Summary
When industries try to use new technology quickly, the people who can master the new technology will have success. Many people who can’t master the new technology will lose their jobs. But if a business tries to resist using new technology, they’ll eventually lose to businesses that do use new technology, and all of their employees will lose their jobs.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
We’re supposed to fill in a blank concerning businesses that resist new technology. One reasonable conclusion is that those businesses are not doing something that will save their employees’ jobs.
A
is less likely to dislocate workers than it is to create job security for them
Antisupported. The stimulus indicates that businesses that resist new technology will lose out to other businesses and their employees will lose their jobs.
B
will affect only those who possess technical skills
Antisupported. Businesses that resist new technology will get their employees fired. That’s an effect on all employees, not just those who posses technical skills.
C
cannot prevent job loss in the long run
Strongly supported. The stimulus indicates that businesses that resist new technology will lose out to other businesses and thereby lead to job loss for all of their employees.
D
eventually creates more jobs than it destroys
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t discuss or suggest anything concerning what will create new jobs.
E
must take priority over any attempt to promote new industries
Unsupported. The stimulus discusses a negative consequence to employees by resisting technology. There’s no reason the author would suggest that businesses should prioritize resisting technology above some other activity.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if a survey is well constructed, survey respondents’ desire to meet surveyors’ expectations won’t affect the survey’s results. This is based on the fact that in well-constructed surveys the way questions are worded don’t indicate the kind of answer that the surveyor might expect.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that a respondents’ answers can still be affected by desire to meet the surveyor’s expectations, even if the questions don’t indicate the surveyor’s expectations. Perhaps, for example, the respondent might form a belief about the surveyor’s expectations through other aspects of the survey besides the questions.
A
an opinion survey that disguises the surveyor’s expectations may be flawed in a number of ways, some of which have nothing to do with the surveyor’s expectations
The conclusion is only concerned with whether the desire to meet expectations will affect the results. Whether there are other ways a survey can be flawed doesn’t affect whether the desire to meet expectations will affect results in a well-constructed survey.
B
when people who respond to opinion surveys hold strong opinions, their answers are unlikely to be influenced by other people’s expectations
(B) points out the possibility that respondents’ answers are UNlikely to influenced. This doesn’t point out a flaw, because we’re trying to show why respondents’ views still CAN be affected by the surveyor’s expectations.
C
many opinion surveyors have no expectations whatsoever regarding the answers of people who respond to surveys
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument’s reasoning. If many surveyors have no expectations, that doesn’t help show why respondents’ desire to meet expectations actually could affect results.
D
some people who know what answers an opinion surveyor expects to hear will purposefully try to thwart the surveyor’s expectations
The conclusion concerns whether a desire to MEET expectations will affect survey results. The desire to “thwart” expectations involves a desire NOT to meet expectations; this is about a different issue that the conclusion isn’t concerned with.
E
the answers of opinion-survey respondents can be influenced by beliefs about the surveyor’s expectations even if those beliefs are unfounded
This possibility shows how a desire to meet expectations can still affect the results, even if the questions don’t indicate the expectations. The respondent might just wrongly assume what the surveyor expects, and answer in a way that meets those assumed expectations.
Summary
The author concludes that accidents that result from cars going around railroad crossing gates are not the fault of the railroad company. This is because the drivers of those cars are adults who should know that they shouldn’t go around railroad crossing gates.
Note that it’s important to translate the conclusion — “this is a mistake” — into “the railroad company is not (at all) at fault.” If you don’t realize that the conclusion is asserting that the railroad company is 0% at fault, you’ll struggle with this question.
Note that it’s important to translate the conclusion — “this is a mistake” — into “the railroad company is not (at all) at fault.” If you don’t realize that the conclusion is asserting that the railroad company is 0% at fault, you’ll struggle with this question.
Missing Connection
We’re trying to prove that the railroad company is not at fault — not even partially at fault. But the premise doesn’t establish anything about who is or isn’t at fault. So, at a minimum, we want an answer that mentions something about fault.
Moreover, the answer, in connection with the premises, must establish that the railroad company bears no fault at all. If the answer allows the railroad company to possibly bear partial fault, it’s not correct.
Here’s an example answer that could make the argument valid:
If an accident could have been avoided by an adult who should know better than to act in a way that led to the accident, then nobody else is at fault except the adult.
Moreover, the answer, in connection with the premises, must establish that the railroad company bears no fault at all. If the answer allows the railroad company to possibly bear partial fault, it’s not correct.
Here’s an example answer that could make the argument valid:
If an accident could have been avoided by an adult who should know better than to act in a way that led to the accident, then nobody else is at fault except the adult.
A
The gates could be made larger, yet irresponsible drivers might still be able to go around them onto the tracks.
(A) doesn’t provide any way to assign fault/blame/responsibility away from the railroad company. Are railroad companies at fault for irresponsible drivers going onto the tracks? Maybe; we don’t know.
B
Capable adults have a responsibility to take some measures to ensure their own safety.
(B) might support a claim that the adult drivers who go around railroad crossing gates bear some responsibility for their actions. But (B) doesn’t completely absolve railroad companies from responsibility. Under (B), railroad companies might still be partially at fault.
C
When the warnings of companies are disregarded by capable adults, the adults are fully responsible for any resulting accidents.
(C) establishes that the adults who go around railroad crossing gates, which we know give warnings about trains, bear “full” responsibility for resulting accidents. If the adults are fully responsible, then the railroad company bears no responsibility.
D
Small children are not involved in accidents resulting from drivers going around the gates.
(D) doesn’t provide any way to assign fault/blame/responsibility away from the railroad company. Are railroad companies at fault for irresponsible drivers going onto the tracks? Maybe; we don’t know.
E
Any company’s responsibility to promote public safety is not unlimited.
(E) limits the extent of a railroad company’s responsibility to promote public safety. But it doesn’t guarantee, with respect to the issue of people going around gates at railroad crossing, that railroad companies aren’t at fault for resulting accidents.
A new device uses the global positioning system to determine a cow’s location and, when a cow strays outside of its pasture, makes noises in the cow’s ears to steer it back to its home range. Outfitting all of the cattle in a herd with this device is far more expensive than other means of keeping cattle in their pastures, such as fences. The device’s maker nevertheless predicts that ranchers will purchase the device at its current price.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why does the device’s maker think that ranchers will buy the device at its current price even though it is far more expensive to use this device on all the cattle in a herd than it is to use some other means of keeping cattle in their pasture?
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key characteristic of this device that makes ranchers likely to purchase the device in spite of the fact that it is very costly to outfit all the cattle in a herd with this device.
A
The price of the device will come down appreciably if the device’s maker is able to produce it in large quantities.
The device’s maker predicts that ranchers will buy the device at its current price, so whether its price decreases in the future is irrelevant. Also, (A) does not help to explain why ranchers will purchase the device at its current price.
B
As they graze, cattle in a herd follow the lead of the same few members of the herd.
This highlights a key feature that makes ranchers likely to buy the device, even though it’s expensive to outfit an entire herd with it. The reason is simply that ranchers only need to outfit a few leading cattle, not all of them.
C
The device has been shown not to cause significant stress to cattle.
The device may not cause stress to cattle, but this doesn’t give a reason why ranchers will purchase it despite its cost. Presumably there are other, cheaper means of keeping cattle in their pasture that also don’t cause stress. So what’s so great about this device?
D
The device has been shown to be as effective as fences at keeping cattle in their pastures.
If the device is as effective as fences at keeping cattle in their pastures, but fences are far less expensive, why will the ranchers still purchase the device? We need to highlight a characteristic of this device that will cause ranchers to purchase it.
E
The device’s maker offers significant discounts to purchasers who buy in bulk.
Like (A), the device’s maker predicts that ranchers will buy the device at its current price, so whether it is discounted for bulk purchases is not relevant.
Summary
Researchers compared the brains of recently deceased people with schizophrenia with the brains of recently deceased people without schizophrenia. 35 percent of the brains of the people with schizophrenia showed evidence of damage to the brain’s subplate. None of the people without schizophrenia had evidence of this damage. The researchers knew the damage to the subplate must have occurred before the second fetal trimester. Before the second fetal trimester is when the subplate controls the development of different connections in the brain.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A possible cause of schizophrenia may occur before a person is born.
A
Roughly 35 percent of people with abnormal brain subplates will eventually have schizophrenia.
This answer is unsupported. This answer flips around the relationship the stimulus is describing. We only know that 35 percent of people with schizophrenia have damage to the subplate.
B
A promising treatment in some cases of schizophrenia is repair of the damaged connections between the different parts of the brain.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about any possible or promising treatment of schizophrenia.
C
Some people developed schizophrenia because of damage to the brain subplate after the second fetal trimester.
This answer is unsupported. We are told from the stimulus that damage to the subplate prior to the second fetal trimester is a possible cause of schizophrenia.
D
Schizophrenia is determined by genetic factors.
This answer is unsupported. It is unknown whether damage to a brain’s subplate is caused by genetic factors.
E
There may be a cause of schizophrenia that predates birth.
This answer is strongly supported. The damage to a brain’s subplate occurs prior to the second fetal trimester and researchers hypothesize this is a possible cause of schizophrenia.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the recent accusations of graft in his precinct are unfounded. This is based on the fact that no officer in the precinct has ever taken a gift of cash or objects valued at more than $100. In addition, if someone accepts gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100, that constitutes graft.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that there are other things that also count as graft besides gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100. In other words, the author assumes that the only things that are considered graft are gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100.
A
bases a rebuttal of accusations of graft on knowledge about only a limited sample of officers
The argument isn’t based on a limited sample of officers. The premise asserts that “no officer in my precinct” has ever accept gifts of cash/objects valued at more than $100. The conclusion is about the author’s precinct. The conclusion isn’t about a broader group of officers.
B
fails to consider that there may be other instances of graft besides those indicated by the chief of police
The author overlooks that there may be other actions that constitute graft. If other things can count as graft, then even if the officers did not accept the gifts discussed, that doesn’t absolve them of potentially having committed graft through other actions.
C
bases a claim about the actions of individuals on an appeal to the character of those individuals
The author’s premise doesn’t involve an appeal to the character of the officers. The premise establishes that the officers have not committed one action that would count is graft. This doesn’t establish anything about the officers’ character.
D
takes for granted that if the accusations of graft are unfounded, so is any accusation of corruption
The conclusion concerns only accusations of graft. The author does not assert anything about accusations of corruption.
E
relies on a premise that contradicts the conclusion drawn in the argument
The author’s premise is that no officer in the precinct has taken gifts of cash/objects at more than $100 dollars. This doesn’t contradict the conclusion, which is that accusations of graft are unfounded.