Small experimental vacuum tubes can operate in heat that makes semiconductor components fail. Any component whose resistance to heat is greater than that of semiconductors would be preferable for use in digital circuits, but only if that component were also comparable to semiconductors in all other significant respects, such as maximum current capacity. However, vacuum tubes’ maximum current capacity is presently not comparable to that of semiconductors.

Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences
Vacuum tubes are not currently preferable to semiconductors for use in digital circuits.

A
Vacuum tubes are not now preferable to semiconductors for use in digital circuits.
Must be true. In order to be preferable to semiconductors for use in digital circuits, vacuum tubes would to be comparable to semiconductors in all significant respects. Because vacuum tubes are not comparable in terms of current capacity, they are not now preferable.
B
Once vacuum tubes and semiconductors have comparable maximum current capacity, vacuum tubes will be used in some digital circuits.
Could be false. We don’t know if vacuum tubes are comparable to semiconductors in all other significant respects, so we don’t know if they would be preferable even with increased current capacity. Even if they were preferable, that doesn’t necessarily mean they would be used.
C
The only reason that vacuum tubes are not now used in digital circuits is that vacuum tubes’ maximum current capacity is too low.
Could be false. The stimulus doesn’t tell us whether or not vacuum tubes are comparable to semiconductors in any way other than current capacity and heat resistance—maybe they’re deficient in other respects!
D
Semiconductors will always be preferable to vacuum tubes for use in many applications other than digital circuits.
Could be false. The stimulus tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not semiconductors are preferable to vacuum tubes in applications other than digital circuits.
E
Resistance to heat is the only advantage that vacuum tubes have over semiconductors.
Could be false. Maybe vacuum tubes have other advantages besides heat resistance! The stimulus does not rule out this possibility.

9 comments

The cause of the epidemic that devastated Athens in 430 B.C. can finally be identified. Accounts of the epidemic mention the hiccups experienced by many victims, a symptom of no known disease except that caused by the recently discovered Ebola virus. Moreover, other symptoms of the disease caused by the Ebola virus are mentioned in the accounts of the Athenian epidemic.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the cause of the Athenian epidemic can be identified, and implies that the cause was the Ebola virus. This is because accounts of the epidemic note hallmarks of the Ebola virus, including a symptom—hiccups—unique to the Ebola virus.

Notable Assumptions
For the cause of the Athenian epidemic to be identified as the author claims, what’s currently known of the Ebola virus must not contradict accounts of the Athenian epidemic. This means that notable symptoms of the Ebola virus must appear in those accounts, while the accounts cannot include symptoms that are not known to derive from the Ebola virus. The author must believe that these accounts are accurate. He must also believe that the Athenian epidemic couldn’t have been caused by a presently unknown disease.

A
Victims of the Ebola virus experience many symptoms that do not appear in any of the accounts of the Athenian epidemic.
The disease that appears in accounts of the Athenian epic is different than what’s known of diseases caused by the Ebola virus. This suggests a different, perhaps unknown virus caused the epidemic.
B
Not all of those who are victims of the Ebola virus are afflicted with hiccups.
The author never says every Ebola victim gets the hiccups—hiccups are just a common symptom. This exception doesn’t undermine the author’s argument.
C
The Ebola virus’s host animals did not live in Athens at the time of the Athenian epidemic.
The Ebola host wasn’t in Athens during the epidemic. Thus, it’s unlikely Ebola caused the epidemic.
D
The Ebola virus is much more contagious than the disease that caused the Athenian epidemic was reported to have been.
This says the disease that caused the Athenian epidemic differs substantially from what we know about Ebola. Thus, that disease likely wasn’t caused by the Ebola virus.
E
The epidemics known to have been caused by the Ebola virus are usually shorter-lived than was the Athenian epidemic.
This says that the Athenian epidemic differs from what we know about Ebola. Thus, Ebola likely didn’t cause the Athenian epidemic.

49 comments

Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year. You stated that this claim was disproven by recent studies that indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years. But you failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The letter to the editor supports environmentalists after an article criticized their claims, calling that article’s criticism unjustified. The author claims the environmentalists were correct in claiming that that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born annually, even though the population has stayed constant. The reason the criticism is unjustified is because it does not recognize that environmentalists have been introducing new wolves over the past 20 years. (This would make population constancy an inaccurate representation of birth rates.)

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s evaluation of the article’s claims: “Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year.”

A
Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years.
This is evidence that shows why the wolf population remains constant. The author presents this explanation to show that the environmentalists’ claims about birth and hunting rates could still be accurate.
B
As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year.
This is the claim discussed in the context. The editor criticizes it, and the author concludes that the criticism of the claim is unjustified.
C
The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population.
The stimulus does not conclude how the wolf population should be maintained. It uses how it is currently being maintained as evidence for the conclusion, which centers on the justification of criticism.
D
The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed.
This is inaccurate. The author does not claim that the studies that show the population remaining constant are flawed. The author accepts and presents an explanation for these results.
E
The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim.
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. The article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim - which relies on the stability of the wolf population as evidence - is not justified.

8 comments

Computer scientist: For several decades, the number of transistors on new computer microchips, and hence the microchips’ computing speed, has doubled about every 18 months. However, from the mid-1990s into the next decade, each such doubling in a microchip’s computing speed was accompanied by a doubling in the cost of producing that microchip.

Summary

For several decades, the number of transistors on computer microchips has doubled every 18 months.

For several decades, microchips’ computing speed has also doubled every 18 months.

From the mid-1990s into the next decade, the cost of producing a microchip doubled each time the microchip’s computing speed doubled.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

From the mid-1990s into the next decade, the cost of producing a microchip doubled every 18 months.

From the mid-1990s into the next decade, the cost of producing a microchip doubled each time the number of transistors on a microchip doubled.

A
The only effective way to double the computing speed of computer microchips is to increase the number of transistors per microchip.

Unsupported. Doubling the number of transistors on a microchip is one effective way to double the computing speed of that microchip, but it’s not necessarily the only effective way.

B
From the mid-1990s into the next decade, there was little if any increase in the retail cost of computers as a result of the increased number of transistors on microchips.

Unsupported. We don’t know anything about how the retail cost of computers was affected by the increased number of transistors. We only know that, during this time period, the production cost of microchips doubled each time the number of transistors doubled.

C
For the last several decades, computer engineers have focused on increasing the computing speed of computer microchips without making any attempt to control the cost of producing them.

Unsupported. Just because microchip production costs increased from the mid-1990s into the next decade doesn’t mean that engineers made no effort to control those costs.

D
From the mid-1990s into the next decade, a doubling in the cost of fabricating new computer microchips accompanied each doubling in the number of transistors on those microchips.

Very strongly supported. During this time, production costs doubled each time a microchip’s speed doubled, and speed doubled each time the number of transistors doubled, so we know that production costs doubled each time the number of transistors doubled.

E
It is unlikely that engineers will ever be able to increase the computing speed of microchips without also increasing the cost of producing them.

Unsupported. Just because production costs doubled with microchip speed in the 90s doesn’t mean engineers can’t increase computing speed without raising costs in the future.


8 comments

Aerobics instructor: Compared to many forms of exercise, kickboxing aerobics is highly risky. Overextending when kicking often leads to hip, knee, or lower-back injuries. Such overextension is very likely to occur when beginners try to match the high kicks of more skilled practitioners.

Summary

Compared to some other forms of exercise, kickboxing aerobics is highly risky. Overextending while kicking can cause hip, knee, or lower-back injuries. Overextension usually happens when beginners try to match the high kicks of skilled kickboxers.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

To reduce a person’s risk of injuries caused by overextension, that person should avoid overextending while kicking.

A
Skilled practitioners of kickboxing aerobics are unlikely to experience injuries from overextending while kicking.

This answer is unsupported. The aerobics instructor does not give us any information about the likelihood of skilled practitioners experiencing injuries.

B
To reduce the risk of injuries, beginners at kickboxing aerobics should avoid trying to match the high kicks of more skilled practitioners.

This answer is strongly supported. Since we know overextension can cause injury, then students should avoid overextending to reduce their risk of injury. An absent or reduced cause can lead to an absent or reduced effect.

C
Beginners at kickboxing aerobics will not experience injuries if they avoid trying to match the high kicks of more skilled practitioners.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if overextending while kicking is the only cause of injury to beginners. It is possible that beginners could experience injury some other way.

D
Kickboxing aerobics is more risky than forms of aerobic exercise that do not involve high kicks.

This answer is unsupported. We know that kickboxing aerobics is more risky than many forms of exercise, but we don’t know whether this comparison is to other forms that do not involve high kicks.

E
Most beginners at kickboxing aerobics experience injuries from trying to match the high kicks of more skilled practitioners.

This answer is unsupported. We do not know whether most beginners will for a fact overextend while kicking.


17 comments

A large company has been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices. The penalty imposed on the company will probably have little if any effect on its behavior. Still, the trial was worthwhile, since it provided useful information about the company’s practices. After all, this information has emboldened the company’s direct competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior toward customers and competitors.

Summarize Argument
The trial of a large company was valuable despite the likely ineffectiveness of the penalty. The trial was valuable because it revealed information about the company’s practices. This new information empowered the company’s competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to moderate its unfair behavior.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the contention that the trial was worthwhile because it revealed information about the company, which led to positive outcomes.

A
Even if the company had not been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices, the trial probably would have had some effect on the company’s behavior.
This is not an argument made in the stimulus. The author does not speculate on what would have happened had the company not been convicted. While the author might agree with this claim, it is not part of the argument presented and therefore cannot be the main conclusion.
B
The light shed on the company’s practices by the trial has emboldened its competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior.
This premise supports the sub-conclusion that the trial “provided useful information.” It specifies that the trial exposed the company’s practices and explains the value of this revelation: it empowered competitors, alerted rivals, and forced the company to change its behavior.
C
The penalty imposed on the company will likely have little or no effect on its behavior.
This is part of the stimulus’s context. This sentence explains why some may consider the trial a waste of time—because its penalty is unlikely to affect the company’s behavior—and sets the stage for the author to explain why the trial was valuable despite the ineffective penalty.
D
The company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices was worthwhile.
This answer restates the main conclusion (“the trial was worthwhile”) with context that describes the trial (“the company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices”). The subsequent claims support this conclusion by explaining why the trial was valuable.
E
The penalty imposed on the company in the trial should have been larger.
This is not an argument made in the stimulus. The author argues that the penalty was inadequate to change the company’s behavior but does not claim the penalty should have been larger. While the author might agree, it is not part of the argument and cannot be the main conclusion.

3 comments