Riverdale’s Modern Party Chairperson: Maples, the Modern Party candidate, would be a better mayor than his opponent, Tannett, who is a member of the Traditionalist Party. Every member of the Modern Party is better qualified to be mayor than is any member of the Traditionalist Party.
Summary
Maples, the Modern Party candidate, would be a better mayor than Tannett, his opponent and member of the Traditionalist Party. Every Modern Party member is better qualified to be mayor than any Traditionalist Party member.
Notable Valid Inferences
For MBT-Except questions, the wrong answers are all Could Be True. The one right answer Must Be False.
Tannett is better qualified to be mayor than any other member of the Traditionalist Party.
Maples is the least qualified Modern Party member for mayor.
A
Maples has the least seniority of any member of Riverdale’s Modern Party and was recently ousted from the Traditionalist Party.
Could be true. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about Maples’ seniority status.
B
Tannett would be a better mayor than would any other member of Riverdale’s Traditionalist Party.
Could be true. It is possible that Tannett is the best member of the Traditionalist Party, but not better than any Modern Party member.
C
Few residents of Riverdale believe that Maples would be a better mayor than Tannett.
Could be true. The stimulus does not provide any information about what residents of Riverdale believe. We cannot assume that Riverdale’s Modern Party Chairperson’s beliefs are representative of the residents.
D
Of all the members of Riverdale’s Modern Party, Maples would be the worst mayor.
Could be true. The stimulus tells use that every Modern Party member is more qualified than any Traditionalist Party member. It is possible that Maples is the worst in the Modern Party, but still better than any Traditionalist Party member.
E
Tannett is better qualified to be mayor than is Riverdale’s Modern Party Chairperson.
Must be false. The stimulus tells us that every Modern Party member, not just candidate, is better qualified than any Traditionalist Party member.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The journalist concludes that limiting the intake of iron-rich foods should reduce one’s chances of develop Parkinson’s disease. This is based on an observed correlation: that people with high dietary iron intake are more likely to develop Parkinson’s than people with low iron intake. For the author, this leads to the implied hypothesis that iron intake contributes to Parkinson’s.
Notable Assumptions
The journalist assumes that iron intake causes Parkinson’s, rather than both higher iron intake and higher likelihood of contracting Parkinson’s disease having a shared cause.
A
Most people who have a genetic predisposition to Parkinson’s disease have no more iron in their diets than people without the predisposition.
This strengthens by ruling out one alternate explanation for the correlation between high iron intake and Parkinson’s disease, i.e. that people genetically predisposed to Parkinson’s disease happen to also consume more iron.
B
Many of the vegetables regularly consumed by vegetarians who do not contract Parkinson’s disease are as rich in iron as meat and seafood.
This is irrelevant, since the author does not compare iron contents in different types of food. Meat and seafood are just possible examples of iron-rich foods.
C
Children and adolescents require a much larger amount of iron in their diets than do mature adults.
This is irrelevant, because the author does not make any claims about age, or even about the amount of iron required in peoples’ diets. The author just compares iron intake for people who do and don’t develop Parkinson’s, and this doesn’t affect that correlation.
D
The iron in some foods is much less easily absorbed by the body than the iron contained in other foods.
How easily iron is absorbed from different food sources is irrelevant to the author’s hypothesis that iron intake causes Parkinson’s, and that a general reduction of iron intake from food should thus lower the risk of Parkinson’s disease.
E
The amounts of iron-rich foods consumed by people starts to decline beginning at age 50.
The author doesn’t make any claims about the ages at which people tend to consume iron, so this is irrelevant. The correlation between iron intake and Parkinson’s isn’t affected by age-based trends in iron intake.
Summary
The author concludes that if what Grimes and the company president said are correct, then the contract was violated. Here’s what Grimes and the president said:
Grimes said the contract requires that before the proposed procedural changes are made, either the company president or at least one lawyer in the company’s legal department must be told about them.
The president said that the proposed procedural changes were made before the president or Yeung was told about them.
Grimes said the contract requires that before the proposed procedural changes are made, either the company president or at least one lawyer in the company’s legal department must be told about them.
The president said that the proposed procedural changes were made before the president or Yeung was told about them.
Missing Connection
For the purpose of the conclusion, we can accept what Grimes and the president said as true. With that understanding, we’re trying to prove that the contract was violated — in other words, that neither the president nor any lawyer in the legal department was told about the changes before they were made.
We know that the president wasn’t told. But we don’t know that there wasn’t any lawyer in the legal department who was told. We want to establish, then, that no lawyer in the legal department was told.
(You might be thinking that we’re looking for an answer that says Yeung is a lawyer in the legal department. This isn’t enough to make the argument valid, because we wouldn’t know that Yeung is the only lawyer in the department. If an answer says Yeung is THE ONLY lawyer in the department, then it would be correct.)
We know that the president wasn’t told. But we don’t know that there wasn’t any lawyer in the legal department who was told. We want to establish, then, that no lawyer in the legal department was told.
(You might be thinking that we’re looking for an answer that says Yeung is a lawyer in the legal department. This isn’t enough to make the argument valid, because we wouldn’t know that Yeung is the only lawyer in the department. If an answer says Yeung is THE ONLY lawyer in the department, then it would be correct.)
A
Yeung is a lawyer in the company’s legal department.
(A) doesn’t establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told. Sure, we know Yeung wasn’t told. But there could have been other lawyers who were told.
B
Neither Grimes nor Yeung was told about the procedural changes until after they were made.
(B) doesn’t establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told.
C
No lawyer in the company’s legal department was told about the procedural changes until after they were made.
(C) establishes that no lawyer in the legal department was told before the changes were made. Now we know that neither of the requirements were met: the president wasn’t told, and no lawyer in the legal department was told. So the contract was violated.
D
If the company’s president was told about the procedural changes before they were made, then the contract was not violated.
(D) doesn’t establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told.
E
If no lawyer in the company’s legal department was told about the procedural changes before they were made, then the contract was violated.
(E) doesn’t provide any new information that we can’t get from the premises. We want to establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told; we already know that if this didn’t happen, the contract was violated.
Summarize Argument
The jurist tells us that one of the goals of criminal punishment should be to ensure that criminal wrongdoing doesn’t yield a profit. In support, the jurist explains the general rule that it’s important not to allow lawbreakers to get an unfair advantage over people who follow the law. In other words, breaking the law shouldn’t be profitable. This, then, supports the conclusion that criminal punishment should aim to prevent crime from being profitable.
Identify Argument Part
The claim about the importance of guaranteeing that lawbreakers don’t get an unfair advantage is the premise offered to support the conclusion that criminal punishment should seek to keep criminal acts profitless.
A
It states a condition that, if fulfilled, will ensure that a legal system remains just.
The jurist suggests that avoiding an unfair advantage to lawbreakers is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for a just system. The argument actually doesn’t include any condition that would guarantee a just legal system.
B
It expresses a principle that is offered as support for the conclusion.
This is a good description of the role played by the claim about the importance of preventing crime from being unfairly advantageous. It’s a general principle that acts as a premise supporting the conclusion about a goal of criminal punishment.
C
It is a conclusion for which the only support offered is the claim that the legal system serves multiple goals.
Firstly, the claim about lawbreakers not getting an unfair advantage isn’t a conclusion: nothing else supports it. Secondly, the jurist never specifically claims that the legal system serves multiple goals.
D
It is a premise presented as support for the claim that the most important goal of criminal punishment is to ensure that criminal wrongdoing remains profitless.
The jurist doesn’t claim that preventing crime from being profitable is the most important goal of criminal punishment, just that it should be a goal. There’s nothing in the argument comparing goals and saying which is most important.
E
It is presented as refuting an argument that criminal punishment has goals other than guaranteeing that lawbreaking remains profitless.
This argument isn’t about refuting someone else’s point, it’s just about establishing one specific goal. Also, the jurist never claims that guaranteeing that lawbreaking remains profitless is the only goal of criminal punishment.
Summarize Argument
Retailers make use of advertised price cuts to attract consumers more often than they should. Why are such price cuts a problem? Because they lower profits and undermine customer loyalty.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s stance on retailers’ behavior: “too often they resort to using advertised price cuts to promote their wares.”
A
Feeling lucky is the most enjoyable emotional experience garnered from shopping.
This is context that helps to explain retailers’ motivation for using price cuts in the first place. This claim doesn’t receive support from anywhere else in the stimulus, so it cannot be the conclusion.
B
Retailers take advantage of the fact that shoppers enjoy feeling lucky.
This is context that helps to explain retailers’ motivation for using price cuts in the first place. This claim doesn’t receive support from anywhere else in the stimulus, so it cannot be the conclusion.
C
Advertised price cuts are overused as a means of gaining retail sales.
This accurately paraphrases the main conclusion. The author believes that retailers use advertised price cuts “too often” in order to attract sales.
D
Using advertised price cuts to promote retail products reduces profit margins and undermines customer loyalty.
This is the author’s premise. These two downsides of using advertised price cuts support the conclusion that such price cuts are used more often than they should be.
E
Making consumers feel lucky is usually not a good formula for retail success.
This is an overgeneralization of the main conclusion. The author merely concludes that one specific way of making consumers feel lucky—namely, advertised price cuts—is used too often. She doesn’t raise any concerns with the broader principle of making consumers feel lucky.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there is reason to believe that there may be life on Europa. As support for this conclusion, the author cites photographs that show that the icy surface of the moon seems to have buckled because of turbulent water underneath the surface. The author claims that this buckled ice is evidence that there is a warm sea underneath Europa’s icy surface. Scientists believe that a warm sea is a factor in the development of life, so the presence of a warm sea would support the author’s conclusion that there may be life on Europa.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is an intermediate conclusion. It receives support from the observation that the icy surface seems to have buckled. This claim then provides support for the main conclusion that there may be life on Europa.
A
It is a subsidiary conclusion used by the argument to support its overall conclusion.
The claim in the question stem is a subsidiary conclusion because it receives support from the observation that the icy surface seems to have buckled, and it goes on to support the argument’s main conclusion that there may be life on Europa.
B
It is the overall conclusion of the argument.
The overall conclusion of the argument is that there may be life on Europa, not that there is a warm sea beneath Europa’s icy surface.
C
It is used to discredit a theory that the argument disputes.
The argument does not discuss a theory that it disputes. The argument just works to support the claim that there may be life on Europa.
D
It is the only consideration presented in support of the argument’s overall conclusion.
It is not the only consideration used to support the main conclusion; there is additional evidence offered (for example, that such warm seas are thought to be a primary factor in the development of life).
E
It is presented as support for a subsidiary conclusion drawn in the argument.
The claim in the question stem is the subsidiary conclusion, it is not used to support the subsidiary conclusion.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
When a babbler spots a predator, that babbler and its group make loud, barklike calls despite the fact that the loud noise itself is typically the reason why the predator discovers that the birds are there.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains why babblers make their barklike call in response to predator sightings even though the call is often what draws their predator’s attention. That explanation will either describe some survival benefit of the barklike call which could outweigh the risks, or a way in which alerting predators of their presence is beneficial to the babblers’ chances of survival.
A
Babblers fly much faster than the predators that prey upon them.
While this answer might explain a way by which babblers escape their predators, it does nothing to explain why the birds would make a noise that alerts the predators to their presence in the first place.
B
Babblers’ predators are generally intimidated by large numbers of babblers.
This explains why it might be a good idea for babblers to make noise when predators are near. Predators are intimidated by large numbers of babblers, and only by hearing their collective call do predators become aware that there are many babblers nearby.
C
There is more than one type of predator that preys upon babblers.
The fact that there are multiple types of predators preying on babblers does nothing to explain why the babblers would want to call any predator’s attention to their presence.
D
Babblers’ predators have very good eyesight but relatively weak hearing.
This may seem to mitigate the potential damage of the babblers’ loud call—maybe the predators can’t hear them well anyway?—but it does nothing to explain why the babblers would want to make any noise at all in the presence of predators.
E
Animals that live in close proximity to babblers are also preyed upon by the predators that prey upon babblers.
Even if the babblers’ call tells predators that other prey are nearby, it still also proves that the babblers themselves are there. Predators could easily decide to eat the babblers instead of the other animals, and this answer doesn’t explain why babblers would take that risk.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Ishiko is a good manager. This is based on the following:
Being a good manager requires understanding people and being able to defuse tense situations.
Defusing tense situations requires understanding people.
Ishiko is able to defuse tense situations.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses necessary conditions for being a good manager with sufficient conditions. The premises establish that Ishiko has satisfied two necessary conditions for being a good manager. She can defuse tense situations, and she must be able to understand people. But this doesn’t guarantee that she is a good manager. (There might be other necessary conditions that we don’t know about; so we can’t conclude that Ishiko is a good manager.)
A
confuses a quality that shows an understanding of people with a quality that is necessary for understanding people
The author accurately uses the premise stating that ability to defuse is sufficient for understanding people. So the author doesn’t confuse the conditional “able to defuse → understand people.”
B
confuses a quality that usually correlates with being a good manager with a quality that results from being a good manager
This argument doesn’t involve cause and effect. The author doesn’t conclude or assume that anything cause something else. Rather, the reasoning involves an attempted use of conditional statements.
C
confuses qualities necessary for being a good manager with qualities that guarantee being a good manager
Understanding and defusing are necessary for being a good manager. But this doesn’t imply that they are sufficient for someone to be a good manager. So Ishiko’s possession of those qualities does not prove that she’s a good manager.
D
overlooks the possibility that different managers defuse tense situations in different ways
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument’s reasoning. We know from a premise that Ishiko can defuse tense situations. How she does it, and how others defuse such situations has no impact.
E
takes for granted that because all good managers have a certain quality, Ishiko must have that quality
The argument doesn’t conclude that Ishiko must have a certain quality because all managers have that quality. The conclusion is that Ishiko is a good manager.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The argument evaluates a hypothesis about why mechanist arguments in support of monarchies were so prolific. The author rejects the hypothesis that there were so many arguments because the principles of mechanism are in tension with democracy. The author instead claims the arguments multiplied because none of them worked. They didn’t work because the principles of mechanism support democracy.
Identify Argument Part
This is the claim that the author is rejecting and offering an alternative theory for. The author’s alternative theory for the proliferating arguments is that the arguments didn’t work because mechanism supports democracy.
A
It states a principle that the argument seeks to establish.
The argument rejects this claim. It is trying to establish that it is false by presenting an alternative explanation.
B
It describes a general phenomenon that the argument seeks to explain.
The author is trying to explain the proliferation of arguments, but he rejects the explanation contained in this claim.
C
It introduces a hypothesis that the argument challenges.
The argument presents an alternative hypothesis and rejects this idea of why the arguments proliferated.
D
It provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument.
This is what the argument is refuting. It doesn’t support the author’s claim, which is an alternative explanation.
E
It expresses the conclusion of the argument.
This is what the conclusion of the argument rejects and presents an alternative for.