Linguist: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that a society’s world view is influenced by the language or languages its members speak. But this hypothesis does not have the verifiability of hypotheses of physical science, since it is not clear that the hypothesis could be tested.
Summary
According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, how a society thinks about the world is influenced by the language that society speaks. However, it is not clear that this hypothesis could be tested. Therefore, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis does not have a similar verifiability compared to the hypotheses of physical science.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
It is unclear whether the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true or false.
A
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is probably false.
This answer is unsupported. It is too strong to say the hypothesis is “probably false.” We only know from the stimulus that the hypothesis cannot be verified. An absence of verification does not necessarily mean that something is false.
B
Only the hypotheses of physical science are verifiable.
This answer is unsupported. Physical sciences were given as an example of types of hypotheses that are verifiable. It is too strong to say that only these hypotheses are verifiable.
C
Only verifiable hypotheses should be seriously considered.
This answer is unsupported. The Linguist never discusses what types of hypotheses should be seriously considered.
D
We do not know whether the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true or false.
This answer is strongly supported. Since we know the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not able to be verified, then we cannot know whether it is true or false.
E
Only the hypotheses of physical science should be taken seriously.
This answer is unsupported. The Linguist never discusses what types of hypotheses should be taken seriously.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Erosion wears down mountains, yet the tallest mountains are found in the areas with the greatest erosive forces.
Objective
We’re looking for a hypothesis that explains why the highest mountain ranges are found in areas with prevalent erosive forces, which presumably lessen how high mountains are. The correct hypothesis would explain not only why these opposing phenomena can co-exist, but why they’re frequently seen together.
A
Patterns of extreme wind and precipitation often result from the dramatic differences in elevation commonly found in the highest mountain ranges.
Extreme erosive forces stem from the presence of high mountain ranges. No wonder, then, that the highest mountain ranges experience prevalent erosive forces!
B
The highest mountain ranges have less erosion-reducing vegetation near their peaks than do other mountain ranges.
This doesn’t explain anything about erosive forces themselves. Maybe the vegetation that shields other mountains from erosion isn’t present among the highest mountain ranges, but why are the erosive forces so prevalent to begin with?
C
Some lower mountain ranges are formed by a different collision process, whereby one tectonic plate simply slides beneath another of lesser density.
This doesn’t explain anything about why erosive forces are more prevalent among the highest mountain ranges than other ranges. We don’t really care how mountains are made.
D
The amount of precipitation that a given region of the earth receives may vary considerably over the lifetime of an average mountain range.
We need to know why the highest mountain ranges are found in the areas with prevalent erosive forces. The fact that precipitation can vary in a region doesn’t help us reconcile this surprising fact.
E
The thickening of the earth’s crust associated with the formation of the highest mountain ranges tends to cause the thickened portion of the crust to sink over time.
That may be true, but why are the highest mountain ranges found in areas with very prevalent erosive forces? This doesn’t clear up our stimulus.
A
fails to provide a definition of the technical term “fractal”
The argument doesn’t need to define “fractal.” The word simply takes on its ordinary dictionary definition.
B
contradicts itself by denying in its conclusion the claim of scientific authorities that it relies on in its premises
The author doesn’t rely on the claims of authorities. The author identifies an antenna made by researchers, but the premise isn’t based on what researchers claim.
C
concludes that a claim is false merely on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence that it is true
The premise does not assert that there’s not enough evidence to show the researchers are correct. The premise points out an antenna that is supposed to be a counterexample to the researchers’ claim.
D
interprets an assertion that certain conditions are necessary as asserting that those conditions are sufficient
The researchers asserted that symmetry and fractal nature were necessary for an antenna to work equally well at all frequencies. But the author interpreted this as a claim those conditions were sufficient for working equally well.
E
takes for granted that there are only two possible alternatives, either below or above 250 megahertz
The author does not exclude the possibility of antennas working at exactly 250 megahertz. The evidence happens to involve an antenna that works better at below 250 than above, but that doesn’t imply the author think exactly 250 is impossible.
Summarize Argument
Singletary says the ordinance requiring helmets is more concerned with the appearance of bicycle safety than actual safety. Why? If they were actually concerned about safety they would make more bicycle lanes and educate drivers, not mandate helmets.
Identify Argument Part
This is an action Singletary says the city would do if it actually cared about safety more than appearing to be safe. Since the city didn’t do it, they don’t actually care more.
A
It is cited as evidence for the claim that the city misunderstands the steps necessary for ensuring bicyclists’ safety.
The argument does not claim the city misunderstands, it claims the city is not concerned with actual safety.
B
It is used as partial support for a claim about the motivation of the city.
This claim acts as partial support because it shows what the city would do, but didn’t, if it actually cared about safety.
C
It is offered as evidence of the total ineffectiveness of the helmet ordinance.
Singletary does not claim the helmet measure is ineffective. He claims that it shows the city doesn’t truly care about safety, effective or not.
D
It is offered as an example of further measures the city will take to ensure bicyclists’ safety.
There is no evidence that the city will implement this in the future. Singletary only presents it as something that would have happened if the city cared about safety.
E
It is presented as an illustration of the city’s overriding interest in its public image.
The conclusion is not that the city has an overriding interest in its public image. The conclusion is that the city prioritized the appearance of safety over actual safety. While this may be true, it is an inaccurate depiction of what the statement is supporting.
To face danger solely because doing so affords one a certain pleasure does not constitute courage. Real courage is manifested only when a person, in acting to attain a goal, perseveres in the face of fear prompted by one or more dangers involved.
Summary
Real courage requires persevering in the face of fear while acting to attain a goal.
Facing danger only because it brings one pleasure is not real courage.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
If one faces danger in order to attain a goal, he is only being courageous if he is also persevering in the face of fear.
If one perseveres in the face of fear, he is only being courageous if he’s also acting to attain a goal.
A
A person who must face danger in order to avoid future pain cannot properly be called courageous for doing so.
Unsupported. A person facing danger to avoid pain is acting to attain a goal. This person might also be persevering in the face of fear, in which case, they could potentially be called courageous.
B
A person who experiences fear of some aspects of a dangerous situation cannot be said to act courageously in that situation.
Unsupported. Courage requires persevering in the face of fear. The fact that someone experiences fear in a dangerous situation is not sufficient to conclude that they are not acting courageously.
C
A person who happens to derive pleasure from some dangerous activities is not a courageous person.
Unsupported. Facing danger solely because it brings pleasure is not real courage. As long as pleasure isn’t the only reason that this person faces danger, we can’t conclude that they are not courageous.
D
A person who faces danger in order to benefit others is acting courageously only if the person is afraid of the danger.
Very strongly supported. Courage requires persevering in the face of fear. One can only persevere in the face of fear if one is actually afraid. So someone who faces danger in order to attain the goal of benefiting others is only courageous if they are afraid of the danger.
E
A person who has no fear of the situations that everyone else would fear cannot be said to be courageous in any situation.
Unsupported. Just because this person isn’t afraid of the situations that other people are afraid of doesn’t mean that they aren’t afraid of any situation. This person might still persevere in the face of fear in some situations that other people do not fear.
Cookie Cutter: PrepTest 23 Section 3 Question 10
Summarize Argument
The amount of methane released because of cows would be reduced if they had better diets. This is because good diets make them produce less methane.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that giving cows healthier diets doesn’t have an undesirable consequence, such as causing them to produce less meat or milk. This may make it necessary to have more cows to compensate for decreased production per cow, thus potentially increasing methane production.
A
Cows given good-quality diets produce much more meat and milk than they would produce otherwise.
This strengthens the argument by reinforcing the assumption that feeding cows better diets would not limit their production of meat or milk. (A) says cows would produce less methane but even more milk and meat.
B
Carbon and hydrogen, the elements that make up methane, are found in abundance in the components of all types of cow feed.
This does not affect the argument. Cow feed having carbon and hydrogen doesn’t mean anything for our argument, as we know that healthier feed makes them produce less methane.
C
Most farmers would be willing to give their cows high-quality feed if the cost of that feed were lower.
This does not affect the argument. The conclusion is not about whether farmers should or could give their cows healthier diets. The conclusion is about what would happen if they did.
D
Worldwide, more methane is produced by cows raised for meat production than by those raised for milk production.
This does not affect the argument. The conclusion is still valid—regardless of which cows produce more methane, all cows’ methane production would decrease if given healthy diets.
E
Per liter, methane contributes more to global warming than does carbon dioxide, a gas that is thought to be the most significant contributor to global warming.
This does not affect the argument, which is solely about methane. The conclusion that methane production would decrease is not impacted by whether methane or carbon dioxide contributes more to global warming.
A
It draws a conclusion that conflicts with the majority opinion of experts.
There is nothing flawed about disagreeing with experts. What matters is whether you have enough evidence to support your conclusion. Whether that conclusion goes against experts’ views has no bearing on the quality of the argument.
B
It presupposes the truth of Professor Vallejo’s claims.
By using “if Professor V is correct,” the conclusion is conditioned on the hypothetical situation in which Professor V is correct. This does not assume that the professor is in fact correct. So the author doesn’t assume that Professor V’s claims are true.
C
It fails to provide criteria for determining adequate historical evidence.
The premise asserts that if Professor V is correct, there’s not enough evidence to say that glassblowing began in Egypt. We accept this premise as true. It doesn’t matter whether we know the criteria for adequate evidence.
D
It mistakes the majority view for the traditional view.
The author labels the view of “most historians” as the “traditional view.” We have no reason to think this labeling is wrong. In any case, whether a view is traditional has no impact on the argument. The author never rejected a view because it was traditional or not traditional.
E
It confuses inadequate evidence for truth with evidence for falsity.
The author confuses inadequate evidence for the truth of a claim (that glassblowing began in Egypt) as evidence that the claim is false. This is a flaw because a claim can still be true, even if there’s not enough evidence to prove that it’s true.
Summary
Digital technology has an advantage over traditional printing because digital documents do not generate waste during their production and use. However, because digital documents are patterns of electronic signals, a digital document could easily be destroyed and lost forever.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A characteristic that is advantageous in one circumstance may nonetheless be disadvantageous in a different circumstance.
A
A property of a technology may constitute an advantage in one set of circumstances and a disadvantage in others.
Digital technology has simultaneously an advantage and disadvantage. It is advantageous in that it does not produce waste, but disadvantageous in that it is more susceptible to being destroyed and lost forever.
B
What at first appears to be an advantage of a technology may create more problems than it solves.
We don’t know whether digital technology creates more problems than it solves.
C
It is more important to be able to preserve information than it is for information to be easily accessible.
We don’t know whether preserving information is a more important consideration than accessibility.
D
Innovations in document storage technologies sometimes decrease, but never eliminate, the risk of destroying documents.
We don’t know whether innovations in document storage technologies ever decrease the risk of destroying documents. We only know that there is some amount of risk present.
E
Advances in technology can lead to increases in both convenience and environmental soundness.
We don’t know whether technological advances can lead to increases in convenience. The only advantage the stimulus provides for digital technology is that it does not generate waste.