Economist: Although average hourly wages vary considerably between different regions of this country, in each region, the average hourly wage for full-time jobs increased last year. Paradoxically, however, in the country as a whole, the average hourly wage for full-time jobs decreased last year.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the average hourly wage for full-time jobs increase in each region of the country last year, but decrease in the country as a whole?
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains how the average hourly wage for full-time jobs increased in each region last year, even though it decreased nationwide. It must show some change in the country’s higher-paid jobs. Those jobs were either eliminated or were somehow paid less, while still raising the average wage in each region.
A
In the country as a whole, the average hourly wage for full-time jobs has decreased slightly for each of the last three years.
We already know that the average hourly wage decreased last year and the fact that it decreased over the last three years is not relevant. Instead, we need to know how it increased in each region of the country last year, even though it decreased in the country as a whole.
B
Last year, to reduce costs, employers moved many full-time jobs from regions with relatively high hourly wages to regions where those jobs typically pay much less.
This helps to explain the paradox. As many jobs moved from higher-paying to lower-paying regions, the national average hourly wage decreased, but it could still increase in each region.
C
The year before last, the unemployment rate reached a ten-year low; last year, however, the unemployment rate increased slightly.
The country’s unemployment rate does not affect its average hourly wage. Regardless of unemployment, we know that the average hourly wage increased in each region but decreased nationwide and we need an answer that helps to explain this paradox.
D
Last year, the rate at which the average hourly wage for full-time jobs increased varied considerably between different regions of the country.
Regardless of its rate of increase, we know that the average hourly wage for full-time jobs increased in each region. (D) doesn’t help to explain how the average hourly wage decreased nationwide, given the fact that it increased in each region.
E
Last year, hourly wages for most full-time jobs in the manufacturing sector declined while those for most full-time jobs in the service sector increased.
We’re only concerned about the change in the average hourly wage for full-time jobs overall. It doesn't matter which jobs saw pay increases or decreases, just that the average hourly wage rose in each region but fell nationwide.
Summary
Although critics worry that pessimistic news reports about the economy cause people to lose confidence in the economy, studies show that, on matters on which people have direct experience, they don’t defer to journalists. People have direct experience with the economy.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
People don’t defer to journalists regarding the economy.
Critics don’t need to be worried that pessimistic news reports will influence people’s feelings about the economy.
Critics don’t need to be worried that pessimistic news reports will influence people’s feelings about the economy.
A
Critics who think that the economy is affected by the extent of people’s confidence in it are wrong.
Unsupported. The issue is whether news about the economy affects people’s perceptions. We don’t know anything about whether people’s perceptions affect the economy.
B
Pessimistic news reports about such matters as foreign policy, of which people do not have experience every day, are likely to have a negative impact.
Unsupported. Although it’s possible people defer to journalists on foreign policy, there’s no support for characterizing the effect of that deference as negative. Being influenced by news reports is not inherently negative.
C
Pessimistic news reports about the state of the economy are likely to harm the economy.
Unsupported. We know people don’t defer to journalists on the economy. So, there’s no evidence news reports will harm the economy by making people lose confidence in it. In theory the news could hurt the economy through some other means, but the stimulus doesn’t speak to that.
D
News reports about the economy are unlikely to have a significant effect on people’s opinions about the state of the economy.
Strongly supported. We know that on matters on which they have direct experience, people don’t defer to journalists. And we’re told people have direct experience with the economy. So, they don’t defer to journalists on the economy.
E
Journalists need not be deeply concerned about their reporting’s effects on the well-being of the average citizen.
Unsupported. The stimulus indicates people are unlikely to defer to journalists on the economy. But journalists might have an impact on people regarding other topics. We have no basis to say journalists shouldn’t be concerned about potential effects regarding other topics.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that farming using irrigated seawater would be cheaper than other kinds of irrigated farming if it’s done near oceans. This is because, if done near oceans, the water wouldn’t have to be pumped far, and the distance-based expense of pumping is the biggest cost involved in irrigated agriculture.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is support for the conclusion. Because the greatest expense involved in irrigated agriculture is pumping, reduced pumping costs would make seawater farming near oceans cheaper than other kinds of irrigated farming.
A
It is a claim that the argument shows to be false.
The referenced text is used by the author to support the conclusion.
B
It is a hypothesis that, if proven, would undermine the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text is used by the author to support the conclusion.
C
It is evidence provided to support the argument’s conclusion.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text.
D
It is the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text is support for the conclusion, but is not the conclusion itself.
E
It is a claim for which the argument provides evidence, but which is not the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text is the author’s conclusion.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that some planets with oval orbits around distant stars were probably thrown into those orbits by encounters with other planets orbiting those same distant stars. This is because many comets orbiting our sun have been thrown into oval orbits by close encounters with planets orbiting our sun.
Notable Assumptions
The author asumes there is no other more likely explanation for the oval orbits of planets around distant stars other than close encounters with planets around those same stars. The author also assumes that the origin of the oval orbits of comets around our sun is relevant to the origin of the oval orbits around planets around distant stars. Another assumption is that at least some distant stars with planets that have oval orbits also have other planets that might get close to the planets with oval orbits.
A
When two planets or other large objects in orbit have a close encounter, usually the smaller of the two is the more greatly affected.
This has no impact, because we have no reason to think the planets with oval orbits are smaller than whatever other planets they may have had close encounters with.
B
There is no indication that the orbit of any planet orbiting our sun has been affected by a close encounter with another planet orbiting our sun.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that planetary orbits being affected by other planets might not be as likely as comets being thrown into oval orbits by planets.
C
In most cases in which planets have been discovered orbiting a distant star, more than one planet has been found orbiting the star.
This strengthens by helping to establish one of the assumptions: some distant stars have multiple planets orbiting them, which is required in order for the author’s theory about close encounters between planets orbiting the same star to work.
D
Most comets with an oval orbit around our sun were thrown into that orbit by a close encounter with some other object.
We already know that many comets orbiting our sun have been thrown into an oval orbit by other planets. We don’t need additional help establishing that comet orbits can be affected by planets. We need to show that this effect can happen to planetary orbits.
E
For each distant star that has been found to have a planet, no other object large enough to affect the planet’s orbit has been found orbiting the star.
This weakens the argument by undermining the plausibility of the theory that planets with oval orbits were thrown into those orbits by other planets orbiting the same star.
Dr. Khan: Professor Burns recognizes that recent observations fail to confirm earlier ones that apparently showed a comet reservoir far out in our solar system. She claims this nonconfirmation is enough to show that the earlier observations are incorrect. But the recent observations occurred under poor conditions.
Summary
Recent observations fail to confirm earlier observations that showed a comet reservoir far out in the solar system, according to Professor Burns. Professor Burns claims that this failure to confirm is enough to show that the earlier observations are incorrect. The recent observations occurred in poor conditions.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The recent observations are not sufficient evidence to show that the earlier observations are incorrect.
A
If the recent observations had been made under good conditions, they would have provided conclusive evidence of a comet reservoir far out in our solar system.
This is anti-supported because even if the recent observations were accurate, those observations failed to confirm earlier observations about a comet reservoir in the solar system.
B
Contrary to Professor Burns’s view, the recent observations confirm the earlier ones.
This is anti-supported because the recent observations were taken when weather conditions were poor, meaning they are probably not useful results. This means they shouldn’t be used to confirm any findings one way or another.
C
Professor Burns’s claim about the implications of the recent observations is incorrect.
This is strongly supported because the author states that the recent observations were taken when weather conditions were poor, which casts doubt on their validity. Since Professor Burns uses these observations to cast doubt on earlier observations, Professor Burns is incorrect.
D
The recent observations, even if they had been made under good conditions, would not have been enough to suggest that the earlier ones are incorrect.
This is unsupported because the author doesn’t explore how we should have interpreted the results of recent observations if those observations had been made under good conditions.
E
The poor conditions present during recent observations render them worthless.
This is unsupported because while the poor conditions cast doubt on recent observations’ usefulness in evaluating the earlier observations, it is too strong to say that the poor conditions makes them entirely worthless.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that society wouldn’t be better off if the government enacted laws requiring people to be polite each other. This is because enforcing these laws would lead to more problems than the problems created by people being impolite to each other.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is the conclusion of the argument.
A
It is the conclusion drawn by the argument as a whole.
This accurately describes the referenced text.
B
It is cited as evidence for the generalization that is the argument’s overall conclusion.
The referenced text is not cited as evidence. It is the conclusion.
C
It is cited as evidence for the assertion used to support the argument’s overall conclusion.
The referenced text is not cited as evidence. It is the conclusion.
D
It is cited as an illustration of a generalization that serves as the main premise of the argument.
The referenced text is not an illustration of another claim. It’s a conclusion reached based on the cost-benefit reasoning used by the author. Because enforcing laws against politeness creates more problems than impoliteness, society wouldn’t be better off with those laws.
E
It describes a phenomenon that the conclusion of the argument purports to explain.
The referenced text is the conclusion. The author is trying to prove that society wouldn’t be better off with laws against politeness.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that concern for the welfare of people is necessary for successful governance of Acredia. This is based on the fact that whenever Acredian governments have fallen, their falls have always been during the rule of someone who didn’t care about the welfare of people.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that there might be some cases where Acredian governments have been successful, but the ruler didn’t care about the welfare of people. In other words, although we know that whenever governments have failed, rulers haven’t been concerned with welfare of people, that doesn’t imply that concern with welfare of people is necessary. It’s possible there are successful Acredian governments that have also been unconcerned with welfare of people.
A
ignores the possibility that the conditions that are necessary for the welfare of the people are likely to change over time
The argument concerns what is necessary for a successful Acredian government. What’s necessary for the welfare of people is a separate issue.
B
infers the necessity of a certain condition for success from the fact that its absence has always led to failure
The premise doesn’t establish that the absence of concern for welfare has “always” led to gov. failure. It establishes that when a government has failed, it’s always been during the rule of one not concerned with welfare. (B) reverses the correct description of the premise.
C
appeals to evidence from sources that are likely to be in some way biased or unreliable
The premise doesn’t rely on a source. In any case, even if it did, we have no reason to think the evidence is based on a source that’s biased or unreliable.
D
infers that a certain condition is required for success from the fact that the lack of that condition is associated with failure
The author infers that concern for welfare is necessary for success from the fact that lack of concern has been “associated” with failure. (D) accurately describes the premise portion, unlike (B). We know whenever a gov. has failed, it’s been during lack of concern.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that the character of past rulers can be assessed in some completely objective way
The argument doesn’t try to establish anything about the character of past rulers. The argument concerns whether certain features in a ruler are necessary for success.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The police chief hypothesizes that the 20% reduction in crime is a result of her policing strategy. She offers no support for this claim.
Notable Assumptions
The police chief assumes that the reduction in crime owes to her policing strategy rather than to some other factor (e.g. economic prosperity in the city, generally falling crime rates in the country, other changes in the justice system).
A
The crime rate in the police chief’s city is still significantly higher than in many other cities.
The police chief’s policing strategy can still have caused a 20% reduction in crime, even if that reduction leaves the city with an above-average crime rate.
B
The crime rate in the police chief’s city is higher now than it was several decades before the chief’s tenure began.
Like (A), the police chief’s policing strategy can still have caused a 20% reduction in crime while leaving the city with a higher crime rate than several decades earlier.
C
The crime rate in the police chief’s city fell significantly during the first few years of the chief’s tenure, then it leveled off.
We don’t care how the police chief got to the 20% reduction over the years. We simply care that the reduction was an effect of her policing strategy.
D
The crime rate in the country as a whole fell by about 30 percent during the police chief’s tenure.
The police chief’s strategy likely wasn’t what caused the 20% crime reduction, given that crime fell by 30% around the country. In fact, the police chief’s strategy appears to have resulted in a milder reduction than those employed around the country.
E
The variation in crime rates between different areas of the city is smaller in the police chief’s city than in many other cities.
This supports the police chief’s claim. By targeting particularly high-risk areas, the police chief lowers variation between different areas of the city. This could’ve caused the 20% reduction.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the irregular flight style of the red admiral evolved as a means of avoiding predators. This is based on the fact that nonpoisonous butterflies like the red admiral need to avoid predators to survive. In addition, the irregular flight style is not energy efficient (which eliminates one potential explanation for that flight style).
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s no other explanation for the irregular flight style besides avoidance of predators. The author also assumes that poisonous butterflies do not have an irregular flight style.
A
No species of poisonous butterfly has an irregular flight style like that of the red admiral.
This affirms the assumption that poisonous butterflies don’t have the irregular flight style. If this were not true, then that would suggest the flight style might not have to do with avoiding predators, because poisonous butterflies wouldn’t need to avoid them.
B
Attacks from predators are not the most common cause of death for butterflies.
Whether predators are the most common cause of death doesn’t relate to the purpose of the irregular flight style. Butterflies could fly irregularly to avoid predators regardless of whether they are the most common or second most common cause of death.
C
Many other types of butterfly have flight styles similar to that of the red admiral.
But are those other types of butterfly nonpoisonous? And do they use the flight style to avoid predators? Without knowing the answer to these questions, (C) doesn’t help connect the red admiral’s flight style to avoiding predators.
D
It is much more energy efficient for butterflies to fly in an irregular fashion than it is for heavier varieties of insects.
We already know from the premises that the irregular flight style is not energy efficient. Whether it’s more efficient for red admirals than it would be for other insects has no impact. It’s not energy efficient for red admirals.
E
All of the predators that prey on the red admiral also prey on other species of nonpoisonous butterflies.
And do the other nonpoisonous butterflies try to fly irregularly? Without knowing the answer to this question, (E) doesn’t have a clear impact on the relationship between the red admiral’s flight pattern and whether its used to avoid predators.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that copyright protection for the life of the author plus several decades is too long. This is because the societal benefit from the additional years of copyright is more than offset by the societal cost of creating monopolies in the copyrighted works. In other words, the societal cost of the additional years of protection outweighs the societal benefit.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if the societal cost of additional years of copyright protection outweighs the societal benefit, this is something that makes those additional years of protection unjustified. The author also assumes that there aren’t non-societal benefits that could help justify the costs of additional years of copyright protection.
A
A statute should be written in a way that eliminates any appearance of its being inconsistent in its aims.
The argument’s reasoning has nothing to do with an inconsistency in copyright statutes. There’s nothing contradictory within the statutes. They have benefits, and they also have costs. That’s not a contradiction.
B
A statute should be repealed if the conditions that originally justified enacting the statute no longer hold true.
The author never suggests that the original justification has changed. The argument is simply based on an assessment of costs and benefits, and the author doesn’t say that those costs/benefits have changed.
C
A statute that is justified in one country is justified in every country.
The author never presents a country in which copyright statutes are justified. He is simply criticizing certain countries’ copyright statutes.
D
A statute should not limit rights unless it can be shown that it thereby enhances other rights.
The reasoning isn’t that copyright statutes are unjustified because they don’t enhance other rights. The reasoning is based on weighing costs/benefits. Copyright statutes may enhance the rights of the owner, so (D) wouldn’t help show some statutes are unjustified.
E
If a statute is to be justified by its benefit to society, it should be designed so that its societal benefit always exceeds its societal cost.
(E) connects the premise, which shows that the costs outweigh the benefits, to the judgment that copyright protections for life plus several decades are too long, or in other words, unjustified.