Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that Travaillier Corporation is trying to attract new customers. Her evidence is that Travaillier is trying to expand its operations into bus tours, despite the fact most of Travaillier’s customers usually travel by air and haven’t changed their preferences
Notable Assumptions
In order for Travaillier to be attempting to attract new customers, the author must assume that its current customers aren’t interested in bus tours. While these customers usually travel by air, we have no idea whether or not they’re open to bus tours as vacation options, either in lieu of or in addition to air travel. She also assumes that, even if these travellers don’t currently want bus tours, Travaillier isn’t trying to increase their interest in bus tours rather than attract entirely new customers.
A
In the past, Travaillier has found it very difficult to change its customers’ vacation preferences.
The author claims Travaillier isn’t trying to change its customers’ vacation preferences.
B
Several travel companies other than Travaillier have recently tried and failed to expand into the bus tour business.
We don’t care if other companies have tried and failed. Travaillier might be trying, as well.
C
At least one of Travaillier’s new employees not only has experience in the bus tour industry but has also designed air travel vacation packages.
Even taking away new hires as evidence, the fact Travaillier has been negotiating with charter bus companies suggests they might be trying to break into bus tours.
D
Some of Travaillier’s competitors have increased profits by concentrating their attention on their customers who spend the most on vacations.
We don’t know if people taking bus tours spend the most on vacations.
E
The industry consultants employed by Travaillier typically recommend that companies expand by introducing their current customers to new products and services.
Travaillier isn’t trying to get new customers—they’re trying to change their current customers’ preferences. If we added this as an addition premise, the author’s conclusion wouldn’t follow.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The council member concludes that the shoe factory would be a better emergency shelter site, compared the courthouse, which other council members proposed. Why? Because no evidence has been provided to show that the courthouse would be a better shelter.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter lack of support vs. false conclusion flaw. Just because there isn’t enough support to confirm a certain conclusion, that doesn’t mean that conclusion must be wrong. The courthouse hasn’t been well-defended by opposing council members as a better shelter than the shoe factory, but that doesn’t mean it might not actually be a better shelter.
A
asserting that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct
The council member actually does the opposite: assuming that a lack of evidence for a view is proof that the view is incorrect.
B
accepting a claim simply because advocates of an opposing claim have not adequately defended their view
The council member accepts the claim that the shoe factory would be a better shelter, because advocates of the courthouse haven’t defended their choice. But a lack of support for the courthouse doesn’t necessarily make the shoe factory a better shelter in reality.
C
attacking the proponents of the courthouse rather than addressing their argument
The council member doesn’t attack the proponents of the courthouse, or say anything at all about their character.
D
attempting to persuade its audience by appealing to their fear
The council member doesn’t appeal to the emotions of the audience, and certainly doesn’t make any appeal to fear.
E
attacking an argument that is not held by any actual council member
The council member counters a view that is held by at least some council members: the view that the courthouse would be a better shelter site.
Summary
A functional magnetic-resonance image (fMRI) is similar to a genetic profile because it can contain information a patient wishes to keep private. An fMRI also contains enough information to create a recognizable image of a patient’s face. On the other hand, someone’s genetic profile can be linked to them only through labels or records.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
fMRIs can identify patients in a way that genetic profiles do not.
A
It is not important that medical providers apply labels to fMRIs of patients’ brains.
There is no support for whether it is important for medical providers to apply/not apply labels to fMRIs of patients' brains. You have to make this assumption.
B
An fMRI has the potential to compromise patient privacy in circumstances in which a genetic profile would not.
The stimulus says that an fMRI can reveal an image of a patient’s face while a genetic profile does not. This has the potential to compromise patient privacy in differing circumstances.
C
In most cases patients cannot be reasonably sure that the information in a genetic profile will be kept private.
There is no information about the safety of data in genetic profiles, so it is unreasonable to contend that most patients cannot be sure that their information is kept private.
D
Most of the information contained in an fMRI of a person’s brain is also contained in that person’s genetic profile.
This comparative statement is not supported. There are no details about how much information overlaps between an fMRI and genetic profile.
E
Patients are more concerned about threats to privacy posed by fMRIs than they are about those posed by genetic profiles.
This is an unreasonable assumption to make. The passage does not compare the level of concern patients feel about the privacy threats posed by fMRIs vs. genetic profiles. It is unclear whether patients even know about the potential privacy risks.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do children find it easier to catch balls when they are thrown faster?
Objective
Any hypothesis explaining this phenomenon must state a difference between balls thrown slowly and balls thrown at high speeds. This difference must result in children more easily catching balls thrown at high speeds.
A
Balls thrown at a faster speed, unlike balls thrown at a slower speed, trigger regions in the brain that control the tracking of objects for self-defense.
This explains why children have an easier time catching faster balls. Because the high speed triggers different regions in the brain, they catch fast balls using a different mechanism than they use to catch slow balls.
B
Balls that are tossed more slowly tend to have a higher arc that makes it less likely that the ball will be obscured by the body of the adult tossing it.
This deepens the mystery. If balls tossed slowly are less likely to be obscured, children should catch them more easily.
C
Adults generally find it easier to catch balls that are thrown slowly than balls that are thrown at a faster speed.
This refers to adults, not children. It is not implied that the catching abilities of adults are aligned with or opposite those of children.
D
Children are able to toss balls back to the adults with more accuracy when they throw fast than when they throw the ball back more slowly.
This refers only to children’s ability to throw balls accurately, not to catch them. It does not explain why children find balls easier to catch when they are coming in faster.
E
There is a limit to how fast the balls can be tossed to the children before the children start to have more difficulty in catching them.
This limit does not explain why children more easily catch faster balls in general. It introduces a separate phenomenon at higher speeds, without explaining the phenomenon at hand.
Summary
The author concludes that people who rely on the web when tring to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good. Why?
Because those people can’t distinguish between what’s scientifically valid and scientifically invalid.
Because those people can’t distinguish between what’s scientifically valid and scientifically invalid.
Notable Assumptions
Notice that the idea of “doing themselves more harm than good” is a new concept that isn’t mentioned in the premise. So we know the author must assume something about what leads to someone doing themselves more harm than good.
To go further, we can anticipate a more specific connection taking the author from the premise to the conclusion. The author thinks that people who cannot discriminate between scientifically valid information and scientifically invalid information are likely to do themselves more harm than good. Or, in other words, in order to avoid being more likely to do more harm than good when relying on the web to diagnose oneself, one must be able to distinguish between scientifically valid and invalid information.
To go further, we can anticipate a more specific connection taking the author from the premise to the conclusion. The author thinks that people who cannot discriminate between scientifically valid information and scientifically invalid information are likely to do themselves more harm than good. Or, in other words, in order to avoid being more likely to do more harm than good when relying on the web to diagnose oneself, one must be able to distinguish between scientifically valid and invalid information.
A
People who browse the web for medical information typically do so in an attempt to diagnose their medical conditions.
Not necessary, because even if this isn’t typical, the argument applies to those people who do rely on the web to diagnose their medical conditions, however rare those people might be.
B
People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.
Necessary, because if it were not true — if people can rely on something besides scientifically valid information and still be unlikely to do themselves more harm than good — then the fact people can’t distinguish between scientifically valid and invalid information wouldn’t matter. Under the negation of (B), people who sometimes rely in invalid info because they can’t tell that it’s invalid won’t necessarily be likely to do themselves more harm than good.
C
People who have sufficient medical knowledge to discriminate between scientifically valid information and quackery will do themselves no harm if they rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions.
Not necessary, because the argument concerns what happens to people who CANNOT distinguish between valid and invalid info. The author doesn’t need to think that people who CAN distinguish will do no harm to themselves by relying on the web.
D
Many people who browse the web assume that information is not scientifically valid unless it is clearly written.
The argument concerns people who rely on the web when trying to diagnose their medical conditions. But many people may browse the web who don’t rely on the web for diagnosis; the author doesn’t have to assume anything about those people.
E
People attempting to diagnose their medical conditions will do themselves more harm than good only if they rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid information.
The author believes that relying on the web for diagnosis when you can’t distinguish between scientifically valid and invalid info will make it likely that you’ll do yourself more harm than good. But the author doesn’t assume this kind of reliance is necessary to harm yourself. We might harm ourselves in other ways. This answer would be better if we replaced “only if” with “if.”
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Critics complain that advertising tricks people into confusing wants with needs, but this complaint relies on making the difficult distinction between wants and needs. In reality, it can be nearly impossible to determine whether something is merely a want or a genuine need.
Identify Conclusion
Critics' complaints about advertising require making a distinction between wants and needs, which is almost impossible.
A
The claim that advertising persuades people that they need things that they merely want rests on a fuzzy distinction.
This is a good summary of the editorial’s argument. The editorial contends that the claim made by critics of consumerism—that advertising tricks people into confusing wants with needs—“rests on a fuzzy distinction” because wants and needs are almost impossible to distinguish.
B
Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising attempts to blur people’s ability to distinguish between wants and needs.
This sentence provides context for the stimulus. It introduces the position that advertising causes confusion between wants and needs, setting the stage for the editorial’s counterargument that distinguishing between wants and needs is not as clear-cut as critics suggest.
C
There is nothing wrong with advertising that tries to persuade people that they need certain consumer goods.
The editorial does not make this argument because the editorial does not judge advertising itself. Instead, the editorial critiques the reasoning of consumerism’s critics, particularly the critics’ assumption that it is possible to distinguish between wants and needs clearly.
D
Many critics of consumerism fail to realize that certain things are essential to human happiness.
This is not a flaw in the critics’ reasoning that the editorial addresses. The editorial challenges the assumption that it is possible to clearly distinguish between wants and needs, not whether critics recognize the existence of needs or things “essential to human happiness.”
E
Critics of consumerism often use fuzzy distinctions to support their claims.
The stimulus only offers one example of critics using fuzzy distinctions, so we cannot conclude that critics “often” do this. Since the stimulus doesn’t fully support this claim, it cannot be the main conclusion.
Energy analyst: During this record-breaking heat wave, air conditioner use has overloaded the region’s electrical power grid, resulting in frequent power blackouts throughout the region. For this reason, residents have been asked to cut back voluntarily on air conditioner use in their homes. But even if this request is heeded, blackouts will probably occur unless the heat wave abates.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why will cutting back on home air conditioning not be enough to avoid blackouts when air conditioning is the cause of those blackouts?
Objective
A hypothesis resolving this discrepancy will provide a reason for blackouts caused by air conditioning to continue even when residents cut back in their homes. It will introduce new information about the electric grid during the heat wave or identify a source of air conditioning other than people’s homes.
A
Air-conditioning is not the only significant drain on the electrical system in the area.
This does not explain why the heat wave will lead to blackouts. There is no indication the heat wave will make these other drainages any worse.
B
Most air-conditioning in the region is used to cool businesses and factories.
This explains why blackouts will continue. Even if residents cut back in their homes, businesses and factories will use enough air conditioning to cause strain on the electric grid.
C
Most air-conditioning systems could be made more energy efficient by implementing simple design modifications.
This does not state that residents will make such modifications. It suggests a way to reduce the chance of blackouts, but does not state that failure to make those modifications will worsen air conditioning’s effect on the electric grid.
D
Residents of the region are not likely to reduce their air conditioner use voluntarily during particularly hot weather.
This implies residents are unlikely to cut back, but gives no reason blackouts might continue if they do. The author states blackouts will continue even if residents do reduce their usage as asked.
E
The heat wave is expected to abate in the near future.
This implies the situation is unlikely to unfold, without addressing the discrepancy that would occur. It gives no reason for air conditioning to cause blackouts in the event the heat wave continues and residents cut back.