Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the government’s proposal to publish reports of airline statistics will actually make the public less informed about airline safety because the reports will likely be incomplete.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This argument is flawed because it fails to consider the fact that reports can still inform the public about airline safety even if they’re incomplete. While it’s fair to assume that an incomplete report would be less informative than a complete one, an incomplete report is still better than nothing. Even if the reports are missing some information, there’s no reason to believe that they’d make the public less informed than if this kind of information weren’t made public at all.
A
fails to consider that, even if the reports are incomplete, they may nevertheless provide the public with important information about airline safety
This describes how the argument fails to consider that a report can still help inform the public even if it’s missing some information.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that the public has a right to all information about matters of public safety
The argument never assumes anything about people’s rights. It only claims that this policy will undermine the goal of informing the public.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that information about airline safety is impossible to find in the absence of government disclosures
The argument doesn’t assume that government disclosures are necessary to finding this information. In fact, the author claims that the government’s actions are counterproductive in this case.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that airlines, rather than the government, should be held responsible for accurate reporting of safety information
The argument makes no claim about who should be responsible for reporting this information. It only claims that this policy is counterproductive to the goal of informing the public.
E
fails to consider whether the publication of airline safety statistics will have an effect on the revenues of airlines
This is irrelevant. The argument is only concerned with whether or not this policy is effective at informing the public. It doesn’t matter what effect it has on airlines’ revenues.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that financial rewards don’t provide the strongest incentive when people are choosing one job over another. This is based on surveys showing that most people don’t name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the reason most people don’t name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job is because financial rewards aren’t the strongest incentive for them. But this overlooks the possibility that a high salary is just one component of “financial rewards.” Other financial rewards could provide the strongest incentive when choosing a job, even if salary doesn’t provide the strongest incentive.
A
Even high wages do not enable people to obtain all the goods they desire.
The author never assumed that high wages allow people to obtain every good they want. Even if they don’t, the survey results can still indicate that financial rewards aren’t the strongest incentive when choosing jobs.
B
In many surveys, people say that they would prefer a high-wage job to an otherwise identical job with lower wages.
This establishes that for the exact same job, people prefer higher wages. But the author never assumed people don’t care about money at all. The author’s position is that money isn’t the strongest incentive. But it can still be an incentive.
C
Jobs that pay the same salary often vary considerably in their other financial benefits.
This points out that “financial rewards” can include other aspects besides a high salary. For example, stock options or bonuses. This shows why the survey results, concerning only salary, don’t show that financial rewards are not the strongest incentive for people choosing jobs.
D
Many people enjoy the challenge of a difficult job, as long as they feel that their efforts are appreciated.
This points to something else people value about a job. If it does anything, it goes in the direction of supporting the author’s position that there are other parts of a job that could be a stronger incentive for choosing one job over another.
E
Some people are not aware that jobs with high salaries typically leave very little time for recreation.
This suggests that for some people, they don’t know ahead of time the downsides of jobs with high salaries. This doesn’t point out why the survey results don’t support the author’s conclusion.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the second study report a smaller percent of plants as having patterned stems than did the earlier study, even though the two studies covered approximately the same geographical area?
Objective
The correct answer should help differentiate the second study from the first in a way that could lead to a smaller proportion of the plants being reported to have patterned stems.
A
The first study was carried out at the time of year when plants of the species are at their most populous.
How populous the plant was during the study doesn’t impact the proportion of those plants with patterned stems. In the 1st study, 70% were reported to have patterned stems, and in the 2nd, that % went down. The number of plants in each study doesn’t impact % with patterned stems.
B
The first study, but not the second study, also collected information about patterned stems in other plant species.
We’re trying to explain the decrease in % reported to have patterned stems in a particular species of plants. What happened with other plant species has no impact.
C
The second study included approximately 15 percent more individual plants than the first study did.
The comparative number of plants in the studies doesn’t impact the proportion of those plants with patterned stems. In the 1st study, 70% were reported to have patterned stems. In the 2nd, that % went down. The number of plants in each study doesn’t impact % with patterned stems.
D
The first study used a broader definition of “patterned.”
A broader definition of “patterned” in the first study means that in the first study, any given plant was more likely to be considered “patterned” than in the second study. This could explain why the % reported to have patterned stems decreased in the second study.
E
The focus of the second study was patterned stems, while the first study collected information about patterned stems only as a secondary goal.
Whether counting patterned stems was a primary or secondary goal doesn’t explain why the % reported to have patterned stems decreased in the second study. We have no reason to think the focus of the study would change the likelihood a given plant would be counted as patterned.
Summarize Argument
Adobe—a type of clay—is a great building material for desert environments because heat takes a long time to pass through it, meaning the clay heats up and cools down slowly. As a result, adobe houses stay warm during cool evenings and remain cool during hot days, keeping the temperature comfortable. In contrast, houses made of other materials allow heat to pass through quickly, so they become hot during the day and cold at night.
Identify Conclusion
Adobe the perfect material for building homes in the desert.
A
Adobe is a suitable substitute for other building materials where the heat-conduction properties of the structure are especially important.
This is a necessary assumption of the argument. The argument concludes that adobe is better for building houses in the desert than other materials. This implies that adobe can replace other materials in deserts where controlling heat is important.
B
In the desert, adobe buildings remain cool during the heat of the day but retain the warmth of the sun during the cool evenings.
This is a premise. The passage explains how adobe keeps houses cool during the day and warm at night to support the conclusion that adobe is a great material for building homes in the desert. Since this claim supports the argument, it can’t be the argument’s main conclusion.
C
Because adobe conducts heat very slowly, adobe houses maintain a pleasant, constant temperature.
This refers to two premises. The passage explains that adobe conducts heat slowly, which helps keep houses at a steady temperature. This fact supports the claim that adobe is an ideal building material for desert environments. As it supports the argument, it isn’t the conclusion.
D
Ideally, a material used for building houses in desert environments should enable those houses to maintain a pleasant, constant temperature.
This is a necessary assumption. The argument concludes adobe is ideal because it helps desert houses stay at a comfortable, steady temperature. This means the argument assumes that a good building material for desert houses should help keep the temperature pleasant and constant.
E
Adobe is an especially suitable material to use for building houses in desert environments.
This accurately states the main conclusion. The passage says that adobe is an “ideal” material for building in the desert, meaning it’s especially good for that purpose. It specifies that adobe is ideal for constructing desert homes because it regulates house temperature.
After an oil spill, rehabilitation centers were set up to save sea otters by removing oil from them. The effort was not worthwhile, however, since 357 affected live otters and 900 that had died were counted, but only 222 affected otters, or 18 percent of those counted, were successfully rehabilitated and survived. Further, the percentage of all those affected that were successfully rehabilitated was much lower still, because only a fifth of the otters that died immediately were ever found.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the effort to save sea otters by removing oil from them wasn’t worthwhile. He supports this by saying that only 18% of counted otters were successfully rehabilitated and that this percentage is actually even lower because only a fifth of the otters that died immediately were ever found.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a low success rate means that the rehabilitation effort wasn’t worthwhile, ignoring the possibility that a small number of rehabilitated otters might have significant positive ecological value or long-term benefits.
He also assumes that the reported number of otters is accurate, without addressing the possibility that the dead otters that were never found can’t be accurately counted. (?)
Note: We’re looking for the answer choice that “calls into question evidence offered in support of the conclusion.”
A
Do sea otters of species other than those represented among the otters counted exist in areas that were not affected by the oil spill?
The author’s argument only addresses rehabilitation efforts among the otter population that was affected by the oil spill. Surely other otter species exist in other places, but their existence doesn’t call into question the evidence offered in support of the author’s conclusion.
B
How is it possible to estimate, of the sea otters that died, how many were not found?
This calls into question the author’s evidence. He claims that the percentage of successfully rehabilitated otters is much lower than 18% because only a fifth of the dead otters were ever found. But how can he know that this number is accurate if the otters were never found?
C
Did the process of capturing sea otters unavoidably involve trapping and releasing some otters that were not affected by the spill?
Like (A), the author’s argument is only concerned with those otters that were affected by the spill. The effects of the rehabilitation process on other otters doesn’t call into question his evidence, which only addresses affected otters.
D
Were other species of wildlife besides sea otters negatively affected by the oil spill?
The author’s evidence only addresses sea otters that were affected by the oil spill. Whether other species of wildlife were also affected is irrelevant, since the rehabilitation efforts in question only involved sea otters.
E
What was the eventual cost, per otter rehabilitated, of the rehabilitation operation?
The author doesn’t mention cost as a factor in his assessment of whether the rehabilitation effort was worthwhile. (E) thus doesn’t call into question the author’s evidence, which only addresses the percentage of otters that were rehabilitated.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why are residents of X who are reported to have disease P more likely to die from it than are residents of any other country, even though X has the lowest rate of disease P out of all countries?
Objective
The correct answer should help explain why the fatality rate for those reported to have disease P is higher in country X despite the lower rate of disease P in that country.
A
There are several forms of disease P, some of which are more contagious than others.
But are residents of country X more likely to contract the more contagious forms of disease P? In any case, degree of contagiousness doesn’t indicate the deadliness of a disease. It indicates instead the likelihood of spreading to others.
B
Most of the fatal cases of disease P found in Country X involve people who do not reside in Country X.
The statistic in the stimulus concerns residents of country X. So, deaths from people who don’t reside in country X are irrelevant, because they aren’t counted in the statistic.
C
In Country X, diagnosis of disease P seldom occurs except in the most severe cases of the disease.
This could explain both the lower rate of disease P in country X (mild cases go unreported) as well as the higher likelihood of death for those reported to have disease P. The reported cases would be more severe, on average, than cases in other countries.
D
The number of cases of disease P that occur in any country fluctuates widely from year to year.
Varying levels of disease P from year to year doesn’t help explain a lower rate of the disease in country X or why the reported cases are more deadly. We would already expect the number of cases not to be exactly the same every year.
E
Because of its climate, more potentially fatal illnesses occur in Country X than in many other countries.
We’re trying to explain the higher fatality rate of disease P in country X. Other illnesses don’t affect the fatality rate of disease P.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Other people think that as active landfills are closed over the next ten years, there will be a serious shortage of usable landfills. The author concludes that this belief is unsound. The author supports this conclusion by asserting that the belief is based on the assumption that no new landfills will open over the next ten years, and by asserting that this assumption is unlikely to be true.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is other people’s position. They think that there will be a shortage of landfills because many active landfills will be closed over the next ten years.
A
It follows from the claim stated in the argument’s first sentence.
The referenced text does not follow from the first sentence. It doesn’t follow from any claim in the stimulus. Some people think it follows from the claim that landfills will close over the next decade, but the author’s point is that it does not follow from that claim.
B
It is the main conclusion of the argument.
The author’s conclusion criticizes the referenced text.
C
It establishes the truth of the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text does not support the author’s conclusion. It’s criticized by the author’s conclusion.
D
It is a claim on which the argument as a whole is designed to cast doubt.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. The author’s argument criticizes the view that there will be an inevitable crisis of landfill availability.
E
It is an intermediate conclusion of the argument.
The referenced text is not a premise or a conclusion of the author’s argument. It’s criticized by the author’s argument.