is just that saving lives is the most important result of pure research, not that pure research has no other value.
A
If IPV replaces OPV as the most commonly used polio vaccine, at least a few new cases of naturally occurring polio in North America will result each year.
B
The vast majority of cases of polio caused by OPV have occurred in children with preexisting but unsuspected immunodeficiency disorders.
C
A child’s risk of contracting polio from OPV has been estimated at 1 in 8.7 million, which is significantly less than the risk of being struck by lightning.
D
Although IPV is preferred in some European nations, most countries with comprehensive child immunization programs use OPV.
E
IPV, like most vaccines, carries a slight risk of inducing seizures in children with neurological diseases such as epilepsy.
But this overlooks the possibility that it’s the other way around: maybe being in a state of creativity is what leads to higher theta brainwaves. Or maybe a third factor—say, waking up early in the morning—both triggers a state of profound creativity and increases theta brainwaves. If either of these were true, listening to music could increase theta brainwaves without triggering a state of profound creativity.
A
takes for granted that there is a causal connection between the hippocampus and being in a state of profound creativity
B
fails to consider that music is not necessary for one to be in a state of profound creativity
C
does not rule out the possibility that listening to music by means other than a tape recording also increases theta waves
D
ignores the possibility that an increase in theta waves may not always be accompanied by a state of profound creativity
E
provides insufficient reasons to believe that people who are not in states of profound creativity have low levels of theta brain waves
In the troposphere, it gets colder as you go straight up.
At the top of the troposphere, the temperature ranges from -50 degrees Celsius (over the poles) to -85 degrees Celsius (over the equator).
Once the stratosphere begins, temperature beings to increase as you go straight up.
In the stratosphere, heat is generated when an ozone particle absorbs ultraviolet sunlight.
Any point in the stratosphere is warmer than any other point in the stratosphere directly below it.
A point in the stratosphere is equal temperature or warmer than the highest point in the troposphere directly below it.
A
The troposphere over the poles is thicker than the troposphere over the equator.
B
It is warmer at the top of the stratosphere over the poles than it is at the top of the stratosphere over the equator.
C
The temperature in the middle part of the stratosphere over the North Pole is at least as great as the temperature in the middle part of the stratosphere over the equator.
D
The temperature at any point at the top of the stratosphere is at least as great as the temperature at the top of the troposphere directly beneath that point.
E
Depletion of the earth’s ozone layer would increase the air temperature in the stratosphere and decrease the air temperature in the troposphere.
Essayist: Many people are hypocritical in that they often pretend to be more morally upright than they really are. When hypocrisy is exposed, hypocrites are embarrassed by their moral lapse, which motivates them and others to try to become better people. On the other hand, when hypocrisy persists without exposure, the belief that most people are good is fostered, which motivates most people to try to be good.
Summary
An essayist details what happens when hypocrisy is and is not exposed. When hypocrisy is exposed, hypocrites become embarrassed and try to become better people. When hypocrisy remains unexposed, people believe that most people are good, which motivates most people to be good.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Whether or not hypocrisy is exposed, some people will try to better themselves.
A
The existence of hypocrisy encourages people to believe that no one is morally blameless.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that embarrassed hypocrites try to better themselves once hypocrisy is exposed.
B
The existence of hypocrisy encourages people to make efforts to live by moral standards.
The stimulus details that some people will strive to become more morally virtuous whether hypocrisy is exposed or not. Thus, this is easily supported
C
The existence of hypocrisy in some people encourages others to fall into moral lapses.
The stimulus does not say anything about when people fall into moral lapses.
D
The hiding of hypocrisy is a better way of motivating people to try to be good than is the exposing of it.
This comparative statement does not receive enough support. The stimulus does not say one approach is better than the other.
E
There is no stronger motivator for people to try to be good than the exposing of hypocrisy.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus says that exposing hypocrisy is *a* motivator, not that it is the strongest one.