Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Fraenger asserts that Bosch belonged to the Brethren of the Free Spirit. The author concludes that this is unlikely to be correct. This is based on the fact that Bosch was a member of a mainstream church, and there’s no evidence that he was a member of the Brethren.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is offered to support the conclusion that Bosch probably didn’t belong to the Brethren of the Free Spirit.
A
It is a premise that, when combined with the other premises, guarantees the falsity of Fraenger’s assertion.
This is too extreme. The premises do not guarantee that Fraenger’s assertion is false.
B
It is used to support the claim that Bosch was a member of a mainstream church.
The referenced text does not support the claim that Bosch was part of a mainstream church. It is used in combination with that claim to support the conclusion that Bosch probably didn’t belong to the Brethren of the Free Spirit.
C
It is used to dispute Fraenger’s hypothesis by questioning Fraenger’s credibility.
The author doesn’t question Fraenger’s credibility. She questions the support for Fraenger’s assertion.
D
It is intended to cast doubt on Fraenger’s hypothesis by questioning the sufficiency of Fraenger’s evidence.
This accurately describes the role of the claim that there’s no evidence Bosch was a member of the Brethren. By pointing out there’s no evidence, the author questions whether there is enough evidence to support Fraenger’s assertion.
E
It is intended to help show that Bosch’s choice of subject matter remains unexplained.
Although Bosch’s choice of subject matter may be unexplained, the author doesn’t offer the referenced text to help show this. It’s offered to support the claim that Bosch probably didn’t belong to the Brethren of the Free Spirit.
Summarize Argument
The author argues that the survival of every currently existing species is not necessary for biodiversity. To support life, various ecological roles must be occupied, and many of these roles can be occupied by multiple species.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that the survival of every species that exists today is not necessary for biodiversity: “biodiversity does not require the survival of every currently existing species.”
A
Biodiversity does not require that all existing species continue to exist.
This rephrases the conclusion.
B
There are various ecological niches that must be filled if there is to be life on Earth.
This is context. It provides background that is important for understanding the premise, which is that many of these niches can be filled by more than one species.
C
The survival of life on Earth depends upon biodiversity.
This is context. While important for understanding the overall argument, it is not the conclusion.
D
There are many ecological niches that can be filled by more than one species.
This is a premise. It provides support for why biodiversity does not require every currently existing species to survive.
E
The species most indispensable for biodiversity fill more than one ecological niche.
This is not an idea that is discussed in the stimulus.
Moore: Sunscreen lotions, which are designed to block skin-cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation, do not do so effectively. Many scientific studies have shown that people who have consistently used these lotions develop, on average, as many skin cancers as those who have rarely, if ever, used them.
Summarize Argument
Moore concludes that sunscreens meant to block cancer-causing UV radiation aren't effective. She supports this by pointing out that studies show that people who use these lotions regularly get as many skin cancers as those who rarely use them.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Moore compares two groups: people who use sunscreen regularly and those who use it rarely or never. She concludes that sunscreen is ineffective because both groups get the same amount of skin cancer. However, she assumes the only difference between the groups is sunscreen use, ignoring other potentially relevant factors, like sun exposure or genetic predisposition to skin cancer.
A
takes for granted that there are no other possible health benefits of using sunscreen lotions other than blocking skin-cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation
Moore’s argument is only about whether the sunscreen lotions effectively block cancer-causing UV radiation. Whether they have other health benefits is irrelevant.
B
fails to distinguish between the relative number of cases of skin cancer and the severity of those cases in measuring effectiveness at skin cancer prevention
This is true, but it doesn’t weaken Moore’s argument. She argues that sunscreen doesn’t effectively block UV radiation because sunscreen users get skin cancer just as much as non-users. The severity of those cases is irrelevant.
C
fails to consider the effectiveness of sunscreen lotions that are not specifically designed to block skin-cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation
Moore’s conclusion only addresses sunscreen lotions that are specifically designed to block cancer-causing UV radiation. The effectiveness of any other sunscreen lotions is irrelevant.
D
relies on evidence regarding the probability of people in different groups developing cancer that, in principle, would be impossible to challenge
The evidence that Moore cites may not support her conclusion well, but there’s no reason to believe that it would be impossible to challenge.
E
overlooks the possibility that people who consistently use sunscreen lotions spend more time in the sun, on average, than people who do not
Moore concludes that sunscreen is ineffective because both sunscreen users and non-users get the same amount of skin cancer. She overlooks the possibility that there might be some other relevant difference between these groups, like sunscreen users spending more time in the sun.
Cookie Cutters
68.3.01
64.1.13
57.3.18
55.3.09
39.2.05
25.4.24
Summary
If businesspeople invest in modern industries not yet pursued, then a developing country could increase its economic growth. However, being the first to invest in an industry is risky. Businesspeople have little incentive to take this risk since other investors in the same industry will cut into their profits if the business succeeds.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If incentives are added for businesspeople to invest in modern industries not yet pursued, then a developing country could increase economic growth.
A
Once a developing country has at least one business in a modern industry, further investment in that industry will not contribute to the country’s economic growth.
This answer is not supported. We don’t know anything from the stimulus if there exists any type of investment that will not contribute to economic growth.
B
In developing countries, there is greater competition within modern industries than within traditional industries.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about traditional industries from the stimulus to make this comparison. The stimulus is limited to modern industries.
C
A developing country can increase its prospects for economic growth by providing added incentive for investment in modern industries that have not yet been pursued there.
This answer is strongly supported. The stimulus gives us a conditional statement for the prospect of improving economic growth. Since what’s preventing investment is risk, reducing this risk by providing incentives would increase the prospects for economic growth.
D
A developing country will not experience economic growth unless its businesspeople invest in modern industries.
This answer is unsupported. This answer choice reverses the conditional relationship. The stimulus provides that experiencing economic growth is a necessary condition to businesspeople investing in modern industries, not a sufficient condition.
E
Investments in a modern industry in a developing country carry little risk as long as the country has at least one other business in that industry.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus tells us that there is risk for the first to invest, but we don’t know if there is little risk for subsequent investors. It could be the case that investment is just as risky for them.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that chocolate interferes with one’s ability to taste coffee. Her evidence is an experiment showing that the group who ate chocolate wasn’t able to taste the differences between coffee samples, whereas the group that didn’t eat chocolate were able to taste the differences.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there was no relevant difference between the two groups in the experiment besides the fact that one group had eaten chocolate. Any relevant difference between the two groups would call into question the author’s hypothesis. The author also assumes that a single experiment with ten people is sufficient to draw conclusions about how chocolate affects one’s ability to taste coffee.
A
The ten people were randomly assigned to either the group that tasted only coffee or the group that was also given chocolate, although some people had asked to be in the group that received chocolate.
Well, those people who wanted to be in the chocolate group were nevertheless randomly assigned. The experiment remains intact.
B
Similar results were achieved when the experiment was repeated with a different, larger group of people.
This strengthens the author’s argument by shoring up the sample size issue.
C
Chocolate is normally consumed as a solid, whereas coffee is normally consumed as a liquid.
This is true. But how does this affect the author’s argument? We need to weaken the connection between eating chocolate and not being able to taste the differences between coffee samples.
D
The five people who were originally given chocolate were asked a week later to taste coffee samples without chocolate, and they still detected no differences between the coffee samples.
The five people in the chocolate group simply have no ability to taste the differences between coffee samples. Once chocolate was removed as a variable, the results of the experiment remained exactly the same.
E
Some subjects who tasted just coffee reported only subtle differences between the coffee samples, while others thought the differences were considerable.
Regardless of the strength of the differences, these people all noted differences. People in the chocolate group didn’t note any differences.
Student: Before completing my research paper, I want to find the book from which I copied a passage to quote in the paper. Without the book, I will be unable to write an accurate citation, and without an accurate citation, I will be unable to include the quotation. Hence, since the completed paper will be much better with the quotation than without, _______.
Summary
I want to find the book containing a passage I quoted before completing my research paper. Including the quotation requires an accurate citation, and an accurate citation requires the book. The completed paper will be much better with the quote included than without.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
My research paper will be deficient without the book.
A
I will have to include an inaccurate citation
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if we need to include an inaccurate citation. We could, alternatively, find the book.
B
I will be unable to complete my research paper
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if we will in fact be unable to complete the research paper. We only know that the paper will be better with the citation.
C
if I do not find the book, my research paper will suffer
This answer is strongly supported. If the paper would be better with the citation from the book included, then the paper will suffer without finding the book.
D
if I do not find the book, I will include the quotation without an accurate citation
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if we will for a fact include the quotation without an accurate citation.
E
if I do not find the book, I will be unable to complete my research paper
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if we will in fact be unable to complete the research paper. We only know that the paper will be better with the citation.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do most concertgoers oppose the idea of tearing down the existing concert hall and replacing it with a new concert hall, even though almost all concertgoers aren’t satisfied with the existing concert hall?
Objective
The correct answer should help explain why the concertgoers wouldn’t want to tear down the existing concert hall despite their dissatisfaction with it.
A
Before any of the survey questions were asked, the respondents were informed that the survey was sponsored by a group that advocates replacing the existing concert hall.
The identity of the group that conducted the survey has no clear impact. Would learning the identify influence the concertgoers’ statements? We have no reason to think so.
B
Most of the people who live in the vicinity of the existing concert hall do not want it to be torn down.
The discrepancy involves a survey of the “city’s concertgoers.” The opinion of people who live near the existing concert hall doesn’t matter, because we have no reason to think the “city’s concertgoers” are among those who live near the hall.
C
The city’s construction industry will receive more economic benefit from the construction of a new concert hall than from renovations to the existing concert hall.
How the construction industry will benefit has no clear impact. We’re concerned about the opinions of the city’s concertgoers, not of the construction industry.
D
A well-publicized plan is being considered by the city government that would convert the existing concert hall into a public auditorium and build a new concert hall nearby.
Citizens might be aware of this well-publicized plan, which could explain why they don’t want to tear down the existing hall. They might prefer the conversion of the existing hall and the construction of a new building for a new concert hall.
E
Many popular singers and musicians who currently do not hold concerts in the city would begin to hold concerts there if a new concert hall were built.
If this does anything, it only deepens the discrepancy. Why wouldn’t people want to replace the existing hall with a new one if it would get many popular musicians to perform there?
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that each of the two distinct populations of sockeye salmon has adapated genetically to their distinct habitats. This is the author’s causal explanation for the fact that the two distinct populations are different genetically, even though they both began as part of the same group of genetically uniform sockeyes.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s no other explanation for why the two groups of salmon are genetically distinct besides adaptation to their environments. This overlooks the possibility that the two populations are genetically different due to interbreeding with various other fish groups.
A
Neither of the two populations of sockeyes has interbred with the native salmon.
This helps eliminate the alternate explanation of interbreeding. In theory, the two populations might have been genetically different because one of them bred with the native salmon. (A) eliminates that explanation.
B
When the native salmon in Lake Clearwater were numerous, they comprised two distinct populations that did not interbreed.
This tells us the native salmon used to be two distinct populations. But that doesn’t shed light on the origin of the genetic differences between the sockeye salmon, which are different from the native salmon.
C
Most types of salmon that inhabit lakes spend part of the time in shallow water and part in deeper water.
Where salmon typically spend time has no impact, because we know the two populations don’t interbreed and live in different areas of the lake.
D
One of the populations of sockeyes is virtually identical genetically to the sockeyes originally introduced in 1940.
This tells us that one of the two sockeye populations is similar to the original sockeyes. But this doesn’t help establish the cause of the genetic differences between the two current sockeye populations.
E
The total number of sockeye salmon in the lake is not as large as the number of native salmon had been many years ago.
The overall number of salmon has no clear impact on the explanation for the genetic differences between the two populations.