Summary
The author concludes that the report won’t be effective. This is based on the following:
In order for the report to be effective, the commission must speak with a unified voice.
Individual members of the commission have repeatedly expressed their own opinions about stuff related to the report before the report was completed.
In order for the report to be effective, the commission must speak with a unified voice.
Individual members of the commission have repeatedly expressed their own opinions about stuff related to the report before the report was completed.
Missing Connection
We have a premise that tells us what’s required for the report to be effective — the commission must speak with a unified voice. So if we can learn that the commission is NOT speaking with a unified voice, then the report won’t be effective.
Do we have enough to establish that the commission is not speaking with a unified voice? Not quite — the other premise tells us that individual members have expressed their own opinions before the report was completed. Does that constitute lack of a unified voice? We don’t know. To make the argument valid, then, we want to establish that if individual members of the commission speak about stuff related to the report before it’s completed, that implies the commission is not speaking with a unified voice.
Do we have enough to establish that the commission is not speaking with a unified voice? Not quite — the other premise tells us that individual members have expressed their own opinions before the report was completed. Does that constitute lack of a unified voice? We don’t know. To make the argument valid, then, we want to establish that if individual members of the commission speak about stuff related to the report before it’s completed, that implies the commission is not speaking with a unified voice.
A
Commission members who have expressed their opinions about disaster preparedness in the news media have also emphasized their commitment to producing an effective report.
(A) doesn’t establish that the commission has been speaking without a unified voice.
B
News organizations should not provide a platform for members of the commission to express their opinions about disaster preparedness if doing so will undermine the effectiveness of the commission’s report.
What news organizations should do doesn’t establish that the commission has been speaking without a unified voice.
C
The commission will be able to speak with a uniform voice only if individual members’ opinions about disaster preparedness are not made public before the report is completed.
(C) establishes that in order for the commission to speak with a unified voice, individual members’ opinions cannot be made public before the report is completed. We know from a premise that members’ opinions have been made public before completion. So (C) establishes that the commission hasn’t been speaking with a unified voice. This allows us to conclude the report won’t be effective.
D
If commission members had not expressed their opinions about disaster preparedness in the news media before the report was completed, there would have been much public speculation about what those views were.
(D) doesn’t establish that the commission is speaking without a unified voice.
E
The commission’s report will not be effective if some of the commission members already had opinions about the nation’s disaster preparedness even before the commission was formed.
We don’t know from the premises that any members already had opinions before the commission was formed. We know they have expressed opinions before completion of the report. But this doesn’t imply that they had any opinion before the formation of the commission.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The ecologist hypothesizes that the reason male starlings use aromatic plants in their nests is to attract females, contrary to previous hypotheses that the plants protected nestlings from parasites. This is based on the observation that these males only incorporate these aromatic plants before egg-laying begins, and stop adding them to nests when egg-laying begins.
Notable Assumptions
The ecologist assumes that there is not an alternate explanation for the male starlings only incorporating the aromatic plants before egg-laying.
The ecologist also assumes that aromatic plants incorporated before egg-laying couldn’t kill parasitic insects over an extended time period, and thus still protect nestlings.
The ecologist also assumes that aromatic plants incorporated before egg-laying couldn’t kill parasitic insects over an extended time period, and thus still protect nestlings.
A
Adult starlings are able to defend themselves against parasitic insects.
This is irrelevant, since the effect of parasitic insects on adults is not discussed in the argument. We only care about parasites’ potential harmful effect on nestlings and whether the aromatic plants function to counteract that harm.
B
Male starlings do not decorate their nests in areas with unusually small populations of parasitic insects.
This weakens by providing more evidence that these decorations do have to do with parasitic insects after all, if they are only used in nests in areas where parasitic insects are a threat.
C
Nestlings grow faster in nests that incorporate aromatic plants than in nests that do not.
This seems to weaken by suggesting an alternate explanation for the incorporation of aromatic plants in nests: to help nestlings grow faster. It’s still not clear whether it makes a difference when the decoration occurs, but this certainly doesn’t strengthen.
D
Male starlings tend to decorate their nests with a greater number of aromatic plants when a caged female is positioned adjacent to the nest.
This strengthens by providing direct evidence in support of the ecologist’s hypothesis: males increasing the use of aromatic plants when females are nearby is consistent with those plants functioning to attract females.
E
The compounds in the aromatic plants used by the male starlings to decorate their nests are harmless to nestlings.
This doesn’t affect the ecologist’s hypothesis, since the argument has nothing to do with whether the aromatic plants are harmful to nestlings.
Psychologist: In our study, participants who were offered the opportunity to purchase a coffee mug were not willing to pay more than $5. If, however, they were given a very similar mug and asked immediately afterwards how much they would be willing to sell it for, most of them held out for more than $5.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why were most study participants unwilling to sell a coffee mug unless they received more than the maximum amount they would have spent to purchase it?
Objective
The right answer will explain a difference between the mugs, the study participants’ states of mind, or the set of circumstances that existed when the participants were in the position of mug buyer vs. mug seller. That difference must result in the participants believing that they either could or should receive more money for the mug than they were willing to spend to purchase it.
A
A person’s assessment of the value of an object depends on his or her evaluation of the inherent properties of the object.
This doesn’t explain why the participants’ assessments of the mug’s value changed when they became the seller—the inherent properties of the object didn’t change, so why would the participants’ value assessments be different?
B
People are usually unable to judge the value of an object when they have possessed it for a long period of time.
This would help if the participants had owned the mug for a long time after they were in the position of buyer and before they were in the position of seller, but the stimulus tells us they were asked about the mug’s price “immediately” after they were given the mug.
C
The amount a person is willing to spend on an object is determined by the amount that object sold for in the past.
This doesn’t help. Even if the participants’ willingnesses to purchase the mug for no more than $5 were based on their knowledge of a previous price, it doesn’t explain why they wouldn’t sell the mug for $5.
D
People tend to value an object that they do not own less than they value a very similar object that they already own.
This describes a key difference between the study participants’ states of mind as mug buyer vs. seller: in the position of seller, they owned the mug, and therefore valued it more highly than before. As a result, they wanted to sell it for more money.
E
People are more likely to undervalue objects they have been given than objects they have purchased.
We want to explain why the participants’ assessments of the mug’s value went up when it was given to them. Instead, this answer indicates that we might expect the opposite. This answer choice also compares given vs. purchased objects, but the stimulus describes desired vs. owned.
Soltan: Klein’s policies have been effective, but politics matters. In the future, important decisions will need to be made, and she will not have the political support to make them. So she should step down.
Speaker 1 Summary
Bell argues that Klein is the right person to make important decisions in the future, despite recent media criticism. Why? Because her policy decisions recently avoided an upcoming catastrophe, which is more important than the policies being unpopular.
Speaker 2 Summary
Soltan says that Klein should step down, even though her policies are effective. To support this, Soltan explains that Klein will not have the political support needed to make important decisions in the future.
Objective
We need to find a disagreement. Bell and Soltan disagree about whether Klein should remain in office or step down.
A
Klein’s policies have been effective.
Both Bell and Soltan agree that this is true. Soltan directly states that Klein’s policies have been effective, and Bell indicates agreement by talking about how Klein’s policies averted a future catastrophe.
B
Klein’s policies are unpopular.
Both speakers agree with this. Bell admits outright that this is true, and Soltan implies that Klein’s decisions have been unpopular by discussing how Klein will not have a lot of political support for future decisions.
C
Klein should step down.
Bell disagrees with this and Soltan agrees, meaning this is their point of disagreement. Bell says that Klein is the leader we need in the future, meaning that Klein should stay in office. On the other hand, Soltan directly states that Klein should step down.
D
There are important decisions to be made in the future.
Both speakers agree with this. Bell and Soltan each explicitly discuss the important decisions that will have to be made in the future.
E
Klein’s policies were implemented in the face of an impending catastrophe.
Bell agrees with this and Soltan never disagrees. Soltan doesn’t acknowledge this catastrophe explicitly, but also never says that it wasn’t a problem. So, we can’t say that Soltan disagrees with Bell on this point.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that this year’s cleanup will be a success. This is based on the fact that if we get at least 100 participants, then the cleanup will be a success. In addition, this year, 85 residents signed up to participate. Last year, only 77 signed up to participate, but over 100 actually participated.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that, since last year’s actual turnout was higher than the number who signed up, this year’s actual turnout will also be higher than the number who signed up. This overlooks the possibility that what happened last year won’t happen this year.
A
generalizes about the outcome of an event based on a single observation of a similar situation
The premises describe a single observation of a similar situation (last year’s turnout exceeded the # who signed up). But this doesn’t prove anything about the turnout this year.
B
takes for granted that people who participated in last year’s cleanup will participate this year
The author doesn’t assume that the same people will participate. The argument is just about the number of people who will participate; those people can be different from participants in the past.
C
confuses a condition that is required for an outcome with one that is sufficient for that outcome
There is no condition required for an outcome. We do have a premise telling us that having at least 100 participants is sufficient for the outcome of success. The author doesn’t think having at least 100 participants is necessary for success.
D
overlooks the possibility that the cleanup will attract participants who are not residents in the community
This possibility doesn’t weaken the argument. The cleanup will be a success if it gets at least 100 participants. We have no reason to think where those participants live has any impact on the reasoning.
E
defines a term in such a way as to ensure that whatever the outcome, it will be considered a positive outcome
The author doesn’t define any terms. The author uses a conditional that establishes if we get at least 100 participants, the cleanup will be a success. This is not a “definition” of success. Also, the author doesn’t assume the outcome of the cleanup must be positive.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that car accidents involving teenagers driving to school could be reduced if the school day began later than 8am. This is based on the fact that teenagers tend to be sleepy if they wake up before 8am, and sleepiness can impair driving ability. In addition, when the Granville school’s schedule was changed to begin at 8:30am, the number of car accidents involving teenage drivers in Granville declined.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that Granville’s schedule change was the cause of the decrease in car accidents involving teenage drivers in Granville. The author also assumes that there wouldn’t be any effects of a later school start that might tend to increase the number of car accidents involving teenagers.
A
Teenagers start releasing melatonin later at night and stop releasing it later in the morning than do young children.
A comparison to young children has no clear impact. The argument concerns teenagers and is based on statistics concerning Granville’s high school. What children have to do with this statistic or the argument is unclear.
B
Sleepy teenagers are tardy for school more frequently than teenagers who are well rested when the school day begins.
Tardiness has no clear impact on whether starting the school day later can reduce the number of accidents involving teenagers. Whether teens become more or less tardy after the change doesn’t affect accident rates.
C
Teenagers who work at jobs during the day spend more time driving than do teenagers who attend high school during the day.
The argument concerns accidents involving teenagers driving to school and whether this can be reduced by having school start later. Some teenagers might not go to school in the day; they wouldn’t be affected by the later school start.
D
Many of the car accidents involving teenage drivers in Granville occurred in the evening rather than in the morning.
We still know that after the Granville school’s start time was changed, the overall number of car accidents involving teenage drivers declined. Maybe some of the decrease relates to the evening; the rest could relate to the morning.
E
Car accidents involving teenage drivers rose in the region surrounding Granville during the time they declined in Granville.
This strengthens by eliminating the possibility that the decreased accidents in Granville were simply the result of a region-wide trend unconnected to the change in school start time.
Summary
Most of the new cars that Regis Motors sold last year were purchased by Blomenville residents. Still, most new cars purchased by Blomenville residents were not purchased from Regis Motors. However, Regis Motors sold more new cars last year than it did in any previous year.
Notable Valid Inferences
Last year Blomenville residents purchased a greater number of new cars than Regis Motors sold.
A
Regis Motors sold more new cars to residents of Blomenville last year than they had in any previous year.
Could be false. The stimulus tells us Regis sold more new cars last year than it did in any previous year, but we do not know that if these new cars were sold to Blomenville residents. It is possible that Regis sold more new cars to Blomenville residents in previous years.
B
The total number of new cars purchased by residents of Blomenville was greater last year than it was in any previous year.
Could be false. The stimulus does not give us any information about the number of cars Blomenville residents purchased in other years. It is possible that residents purchased more cars in previous years compared to last year.
C
A car retailer other than Regis Motors sold the most new cars to residents of Blomenville last year.
Could be false. We don’t know from the stimulus how many other car retailers other than Regis Motors sell to Blomenville residents. It is possible that Regis still sold most of the new cars to residents.
D
The number of new cars purchased last year by residents of Blomenville is greater than the number of new cars sold by Regis Motors.
Must be true. If most new cars that residents purchased were not from Regis Motors, and most new cars sold by Regis were purchased by residents, then it must be true that the total number of new cars purchased by residents is greater than the total number of cars sold by Regis.
E
Regis Motors’ share of the new car market in Blomenville last year increased over its share the year before.
Could be false. The stimulus does not give us any information about Regis Motor’s market share to make this claim. We cannot assume that just because Regis sold more new cars that their market share increased.