Hine’s emerald dragonflies are an endangered species that live in wetlands. The larvae of these dragonflies can survive only in the water, where they are subject to predation by several species including red devil crayfish. Surprisingly, the dragonfly populations are more likely to remain healthy in areas where red devil crayfish are present than in areas without red devil crayfish.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why are the dragonfly populations more likely to remain healthy in areas where red devil crayfish are present than in areas without red devil crayfish, even though the dragonfly larvae can survive only in water, and those larvae can be eaten by red devil crayfish when they are in water?

Objective
The correct answer should tell us something beneficial for the dragonflies from being in areas with the red devil crayfish, or something negative from being in areas without red devil crayfish.

A
Red devil crayfish dig chambers that remain filled with water even when the surrounding wetlands dry up.
This is a benefit for the dragonfly from being in areas with red devil crayfish. Without the water chambers created by the crayfish, larvae might not be able to survive. This may be why dragonfly populations are higher in areas with the crayfish despite the extra predation.
B
Red devil crayfish present no threat to adult Hine’s emerald dragonflies.
But the crayfish can still eat the dragonfly larvae. We’d still expect the dragonfly population to be better off without the red devil crayfish.
C
The varied diet of the red devil crayfish does not include any animal species that prey on dragonfly larvae.
If the crayfish eat the larvae, and don’t eat anything that preys on the larvae, that’s worse for the larvae. We’d expect the dragonfly population to be better off without the red devil crayfish.
D
Red devil crayfish are found in many more locations than Hine’s emerald dragonflies are.
The number of places the crayfish is found doesn’t tell us anything beneficial about the crayfish for the dragonfly population. We still don’t know why the dragonfly population is higher in areas with the crayfish than in areas without.
E
Populations of red devil crayfish in a wetland do not drop significantly if the local population of Hine’s emerald dragonflies dies out.
This suggests crayfish might eat other things besides the dragonflies. But they can still eat dragonfly larvae. So, we’d still expect the dragonfly population to be better off without the red devil crayfish.

15 comments

Stress is a common cause of high blood pressure. By calming their minds and thereby reducing stress, some people can lower their blood pressure. And most people can calm their minds, in turn, by engaging in exercise.

Summary
The stimulus says that stress often causes high blood pressure. Also, some people can calm their minds to lower their stress and thus reduce their blood pressure. Finally, most people can calm their minds by exercising.
In Lawgic, this looks like:
P1. calm mind -s→ lower stress -s→ lower BP
P2. exercise -m→ calm mind

Strongly Supported Conclusions
The stimulus supports the conclusion that some people can probably use exercise to lower their blood pressure.
In Lawgic, this means combining the premises listed above to look like:
P1. exercise -m→ calm mind -s→ lower stress -s→ lower BP

A
For at least some people, having lower blood pressure has at least some tendency to cause their stress levels to be reduced.
This is not supported. The stimulus tells us about a causal link where high stress can cause high blood pressure, not the other way around.
B
Most people with high blood pressure can lower their blood pressure by reducing their stress levels.
This is not supported. Reading closely, the stimulus only says that stress is a “common” cause of high blood pressure. “Common” doesn’t equate to “most.” Instead, it would be better translated as “some,” which does not support this inference.
C
Most people who do not exercise regularly have higher stress levels as a result.
This is not supported. Firstly, most people can calm their minds by exercising, but a calm mind only sometimes reduces stress—maybe less than half the time, we don’t know. Secondly, there may be other ways to calm the mind and reduce stress without exercising.
D
Engaging in exercise can directly lower one’s blood pressure.
This is not supported. The stimulus describes a very indirect mechanism for exercise to sometimes lower blood pressure: we need the intermediate steps of calm mind and stress reduction first. That’s definitely not a direct link between exercise and lower blood pressure.
E
For at least some people, engaging in exercise can cause their stress levels to be reduced.
This is strongly supported. Based on the stimulus, exercise can calm the mind, which can reduce stress, which can reduce blood pressure. None of these steps is guaranteed, but it seems very likely that at least some people make it all the way to lower blood pressure.

9 comments

A positive correlation has been found between the amount of soot in the atmosphere of cities and the frequency of a certain ailment among those cities’ populations. However, the soot itself probably does not cause this ailment, since in cities where there are large amounts of soot in the air, there are usually also high concentrations of many other air pollutants.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that soot itself doesn’t cause a certain ailment. This is because cities with lots of soot in the air usally also have lots of other pollutants in the air.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the ailment in question isn’t specifically linked to soot and not linked to other pollutants. If this were the case, then soot could likely be identified as a cause of the ailment. The author also assumes that the ailment isn’t prevalent in places where there’s soot in the air but no other pollutants. The author claims soot is usually accompanied by other pollutants, which means there are instances where this isn’t the case.

A
In cities where there are high concentrations of many air pollutants but little if any soot in the air, the frequency of the ailment is just as high, on average, as it is in cities where there are large amounts of soot in the air.
This supports the author’s argument. Other pollutants are likely causing the ailment.
B
If the ailment rarely occurs except in cities in which there are large amounts of soot in the air, then the soot is probably the cause of the ailment.
Does this ever happen? We don’t know.
C
In each of the cities where there are large amounts of soot in the air but little other air pollution, the frequency of the ailment is at least as high as it is anywhere else.
When soot and no other pollutants are in the air, the ailment is as prevalent as ever. Thus, soot seems likely to be the cause of the ailment.
D
If high concentrations of many different pollutants in a city’s air are correlated with a high frequency of the ailment among that city’s population, then it is possible that two or more of those pollutants each causally contributes to the ailment.
This seems to support the author’s argument. Several of the pollutants together could’ve cause the ailment, rather than soot alone.
E
In cities in which there are high concentrations of many air pollutants, there are generally also high concentrations of other forms of pollution that are very likely to contribute causally to the ailment.
This supports the author’s argument. Other forms of pollution are contributing to the ailment rather than soot alone.

25 comments

Vacuum cleaner salesperson: To prove that this Super XL vacuum cleaner is better than your old vacuum cleaner, I ran your old vacuum once over this dirty carpet. Then I ran the Super XL over the same area. All that dirt that the Super XL picked up is dirt your old vacuum left behind, proving the Super XL is the better vacuum.

Summarize Argument

The salesperson concludes that the Super XL is the better vacuum because it picked up dirt that the old vacuum missed after both were used on the same area of carpet. The Super XL was used second.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The salesperson's argument is vulnerable to criticism because the vacuums weren't tested under the same conditions. Just because the Super XL picked up some dirt that the old vacuum missed doesn't necessarily suggest that the Super XL is better. In fact, the Super XL might have missed just as much dirt if it had been used first. The salesperson should have tested both vacuums individually to compare how much dirt they each collected on their first pass over equally dirty areas of carpet.

A
ignores the possibility that dirt remained in the carpet even after the Super XL had been used in the test

The salesperson never assumes that the Super XL picked up all the dirt in the carpet. Presumably at least a little bit of dirt remained in the carpet after the Super XL was used, but this doesn't change the fact that it picked up dirt that the old vacuum left behind.

B
takes for granted that the Super XL will still perform better than the old vacuum cleaner when it is the same age as the old vacuum cleaner

The salesperson argues that the Super XL is the better vacuum right now. He never assumes that it will still perform better in 10 years.

C
takes for granted that because the Super XL outperforms one vacuum cleaner it is the best vacuum cleaner available

The salesperson never claimed that the Super XL is the best vacuum cleaner available, just that it’s better than the old vacuum.

D
ignores the possibility that the amount of dirt removed in the test by the old vacuum cleaner is greater than the amount of dirt removed by the Super XL

The salesperson’s argument isn’t about which vacuum picked up the greater amount of dirt. He never actually assumes that the Super XL picked up more dirt. Instead, he argues that the Super XL is better because it picked up dirt that the old vacuum left behind.

E
ignores the possibility that if the Super XL had been used first it would have left behind just as much dirt as did the old vacuum cleaner

The salesperson didn’t test the vacuums under the same conditions. He argues that the Super XL is better because it picked up dirt that the old vacuum missed on its first pass. But it’s possible that the Super XL might’ve left behind just as much dirt if it had been tested first.


13 comments

Manager: This company’s supply chain will develop significant weaknesses unless we make changes to our vendor contracts now. Some will argue that this problem is so far in the future that there is no need to address it today. But that is an irresponsible approach. Just imagine if a financial planner offered the same counsel to a 30-year-old client: “Don’t worry, Jane, retirement is 35 years away; you don’t need to save anything now.” That planner would be guilty of gross malpractice.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The manager claims that it would be irresponsible for the company to wait to address future supply chain issues. To support this claim, the manager uses an analogy, noting that if a financial planner encouraged a client to postpone retirement planning simply because retirement is in the future, the planner would be engaging in malpractice.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the manager’s claim that it would be irresponsible for the company to wait to address future supply chain issues: “that is an irresponsible approach.”

A
Some people argue that the supply-chain problem is so far in the future that there is no need to address it now.
This is not the conclusion, it is context about the stance the manager is arguing against.
B
It would be irresponsible to postpone changes to the vendor contracts just because the supply chain will not develop weaknesses for a long time.
This rephrases the conclusion.
C
If no changes are made to the vendor contracts, the supply chain will eventually develop significant weaknesses.
This is a premise, not the overall conclusion. By stating that the company’s supply chain will develop significant weaknesses if changes are not made immediately, the manager supports the conclusion that to postpone the necessary changes would be irresponsible.
D
In planning to meet its future obligations, a company should follow the same practices that are appropriate for an individual who is planning for retirement.
This is not the manager’s conclusion. The manager uses the retirement example as an analogy to illustrate how postponing action can be detrimental, but does not conclude that the company should follow the same practices as an individual who is planning for retirement.
E
Financial planners should advise their clients to save money for retirement only if retirement is many years away.
The manager does not make this claim.

14 comments

Worldwide, more books were sold last year than in any previous year. In particular, there were more cookbooks sold. For the first time ever, most of the cookbooks sold were not intended for beginners. Indeed, more cookbooks than ever were purchased by professional cooks. However, one of the few books available on every continent is a cookbook written for beginners, entitled Problem-Free Cooking.

Summary

Last year, more books were sold worldwide than ever before, especially cookbooks. For the first time ever, most of these cookbooks were not intended for beginners. In fact, more cookbooks than ever were bought by professional cooks. However, one cookbook for beginners, Problem-Free Cooking, is one of the few books available on every continent.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

There could be an increasing demand for professional-level cookbooks.

There were more cookbooks sold last year that were not intended for beginners than in any other year.

There are few cookbooks that are available on every continent.

A
Last year there were more cookbooks sold that were not intended for beginners than in any previous year.

Strongly supported. More cookbooks were sold last year and, for the first time ever, the majority of these cookbooks were not intended for beginners. Thus, there were more cookbooks sold last year that were not intended for beginners than in any previous year.

B
The best-selling cookbook last year was a cookbook that was intended for beginners.

Unsupported. Problem-Free Cooking is intended for beginners and is available on every continent, but we do not know that it was the best-selling cookbook last year. We also do not know whether any other cookbook intended for beginners was the best-selling cookbook last year.

C
Sales of cookbooks intended for beginners were lower last year than in previous years.

Unsupported. Sales of cookbooks not intended for beginners surpassed the sales of cookbooks intended for beginners. But that does not mean that the sales of cookbooks intended for beginners were lower last year than in previous years.

D
Most of the cookbooks purchased last year that were not intended for beginners were purchased by professional cooks.

Unsupported. We know that professional cooks purchased more cookbooks than ever. But we do not know whether most of the cookbooks that were not intended for beginners were purchased by professional cooks. Perhaps beginners still purchased lots of non-beginner books.

E
Problem-Free Cooking sold more copies last year than did any cookbook written for professional cooks.

Unsupported. Problem-Free Cooking is available on every continent, but we do not know how many copies it sold or whether it sold more copies last year than any cookbook written for professional cooks.


21 comments

Clinician: Patients with immune system disorders are usually treated with a class of drugs that, unfortunately, increase the patient’s risk of developing osteoporosis, a bone-loss disease. So these patients take another drug that helps to preserve existing bone. Since a drug that enhances the growth of new bone cells has now become available, these patients should take this new drug in addition to the drug that helps to preserve existing bone.

Summarize Argument
The clinician concludes that patients with immune system disorders should take a new bone-growth drug in addition their bone-preservation drug. This is because that drug enhances the growth of new bone cells, and patients with immune system disorders are at risk of a bone-loss disease.

Notable Assumptions
The clinician assumes that the two drugs—bone-growth and bone-preservation—are fine to take together. This means she doesn’t believe the two drugs would interfere with one another, or that there would be some health risk to taking them together. She also believes that these patients should take a drug stimulating bone growth simply because they’re at risk of osteoporosis. This means she doesn’t believe that osteoporosis has to have developed for the bone-growth drug to be useful.

A
How large is the class of drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis?
We don’t care how large that class of drugs is. We care about what someone taking such drugs should do.
B
Why are immune system disorders treated with drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis?
Irrelevant. The clinician’s conclusion is about what should be done to address the risk of osteoporosis, rather than why osteoporosis develops in the first place.
C
Is the new drug more expensive than the drug that helps to preserve existing bone?
Price is beside the point. The clinician is recommending the best medical course of action to address the risk of osteoporosis.
D
How long has the drug that helps to preserve existing bone been in use?
We’re not interested in the bone-preservation drug. We have no idea what its history would even reveal about its efficacy.
E
To what extent does the new drug retain its efficacy when used in combination with the other drugs?
If the new drug doesn’t retain its efficacy in combination with the other drugs, then there’s no point in patients taking it. On the other hand, if it does retain its efficacy, then the clinician’s argument is strengthened: the drugs don’t have undesired effects in combination.

3 comments

Fluoride enters a region’s groundwater when rain dissolves fluoride-bearing minerals in the soil. In a recent study, researchers found that when rainfall, concentrations of fluoride-bearing minerals, and other relevant variables are held constant, fluoride concentrations in groundwater are significantly higher in areas where the groundwater also contains a high concentration of sodium.

Summary
Fluoride enters groundwater when rain dissolves minerals with fluoride in the soil. Researchers found that when all variables are held constant, fluoride concentrations are significantly higher in areas where the groundwater also contains a high concentration of sodium.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
When there is a high concentration of fluoride, there is likely a high concentration of sodium.
Sodium helps dissolve fluoride into groundwater.

A
Fluoride-bearing minerals are not the primary source of fluoride found in groundwater.
The stimulus does not provide alternative sources of fluoride in groundwater
B
Rainfall does not affect fluoride concentrations in groundwater.
This is anti-supported. The stimulus explains that rainfall causes minerals with fluoride to dissolve and enter the groundwater
C
Sodium-bearing minerals dissolve at a faster rate than fluoride-bearing minerals.
There is no information in the stimulus to support this comparative statement. There is no information about the rate at which sodium vs fluoride dissolves
D
Sodium in groundwater increases the rate at which fluoride-bearing minerals dissolve.
The stimulus explains that fluoride concentrations are higher in areas with high sodium concentrations, even when all variables are held constant. This suggests that the sodium could impact the rate at which minerals with fluoride dissolve.
E
Soil that contains high concentrations of sodium-bearing minerals also contains high concentrations of fluoride-bearing minerals.
This has the logic flipped. It is conceivable that high concentrations of fluoride minerals are found in areas with high concentrations of salt, not the other way around.

23 comments