A
presumes, without warrant, that one is likely to feel uncomfortable approaching a person only if that person is a stranger
The argument’s assumption concerns the likelihood of feeling comfortable approaching a stranger based on that stranger’s age. But it doesn’t concern the likelihood of feeling uncomfortable based on that person’s status as a stranger or non-stranger.
B
infers that a characteristic is present in a situation from the fact that that characteristic is present in most similar situations
The conclusion concerns long-term friends and whether they’re likely the same age as each other. But this isn’t based on a premise about situations similar to long-term friendship. One premise directly concerns most long-term friendships.
C
overlooks the possibility that one is less likely to feel comfortable approaching someone who is one’s approximate age if that person is a stranger than if that person is not a stranger
The argument’s assumption concerns the likelihood of feeling comfortable approaching a stranger based on that stranger’s age. But it doesn’t concern the likelihood of feeling comfortable based on that person’s status as a stranger or non-stranger.
D
presumes, without warrant, that one never approaches a stranger unless one feels comfortable doing so
We know most long-term friendships begin when someone felt comfortable approaching a stranger. Even if one can approach a stranger when uncomfortable, we know this doesn’t apply to the long-term friendships we’re concerned about.
E
fails to address whether one is likely to feel comfortable approaching a stranger who is not one’s approximate age
If one is likely to feel comfortable approaching a stranger who’s not of the same age, then that opens the possibility that most long-term friendships could have begun when people of different approx. ages felt comfortable approaching each other.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Other people think that a preservation grant should be used to restore the original copy of our town’s charter. The author concludes that the money should instead be spent preserving other documents. This is because the town charter has no scholarly value, and we are a research library, which implies that we should care more about documents that have scholarly value.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is the reason that other people believe we should use the grant to restore the original copy of our town’s charter.
A
It is a claim that the librarian’s argument attempts to show to be false.
The author doesn’t disagree that the charter will deteriorate beyond repair if not restored. The author disagrees with the recommendation that we should restore the original version of this charter.
B
It is the conclusion of the argument that the librarian’s argument rejects.
The referenced text is not the conclusion that the author rejects. It’s the premise that other people use to support the conclusion that the author rejects.
C
It is a premise in an argument whose conclusion is rejected by the librarian’s argument.
This accurately describes the role. Other people use the fact the charter will soon deteriorate to support a recommendation that we should restore the charter. The author rejects this argument.
D
It is a premise used to support the librarian’s main conclusion.
The referenced text does not support the author’s conclusion. It supports other people’s conclusion, which the author rejects.
E
It is a claim whose truth is required by the librarian’s argument.
The referenced text is not required for the author’s conclusion. Even if the town charter wouldn’t deteriorate, it can still be true that the preservation grant would be better spent preserving other documents.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that ichthyosaurs were deep divers. This is because ichthyosaurs share a feature with deep-diving mammals today: a porous outer bone shell. This feature is what helps deep-diving mammals surface after deep dives.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the only function of the porous outer bone shell is to help animals surface after deep dives. If any given animal isn’t a deep diver, then it won’t have the porous outer bone shell feature.
A
Some deep-diving marine species must surface after dives but do not have bones with porous outer shells.
The author never says the porous outer bone shell is necessary for deep dives. It simply indicates that an animal is a deep-diver.
B
In most modern marine reptile species, the outer shell of the bones is not porous.
We have no idea if those reptiles are deep-divers.
C
In most modern and prehistoric marine reptile species that are not deep divers, the outer shell of the bones is porous.
Reptiles generally have porous outer bone shells despite not being deep divers. Since the ichthyosaur was a reptile, we can’t conclude if it was a deep diver.
D
In addition to the porous outer shells of their bones, whales have at least some characteristics suited to deep diving for which there is no clear evidence whether these were shared by ichthyosaurs.
We don’t need ichthyosaurs to have the exact same characteristics as whales. There are plenty of deep divers that aren’t whales.
E
There is evidence that the bones of ichthyosaurs would have been light enough to allow surfacing even if the outer shells were not porous.
This tells us that ichthyosaurs could’ve been deep divers even without the porous outer bone shells. We need to weaken the claim that ichthyosaurs were in fact deep divers.
Summary
The author concludes that an artwork’s artistic merit can depend on the people who critically evaluate it. This is based on the fact that art critics, by praising or ridiculing an artwork, can increase or decrease the pleasure that viewers of an artwork experience.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts that people who critically evaluate art can affect an artwork’s “artistic merit.” But the premises assert only that art critics can affect the pleasure viewers experience from viewing an artwork. What does this pleasure have to do with an artwork’s “artistic merit”? We want to establish that affecting the pleasure experienced by viewing an artwork affects the artistic merit of the work.
A
The merit of an artistic work is determined by the amount of pleasure it elicits.
(A) establishes that artistic merit of a work is affected by the amount of pleasure created by the work. So, because critics can affect the pleasure created by the work, they can also affect the artistic merit of a work.
B
Most people lack the confidence necessary for making their own evaluations of art.
(B) tells us nothing about artistic merit. Since neither this answer nor the premises establish anything about artistic merit, it cannot make the argument valid.
C
Art critics understand what gives an artwork artistic merit better than artists do.
Art critics’ understanding of what gives artistic merit does not establish that art critics can affect artistic merit. They might know the different elements of an artwork that increase or decrease merit, but this doesn’t imply that art critics’ praise or ridicule affects merit.
D
Most people seek out critical reviews of particular artworks before viewing those works.
(D) tells us nothing about artistic merit. Since neither this answer nor the premises establish anything about artistic merit, it cannot make the argument valid.
E
The pleasure people take in something is typically influenced by what they think others feel about it.
(E) tells us nothing about artistic merit. Since neither this answer nor the premises establish anything about artistic merit, it cannot make the argument valid.
Application: Arvue should not hire Krall for the new position, because Delacruz is a candidate and is fully qualified.
Summary
The conclusion is that Arvue should not hire Krall for the new position.
Why? Because of the following:
Rule: If none of the fully qualified candidates for a new position currently works for Arvue, Arvue should hire the candidate who would be most productive in the position.
Delacruz is a candidate for the position and is fully qualified.
Why? Because of the following:
Rule: If none of the fully qualified candidates for a new position currently works for Arvue, Arvue should hire the candidate who would be most productive in the position.
Delacruz is a candidate for the position and is fully qualified.
Missing Connection
We want to prove that Arvue should not hire Krall. The only way to do that with the given rule is to have the rule trigger, and then for Krall to NOT be the person who would be the most productive in the position.
To trigger the rule, we want to know that NONE of the fully qualified candidates (such as Delacruz), currently works for Arvue.
In addition, we want to know that someone else besides Arvue would be the most productive. This way, we can conclude the company should hire the other person instead of Arvue.
To trigger the rule, we want to know that NONE of the fully qualified candidates (such as Delacruz), currently works for Arvue.
In addition, we want to know that someone else besides Arvue would be the most productive. This way, we can conclude the company should hire the other person instead of Arvue.
A
All of the candidates are fully qualified for the new position, but none already works for Arvue.
(A) establishes that the rule triggers, but we don’t know who is the most productive. Thus, (A) doesn’t prove that we shouldn’t hire Krall. Maybe Krall would be the most productive.
B
Of all the candidates who do not already work for Arvue, Delacruz would be the most productive in the new position.
(B) doesn’t establish that the rule triggers. We don’t know that none of the fully qualified candidates currently works for Arvue. It’s possible one of the candidates who’s fully qualified works for Arvue; in that case, the rule doesn’t apply, and we don’t have any basis to conclude that someone should or should not be hired.
C
Krall works for Arvue, but Delacruz is the candidate who would be most productive in the new position.
(C) doesn’t establish that the rule triggers. It’s possible one of the fully qualified candidates currently works for Arvue; in that case, the rule doesn’t apply, and we don’t have any basis to conclude that someone should or should not be hired.
D
Several candidates currently work for Arvue, but Krall and Delacruz do not.
(D) doesn’t establish that the rule triggers. It’s possible one of the fully qualified candidates currently works for Arvue; in that case, the rule doesn’t apply, and we don’t have any basis to conclude that someone should or should not be hired.
E
None of the candidates already works for Arvue, and Delacruz is the candidate who would be most productive in the new position.
(E) establishes that the rule triggers, because none of the candidates (including any fully qualified candidates) already works for Arvue. So Arvue should hire the most productive candidate, then. And since Delacruz is the most productive (which implies that Krall isn’t), that means Arvue should hire Delacruz and NOT Krall.
Tate: The freedom and autonomy that democracy provides are of genuine value, but the simple material needs of people are more important. Some countries can better meet these needs as autocracies than as democracies.
Speaker 1 Summary
Wong doesn’t make an argument, because there’s no structure of support for a conclusion. Instead, Wong just makes two factual claims: first, that all countries are better off as democracies, and second, that sometimes a period of autocracy is required for a country to transition to democracy.
Speaker 2 Summary
Tate’s claims support the unstated conclusion that some countries are better off as autocracies. Tate states that people’s material needs are more important than democratic freedom and autonomy. Furthermore, sometimes an autocratic government is more able to meet people’s material needs. From these, it follows that autocracy is sometimes a better option to meet people’s most important needs.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement between Wong and Tate. They disagree about whether countries are ever better off as autocracies.
A
There are some countries that are better off as autocracies than as democracies.
Wong disagrees with this but Tate agrees, so this is the point of disagreement. Wong says explicitly that this claim is false. Tate, however, implies that some countries are better off as autocracies by saying that sometimes autocracies better meet people’s most important need.
B
Nothing is more important to a country than the freedom and autonomy of the individuals who live in that country.
Tate disagrees with this, but Wong never states an opinion. Wong just claims directly that countries are always better off as democracies, but doesn’t back that up with any specifics of what democracy can offer.
C
In some cases, a country cannot become a democracy.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Wong says that sometimes a country requires a period of autocracy first to become a democracy, and Tate never talks about the requirements of becoming democratic. Certainly neither says it’s ever impossible.
D
The freedom and autonomy that democracy provides are of genuine value.
Tate agrees with this, but Wong never states an opinion. Wong clearly supports democracy, but never says why, so we don’t know if it’s because Wong values freedom and autonomy or if it’s for some other reason.
E
All democracies succeed in meeting the simple material needs of people.
Neither speaker claims this. Only Tate discusses material needs at all, and still never states an opinion about whether or not all democracies can meet material needs. All Tate says is that sometimes autocracies are better at doing so.
Summarize Argument
Water itself is one of the biggest water polluters. Why? Around many cities, pollution from runoff is greater than from industrial discharge. How? Water running over buildings and pavements picks up oil and other pollutants.
Identify Argument Part
This is evidence used to support that water is one of the biggest water polluters by showing water pollutes more than another big pollution source. It is also a sub-conclusion. The statement explaining how water picks up oil and contaminants supports it.
A
It is a conclusion for which the claim that water itself should be considered a polluter is offered as support.
The support relationship works the other way. The fact that water pollutes more than industrial discharge is evidence for why water is one of the biggest polluters.
B
It is cited as evidence that pollution from rainwater runoff is a more serious problem than pollution from industrial discharge.
The stimulus makes no claims about how serious the pollution is from any given source. It talks only about the amount of pollutants.
C
It is a generalization based on the observation that rainwater runoff picks up oil and other pollutants as it washes over buildings and pavements.
While that observation helps explain why water pollutes so much, the statement in question is not a generalization stemming from that observation. It is a comparative measurement against industrial pollution.
D
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that water itself is among the biggest water polluters.
This evidence, that water pollutes more than industrial discharge, helps make the case that water is one of the biggest water polluters.
E
It is stated to provide an example of a typical kind of city pollution.
It notes a pattern that appears near many cities. It works to support the conclusion, not illustrate an example of city pollution.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
There should not be prohibitions against pets in nursing homes. This is because pets can relieve stress and thereby improve a person’s health. Pets can also make time at a nursing home more fulfilling.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that there should not be prohibitions against pets in nursing homes: “these should be lifted.”
A
As the average life span increases, it will be important to more people that life in nursing homes be rewarding.
This is context. It provides background for why it is important to take measures to make living in a nursing home more rewarding, such as by allowing pets.
B
Residents of nursing homes should enjoy the same rewarding aspects of life as anyone else.
This is not mentioned in the stimulus.
C
The policy that many nursing homes have should be changed so that residents are allowed to have pets.
This rephrases the conclusion.
D
Having a pet can reduce one’s stress and thereby make one a healthier person.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that prohibitions against pets in nursing homes should be lifted.
E
The benefits older people derive from having pets need to be recognized, especially as the average life span increases.
The conclusion of the argument is not that these benefits should be recognized, but that the prohibitions against pets in nursing homes should be lifted. The author provides evidence for this conclusion by outlining some of the benefits older people derive from having pets.