Shareholder: The company’s current operations are time-proven successes. The move into food services may siphon off funds needed by these other operations. Also, the food service industry is volatile, with a higher inherent risk than with, for instance, pharmaceuticals, another area into which the company has considered expanding.
Summary
Current operations are successful. Moving into food services may take away funds needed by other operations. Moreover, the food service industry is volatile and has a higher risk than pharmaceuticals. The company has considered expanding into pharmaceuticals.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Moving into food services would be a greater risk for the company compared to moving into pharmaceuticals.
A
The company’s present operations require increased funding.
This answer is unsupported. The shareholder tells us that current operations are a success.
B
Investment into pharmaceuticals would not siphon off money from other operations.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether pharmaceuticals would not require funds to be taken from other operations. We know that expansion into food services would, but this does not imply that pharmaceuticals would not.
C
The company will lose money as it expands into the food service industry.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the company would for a fact lose money. We only know that this move is risker than a move into pharmaceuticals.
D
Only if the company expands its operations into pharmaceuticals are increased profits possible.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether expansion into pharmaceuticals is a necessary condition for the company to increase their profits.
E
The company has a greater chance of losing money in food services than in pharmaceuticals.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that food service is volatile and risker than moving into pharmaceuticals. Therefore, since it is a risker expansion, food service represents a greater chance of losing money.
A
It is the argument’s main conclusion, but not its only conclusion.
B
It is a claim for which a causal explanation is provided and which itself is used as direct support for the argument’s only conclusion.
C
It is the argument’s only conclusion.
D
It is a claim that is used as direct support for an intermediary conclusion, which in turn is used as direct support for the argument’s main conclusion.
E
It identifies a phenomenon for which the argument’s main conclusion offers a causal explanation.
A
Most of the lead seals produced during the early Byzantine Empire were affixed to documents that were then opened during that period.
B
Most of the lead seals produced during the early Byzantine Empire were affixed to documents that have since been destroyed.
C
The amount of lead available for seals in the early Byzantine Empire was much greater than the amount of lead that remains in the seals today.
D
During the time of the early Byzantine Empire there were at most 40,000 documents of enough importance to prevent the removing and recycling of the seal.
E
During the time of the early Byzantine Empire there were fewer than 40,000 seals affixed to documents at any given time.
Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists, squirrel monkeys will become extinct. But they will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them. Squirrel monkeys flourish in second-growth forest because of the plentiful supply of their favorite insects and fruit.
Summary
First sentence - “Without” is used just like “unless” here, so it means:
If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct
Second sentence - “If” introduces the sufficient condition:
Tracts of second-growth forest preserved → squirrel monkeys NOT extinct
The last sentence tells us why squirrel monkeys “flourish” in second-growth forest. But it is not a conditional and does not connect to the conditionals in the first two sentences.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
We can connect the first two sentences, although you need to do the contrapositive of one or the other to see the connection:
If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct → tracts of second-growth forest NOT preserved
OR
If tracts of second-growth forest preserved → squirrel monkeys NOT extinct → there was intervention of conservationists
A
No habitat other than second-growth forest contains plentiful supplies of squirrel monkeys’ favorite insects and fruit.
Not supported. We know that second growth forests have a lot of the favorite insects and fruit. This doesn’t imply that other habitats don’t have these things.
B
At least some of the conservationists who intervene to help the squirrel monkeys survive will do so by preserving second-growth forest habitat for the monkeys.
If the monkeys survive, we know that second-growth forests have been preserved. And we know that this implies the conservationists intervened. But we don’t know exactly *how* the conservationists intervened. What they did might be unrelated to the forests. The forests were preserved, sure; but we don’t know that the conservationists helped to preserve the forests.
C
Without plentiful supplies of their favorite insects and fruit, squirrel monkeys will become extinct.
We know that without the intervention of conservationists, the monkeys will go extinct. But we have no idea whether lack of favorite fruits and insects will lead to extinction. The monkeys can “flourish” because of those fruits and insects; but this doesn’t imply that without those things, the monkeys will die.
D
If conservationists intervene to help squirrel monkeys survive, then the squirrel monkeys will not become extinct.
This confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. We know that if conservationists DON’T intervene, the monkeys will go extinct. This does not imply that if conservationists DO intervene, that the monkeys will survive.
E
Without the intervention of conservationists, large tracts of second-growth forest habitat will not be preserved for squirrel monkeys.
(E) is supported by the connection between the first two sentences:
If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct → tracts of second-growth forest NOT preserved
A
It is not uncommon for more than one judge to have an influence on the way a dissenting opinion is written.
B
Unlike literary works, legal opinions rely heavily on the use of technical terminology.
C
The law is not to any great extent determined by dissenting opinions.
D
Judges spend much more time reading judicial decisions than reading works of high literary quality.
E
Judicial decisions issued by panels of judges are likely to be more widely read than are judicial decisions issued by a single judge who hears a case alone.
A
bases a prediction of the intensity of a phenomenon on information about the intensity of that phenomenon’s cause
B
uses information about the typical frequency of events of a general kind to draw a conclusion about the probability of a particular event of that kind
C
infers a statistical generalization from claims about a large number of specific instances
D
uses a case in which direct evidence is available to draw a conclusion about an analogous case in which direct evidence is unavailable
E
bases a prediction about future events on facts about recent comparable events
A
Plover are ground-nesting birds, which makes them easy prey for coyotes.
B
Wild cat and plover populations tend to fluctuate together.
C
Coyotes are not susceptible to any of the diseases that commonly infect plover or wild cats.
D
The wild cat population on the island was once significantly larger than it is currently.
E
The coyotes preyed mainly on wild cats, and wild cats prey on plover.