Summary
Violins made by Stradivarius in the early 1700s are superior to most other violins. Some experts say this is because of secret varnishes, but this claim has no evidence. Climatologists found that in the 1600s and early 1700s, weather patterns where Stradivarius worked produced tree growth with special acoustic properties.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The weather patterns where Stradivarius worked probably contribute to the quality of the violins. The special properties of the wood used are probably part of the reason for Stradivarius violin’s superior quality.
A
some other Italian violin makers in the early 1700s produced violins that equaled the quality of Stradivarius violins
This is unsupported because we don’t know if anyone else was making violins using the same wood Stradivarius used, nor do we know if the wood alone would make the violins of equal quality.
B
Stradivarius was the only violin maker in the early 1700s to use the wood produced in that part of Italy
This is unsupported because there may have been several violin makers working in the same area as Stradivarius at the time.
C
no violin made from present-day materials could rival a Stradivarius violin for sound quality
This is unsupported because we don’t know if any present-day wood may have the same acoustic qualities as the wood Stradivarius happened to use. Even if there isn’t, it is possible modern techniques make up for the difference in wood quality to produce equal sound quality.
D
the special qualities of Stradivarius violins are due in part to the wood used to make them
This is strongly supported because we know that Stradivarius violins are superior to most other violins and that Stradivarius had access to a type of wood with superior acoustic qualities.
E
Stradivarius did not employ any secret techniques in making his violins
This is unsupported because our knowledge of Stradivarius is limited to the facts that he had no special varnishes and had special wood. The stimulus engages in no discussion of manufacturing techniques, so this answer could be false.
Summarize Argument
The educator concludes that the educational programs teaching parents to be their child's "first teacher" are successful and should be expanded. He supports this by pointing out that children in these programs perform better than average in school.
Notable Assumptions
The educator assumes that the educational program directly causes the better school performance, without considering other possible reasons for it, like the natural abilities of the children or parents, or parental involvement outside the program.
He also assumes that better than average school performance is the primary marker of the program’s successfulness, without considering any other outcomes or effects among the children in the program.
He also assumes that better than average school performance is the primary marker of the program’s successfulness, without considering any other outcomes or effects among the children in the program.
A
Not all small children enjoy being taught by their parents.
The school performance of children in the program is better than average, whether they enjoy the program or not, and (A) doesn’t account for this difference. So (A) doesn’t weaken the conclusion that the program is successful and should therefore be expanded.
B
Most of the parents participating in the programs have prior experience as educators.
This weakens the conclusion by showing that one of the educator’s assumptions is false. He assumes that the program itself causes the children’s good performance, but (B) explains that their performance could actually be due to most of the parents having experience as educators.
C
Surveys show that most parents would approve expanding the programs.
The school performance of children in the program is better than average, whether parents approve of the program or not, and (C) doesn’t account for this difference. So (C) doesn’t weaken the conclusion that the program is successful and should therefore be expanded.
D
The cost of expanding the programs has not been precisely determined.
First, we don’t know that this means that the program will be expensive. Perhaps the cost hasn’t been determined but it will be quite low. But either way, (D) doesn’t account for the children’s school performance and thus doesn’t weaken the conclusion.
E
Some children who did not participate in the programs performed exceptionally well in school.
Just because some children who didn’t participate in the program performed well in school doesn’t mean that the program is unsuccessful. The children in the program still performed better than average. So (E) doesn’t weaken the educator’s conclusion.
Nguyen: But the filmmaker wanted viewers to focus on the complex relationship between the chief detective and her assistant. The murder just provided the context in which the relationship developed, and should not be taken as a defining characteristic of the film.
Speaker 1 Summary
Marife claims that a particular movie was bad. Why? Because it didn’t give viewers all the necessary clues to solve the murder, and therefore broke a rule of murder mysteries. Presumably, if a murder mystery film breaks this rule, that makes it a bad movie.
Speaker 2 Summary
Nguyen’s claims support the unstated conclusion that breaking this rule is not grounds to call this movie bad. Why not? Because the filmmaker was actually focusing on the relationship between the detective and her assistant. Plus, the murder was just context for this relationship. Presumably, that means the film isn’t really a murder mystery movie.
Objective
We want to find a disagreement between the speakers. They disagree about whether a film is truly a murder mystery.
A
whether the movie was a bad one
Marife agrees that this is the case, but Nguyen never disagrees. Nguyen’s issue is with the rule Marife uses to conclude that the movie was bad, not necessarily with the conclusion itself.
B
whether the relationship between the chief detective and her assistant was an important part of the movie
Nguyen agrees that this is true, but Marife never offers an opinion. Marife doesn’t discuss the relationship between the chief detective and her assistant at all.
C
whether the movie should be classified as a murder mystery
Marife agrees but Nguyen disagrees, so this is their disagreement. Marife applies a rule about murder mysteries to this movie, indicating that it is indeed a murder mystery. Nguyen says there are more important aspects of the film, making it not a murder mystery.
D
the appropriateness of trying to find criteria that all mystery movies must meet
Neither speaker really discusses this. Marife proposes a rule that applies to all murder mysteries, which may indicate that broad criteria like this are appropriate, but it’s never directly stated. Nguyen doesn’t talk about universal mystery requirements at all.
E
whether the filmmaker wanted viewers to be able to solve the murder
Both speakers likely agree that the filmmaker did not want this. Marife’s complaint is that the filmmaker made it impossible for viewers to solve the murder, while Nguyen points out that the filmmaker actually just wanted to focus on a relationship in the film.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Sarah uses the pool at City Gym. This is based on the fact that in order to use the pool at the gym, one must have a membership, and Sarah has a membership.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses a necessary condition for using the pool (having a membership) with a sufficient condition. Although Sarah meets the necessary condition because she has a membership, that doesn’t imply that she must use the pool.
A
mistakes a policy that is strictly enforced for a policy to which exceptions are made
The argument doesn’t rely on any purported exceptions to the policy that membership is required in order to use the pool.
B
treats a statement whose truth is required for the conclusion to be true as though it were a statement whose truth ensures that the conclusion is true
Sarah’s membership is required for her to use the pool. But this does not ensure that she uses the pool.
C
presumes that one or the other of two alternatives must be the case without establishing that no other alternative is possible
The argument’s reasoning doesn’t rely on presenting two alternatives.
D
concludes that a person has a certain attribute simply because that person belongs to a group most of whose members have that attribute
The argument doesn’t go from whole to part. The premise doesn’t assert that there’s a group that uses the pool.
E
draws a conclusion that merely restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion
(E) describes circular reasoning. The argument’s conclusion doesn’t restate a premise.
Summary
Antibiotics in animal feed keep animals healthy and increase meat yields. However, scientists recommend reducing antibiotics in animal feed because they believe it may cause antibiotics to be less effective for humans. If meat yields are reduced, some farmers will go out of business.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If no other method of increasing meat yields is employed, then some farmers will go out of business if antibiotics in animal feed are reduced.
A
If scientists are correct that antibiotic use in animal feed makes antibiotics less effective in humans, then some farmers will go out of business.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what condition would be triggered if the scientists’ hypothesis is correct. The scientists could be correct and no action is taken.
B
If antibiotic use in animal feed is not phased out, some antibiotics will become ineffective in humans.
This answer is unsupported. The scientists hypothesize that antibiotics in animal feed make antibiotics less effective in humans. Saying the antibiotics would become “ineffective” is too strong.
C
If the scientists’ recommendation is not heeded, no farmers will go out of business due to reduced meat yields.
This answer is unsupported. There could be other factors that cause farmers to go out of business.
D
If the health of their animals declines, most farmers will not be able to stay in business.
This answer is unsupported. “Most” farmers is too strong in this answer. We don’t know from the stimulus whether most farmers are animal farmers.
E
If antibiotic use in animal feed is phased out, some farmers will go out of business unless they use other means of increasing meat yields.
This answer is strongly supported. Reduced meat yields is a sufficient condition for farmers going out of business. So, unless there’s another way of increasing meat yields, some farmers will go out of business if meat yields are reduced by phasing out antibiotics.