"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did most of the healthy warblers transplanted to the neighboring island maintain a pattern of cooperative breeding when the neighboring island was much larger than Seychelles?
Objective
The correct answer must address something about the nature of the transplanted warblers or environmental factors affecting the warblers that help explain why most of the warblers maintained a pattern of cooperative breeding.
A
Many of the Seychelles warblers that were transplanted to the neighboring island had not yet reached breeding age.
Regardless of how many of the warblers had reached breeding age, we know the majority of the healthy warblers transplanted to the island maintained a pattern of cooperative breeding. (A) doesn’t help explain this phenomenon.
B
The climate of the island to which Seychelles warblers were transplanted was the same as that of the warblers’ native island.
We don’t know if climate affects warblers’ breeding habits. (B) gives us information that doesn’t aid our understanding of the phenomenon in the stimulus.
C
Most of the terrain on the neighboring island was not of the type in which Seychelles warblers generally build their nests.
This identifies an environmental factor on the neighboring island that could affect warbler breeding habits. If most of the terrain on the new island was not of the type warblers typically use for their nests, it may have caused many to maintain a pattern of cooperative breeding.
D
Cooperative breeding in species other than the Seychelles warbler often results when the environment cannot sustain a rise in the population.
We don’t know if the cooperative breeding habits of other species are indicative of the breeding habits of Seychelles warblers. (D) is irrelevant.
E
The Seychelles warblers had fewer competitors for nesting territory on the island to which they were transplanted than on their native island.
This may compound the phenomenon, as less competition for nesting could provide warblers with more space to raise offspring. The transplanted warblers having fewer nesting competitors isn’t an explanation for why many of those warblers maintained a cooperative breeding pattern.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author recommends that we make available to middle-level managers a time management training seminar in order to improve their productivity. This is based on a report by consultants that the most efficient managers have excellent time management skills.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that excellent time management skills is the cause of the most efficient managers’ level of efficiency. The author assumes that there isn’t some other explanation for the association between efficiency and time management skills observed in managers.
A
The consultants use the same criteria to evaluate managers’ efficiency as they do to evaluate their time management skills.
(A) suggests that the purported correlation between efficiency and time management among managers doesn’t actually measure a meaningful relationship. The consultants aren’t measuring the connection between two different qualities.
B
Successful time management is more dependent on motivation than on good technique.
This provides a reason to think a seminar training managers on time management techniques is less likely to be successful.
C
Most managers at other companies who have attended time management seminars are still unproductive.
This provides a reason to think attendance at time management seminars is less likely to have a significant impact on productivity.
D
Most managers who are already efficient do not need to improve their productivity.
The author recommends that we make a seminar available. If some managers don’t need it, they don’t have to attend. (D) doesn’t provide a reason to think the seminars might not be effective, nor does it criticize the reported association between efficiency and time management.
E
Most managers who are efficient have never attended a time management seminar.
This provides a reason to think time management training seminars are not going to be as helpful as the author believes.
The advertisement says that the Country Classic is the preferable car in its class for safety-conscious consumers. This is because it has an antilock braking system that includes TrackAid. These safety features help when hard braking and driving on slippery sufaces, respectively.
Notable Assumptions
The advertisement says that having TrackAid in addition to an antilock braking system makes Country Classic safer than other cars in its class—by saying this, it implies that other cars lack alternatives to TrackAid that equally increase safety.
A
All of the cars that are in the same class as the Country Classic offer some kind of antilock braking system.
This does not affect the advertisement. The advertisement does not claim that others cars lack an antilock braking system—it claims that other cars lack an antilock braking system that includes TrackAid.
B
Most kinds of cars that are in the same class as the Country Classic are manufactured by the same company that manufactures the Country Classic.
This does not affect the advertisement. The same company can manufacture cars with different features and systems.
C
Without an antilock braking system, the wheels of the Country Classic and other cars in its class are more likely to lock up during hard braking than they are to spin on slippery surfaces.
This does not affect the advertisement. It discusses cars that lack an antilock braking system, whereas we know that the Country Classic does have this feature, which is part of what purportedly makes it safer than other cars.
D
Other cars in the same class as the Country Classic offer an antilock braking system that uses a method other than TrackAid to prevent rear wheels from spinning on slippery surfaces.
This weakens the advertisement. It attacks its assumption that TrackAid is the only way to prevent rear wheels from spinning on slippery surfaces: if other cars have an equally safe alternative method of prevention, they could be just as safe as the Country Classic.
E
The Country Classic is more expensive than any other car in its class.
This does not affect the advertisement, which discusses safety, not price.
A
takes for granted that because one event precedes another the former must be the cause of the latter
The author’s premises explicitly state that heavy rainfall in April and May can cause an increased risk of encephalitis. So she isn’t assuming a causal relationship where none exists.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that a certain outcome would be desirable
Presumably encephalitis is an undesirable outcome, but regardless, the author never makes any claims or assumptions about whether a certain outcome would be desirable. She just argues that people can’t affect that outcome.
C
ignores the possibility that a certain type of outcome is dependent on more than one factor
The author ignores the possibility that the threat of encephalitis is dependent on more than just heavy rainfall. Perhaps people can still decrease the threat of encephalitis by controlling other factors, like wearing bug spray, even though they can’t control the weather.
D
takes for granted that a threat that is aggravated by certain factors could not occur in the absence of those factors
The author never assumes that encephalitis could not occur without heavy rainfall in April and May. She just argues that heavy rainfall leads to more mosquitoes, which increases the threat of encephalitis.
E
draws a conclusion about what is possible from a premise about what is actually the case
The author does draw a conclusion about what’s possible— that it’s impossible for people to decrease the threat of encephalitis— from premises about what is actually the case. But the flaw is that she fails to address other factors that can also affect the threat of encephalitis.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
If people are following a leader, they are convinced that their efforts are necessary for the accomplishment.
If people are following a leader, they are convinced that their efforts will actually achieve the accomplishment.
A
Some leaders who convince their followers of the necessity of their efforts in achieving a goal fail, nevertheless, to lead them to the attainment of that goal.
This could be true. What matters is that people are convinced that their efforts will achieve the goal, not whether or not the goal is actually achieved.
B
One who succeeds in conveying to one’s followers the relationship between their efforts and the attainment of a collective goal succeeds in leading these people to this goal.
This could be true. (B) tells us that if we succeed in conveying the relationship between people’s efforts and attainment of the goal, then we will succeed in leading them to the goal. Like for (A), nothing in the stimulus contradicts any claims about actually achieving goals.
C
Only if one is a leader must one convince people of the necessity of their efforts for the attainment of a collective goal.
Could be true. (C) says that if you convince people of the necessity of their efforts, then you are a leader. The stimulus gives necessary conditions for when leaders are followed; (C) gives a sufficient condition for being a leader, which isn’t inconsistent with the stimulus.
D
Sometimes people succeed in achieving a collective goal without ever having been convinced that by trying to do so they would succeed.
This could be true. The stimulus gives two necessary conditions for following a leader; the information in (D) that people can succeed without having been convinced that they could succeed is independent of the information in the stimulus.
E
Sometimes people who remain unsure of whether their efforts are needed for the attainment of a collective goal nevertheless follow a leader.
This must be false. As shown below, (E) meets the sufficient condition of “follow leader” but fails the necessary condition of “efforts necessary,” which contradicts the stimulus.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The author is attempting to provide an explanation for Mozart’s death. He hypothesizes that it involved the recently detected fracture in his skill. Why should we believe this explanation? The crack could easily tear veins in the brain, causing blood to leak and dry in the brain, damaging brain function. This process commonly leads to death, but not immediately. Therefore, the partial healing of the fracture supports this explanation.
Identify Argument Part
This is evidence that supports the author’s explanation of Mozart’s death. The stimulus tells us that the skull fracture would lead to death on a delay. Therefore, the partial healing shows there was time between when the fracture occurred and Mozart’s later death. This makes the author’s explanation more plausible by giving us information about when the fracture occurred.
A
It shows that Mozart’s death could have been avoided.
This is not the point of the argument - the argument is trying to provide an explanation for Mozart’s death. No claims are made about whether it could have been avoided.
B
It shows that the fracture did not occur after Mozart’s death.
We know this supports the argument by providing information about when the fracture occurred: sometime prior to Mozart’s death. Therefore, it does let us know that it did not occur after his death, which would have been a problem, since then it could not be the cause.
C
It shows that the dried blood impaired Mozart’s brain’s faculties.
The fact that the fracture was healing does not give us information about Mozart’s faculties. It only gives us information about when the fracture occurred.
D
It shows that Mozart’s death occurred suddenly.
The opposite is true - the author tells us that death caused by this fracture is delayed. By placing the fracture sometime before his death, it makes the delayed cause of mortality more likely.
E
It suggests that Mozart’s death was accidental.
There is no support for the author’s claim that the crack was likely due to an accident - that is just context about where a crack would come from. The healing supports the fracture hypothesis, not whether it was accidental.
Summary
During the Industrial Revolution, employers utilized newly invented machines to replace many unskilled workers with just a few skilled workers to save money. Today, managers are looking for new technologies to replace highly paid skilled workers with fewer less-skilled workers.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Employers can use technology to save money.
Employers during the Industrial Revolution and in the present day share similar qualities.
Employers during the Industrial Revolution and in the present day share similar qualities.
A
Employers utilize new technology because it allows them to reduce labor costs.
The stimulus says that past employers used technology to replace many low-skill workers because it was “economically attractive.” And today’s managers seek technology to reduce labor costs.
B
Workers will need to acquire more education and skills to remain competitive in the labor market.
This is too broad to support. While the stimulus mentions that some low-skilled workers were fired in the Industrial Revolution, there is no support that they will need these qualities to stay competitive.
C
In seeking employment, highly skilled workers no longer have an advantage over less-skilled workers.
This is too broad to support. The stimulus only suggests that technology is sought to reduce the highly skilled workers needed, not that they no longer have an advantage. That could still be true.
D
Technology eliminates many jobs but also creates just as many jobs.
This is (at worst) anti-supported. Both examples show how technology is utilized to eliminate jobs so managers can hire fewer people.
E
Whereas technological innovations were once concentrated in heavy industry, they now affect all industries.
This is too strong to support. There is no indication that technological innovations were only heavily present in heavy industry. This is an assumption you have to make. There is also no support for their impact on all industries now.