Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that hospital staff have become more careful in their patient care because they know their errors are being monitored. This is based on the observed phenomenon that patient injuries have decreased significantly at hospitals that have started to monitor staff errors that result in patient injury.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the incidence of injury at these hospitals was not affected by another change that happened around the same time. The author also assumes that the staff at these hospitals knew that they were being monitored during the last year.
A
Before the plan was implemented the hospitals already had a policy of thoroughly investigating any staff error that causes life-threatening injury to a patient.
This is irrelevant, because it only applies to life-threatening injuries, whereas the author is discussing patient injuries in general. This pre-existing policy doesn’t tell us anything new about why overall patient injuries have decreased with the new monitoring plan.
B
The incidence of patient injuries at a regional hospital that did not participate in the plan also decreased over the year in question.
This weakens by making it more likely that there is an alternative explanation for the decrease of patient injuries that is unrelated to the consequences of the plan. After all, the other hospital saw the same outcomes without the plan as a possible cause.
C
The plan did not call for the recording of staff errors that could have caused patient injuries but did not.
This is irrelevant, since the argument already tells us that the plan specifically records staff errors that do cause patient injuries. This doesn’t help us figure out whether the plan was the true cause of the decrease in injuries.
D
The decrease in the incidence of the injuries did not begin at any hospital until the staff there became aware that the records were being closely analyzed.
This strengthens the author’s hypothesis by more closely correlating the staff’s knowledge of their being monitored with the decrease in patient injury, making it more plausible that the former is a direct cause of the latter.
E
Under the plan, the hospitals’ staff members who were found to have made errors that caused injuries to patients received only reprimands for their first errors.
Without more information, it isn’t clear how the plan’s policy toward reprimanding or otherwise punishing staff members might have affected the incidence of patient injury, so this doesn’t give us more reason to believe that the plan succeeded.
Summary
Creating a database of all the plant species in the scientific record is not easy. For centuries, botanists have been naming plants without realizing that some were already named. Moreover, by using DNA analysis, botanists have shown that varieties of plants long thought to belong to the same species actually belong to different species.
Notable Valid Inferences
DNA analysis could inform botanists whether a plant species has been named.
A
Most of the duplicates and omissions among plant names in the scientific record have yet to be cleared up.
Could be true. The stimulus does not give us any information about the total number of duplicates and omissions in the scientific record. It is possible that most of these errors have not yet been fixed.
B
An accurate database of all the plant species in the scientific record can serve as an aid to botanists in their work.
Could be true. There is no information in the stimulus that contradicts the idea that an accurate database would be helpful.
C
Duplicates and omissions in the scientific record also occur in fields other than botany.
Could be true. The information in the stimulus is restricted to botany. It is possible that the same or similar errors occur in other fields.
D
Botanists have no techniques for determining whether distinct plant species have been given distinct names.
Must be false. The stimulus tells us that DNA analysis has shown what plants belong to what species. Therefore, DNA analysis is a technique that botanists could use to determine whether a plant species has been given a distinct name.
E
A person who consults the scientific record looking under only one of a plant’s names may miss available information about that plant.
Could be true. The stimulus tells us that botanists have been naming plants without realizing that some plants have already been named. If this is true, then it is possible that some information about the same plant is just associated with a different name.
Summary
The author concludes that stiff competition can undermine employee performance. This is based on the fact that if one competitor is perceived to be clearly superior, other competitors become anxious and doubt their own ability to perform.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts that competition can hurt employee performance. But the premise establishes only that competition might lead to other competitors becoming anxious and having self-doubt about their performance. Do these feelings actually undermine performance? We have no reason to think so. Maybe those feelings actually spur people to perform better? To make the argument valid, we want to establish that feelings of anxiety or self-doubt about one’s ability to perform undermine employee performance.
A
Those who are perceived to be clearly superior almost always win.
(A) doesn’t establish anything about what undermines employee performance. Since neither this answer nor the premise establishes that something undermines employee performance, it cannot make the argument valid.
B
The winner of a competition is often the competitor who exerts the most effort.
(B) doesn’t establish anything about what undermines employee performance. Since neither this answer nor the premise establishes that something undermines employee performance, it cannot make the argument valid.
C
When competitors perceive the competition as winnable, their overall performance generally improves.
(C) doesn’t establish anything about what undermines employee performance. Since neither this answer nor the premise establishes that something undermines employee performance, it cannot make the argument valid. In addition, (C) tells us what improves performance. We’re trying to conclude that something hurts performance.
D
Doubting one’s own ability to perform can decrease one’s overall performance.
(D) connects doubting one’s own ability to perform to undermining employee performance. If (D) is true, stiff competition, because it can lead to self-doubt about ability to perform, hurts employee performance.
E
Competitors who work to undermine the confidence of other participants often do better in competitions.
(E) doesn’t establish anything about what undermines employee performance. Since neither this answer nor the premise establishes that something undermines employee performance, it cannot make the argument valid.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
A larger species of abalones developed from a smaller species only after an abalone predator (otters) began to dominate the abalones’ habitat, despite the fact that the necessary conditions for such a development to occur involve abalones spending less energy on avoiding predators (and finding food).
Objective
The right answer will describe some element of the otters’ domination of the waters that allowed abalones to save energy for competition in mating. This element must either compensate for the extra energy abalones presumably had to spend avoiding otters, or explain why the abalones did not have to spend energy in that way. In either case, the answer must show how the otters’ domination allowed the abalones to save more energy than they had previously.
A
Otters and abalones also compete for the same types of food and so are drawn to the same waters.
This does the opposite of what we need. If the otters’ domination of the water meant that abalones faced increased competition for food, we would expect them to have less energy for competition in mating. We need something that would mean they conserved more energy, not less.
B
The fossils that were studied showed the development of only one of the two species of large abalones known to exist.
This isn’t helpful. It doesn’t matter which species developed—all that matters to us is how.
C
Otters also prey on the abalones’ competitors for food and so indirectly make it easier for abalones to get food.
This explains how otter domination helped abalones conserve energy for competition in mating. The otters ate the abalones’ food competitors, so the abalones were able to use some of the energy that would have otherwise gone to finding food to engage in mating competition instead.
D
Small abalone species tend to reproduce more rapidly than larger abalone species.
This doesn’t help us. We’re interested in the conditions that allowed a large abalone species to develop from a small one, not the reproductive tendencies within those separate species.
E
Otters have a preference for large abalones over small ones and so prefer waters in which large abalones are found.
Not only is this unrelated to the development of the larger abalone species, but it also doesn’t make sense with what we know about this habitat. The otters began to dominate when the abalones in these waters were small, which is odd if they prefer waters with large abalones.
Jackson: I acknowledge I could do better in this area. But, it would be worse not to speak out against greater sources of pollution just because I am being hypocritical.
Speaker 1 Summary
Peraski concludes that people who drive smaller cars cannot complain about larger cars that use more gas. This is because doing so would constitute hypocrisy, given the existence of bicycles, which use less gas than the smaller cars.
Speaker 2 Summary
Jackson asserts that it’s better to speak out against greater sources of pollution even if that would make one a hypocrite.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether the fact a position would make one a hypocrite should stop one from advocating for that position.
A
driving a gas-guzzling automobile produces a greater level of pollution than driving a smaller car
Jackson either expresses no opinion, or the speakers agree. Jackson doesn’t comment on larger vs. smaller cars. You might read his statements as implicitly about the complaint that larger cars use more gas than smaller cars, in which case he shares Peraski’s view.
B
speaking out against the use of gas guzzlers despite driving in situations in which one could use a bicycle reveals hypocrisy
Jackson has no opinion. Jackson doesn’t strictly commit to the view that anything is hypocritical; he only says we shouldn’t withhold criticism even if that criticism is hypocritical. If you view his statements as acknowledging hypocrisy, then the speakers agree.
C
driving even a small car when one could use a bicycle contributes to the level of pollution
Jackson has no opinion. He doesn’t comment on small cars and pollution. If you view his statements as implicitly about the exact same situation Peraski discussed, then Jackson shares Peraski’s view about this.
D
one should speak out against polluting even if doing so reveals one’s own hypocrisy
This is a point of disagreement. Peraski believes one shouldn’t speak out against a practice that pollutes if it would reveal one’s own hypocrisy. Jackson believers one should speak out against that practice even if it reveals one’s own hypocrisy.
E
there is no moral difference between driving a gas guzzler and driving a smaller car
Neither expresses an opinion. Nobody comments on whether there are any moral differences between driving a larger car and driving a smaller car. There may or may not be moral differences unrelated to pollution.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Government leaders’ wish to use the surplus to pay down the national debt makes no sense. This is because the country is underfunded and needs money to make it better off. The author makes an analogous argument to a homeowner who uses all their money to pay off a debt instead of reinvesting it in the farm.
Identify Conclusion
The plan to use the budget surplus to pay down the national debt makes no sense.
A
Homeowners should not pay off their mortgages early if they must neglect upkeep of their homes in order to do so.
This is not the main conclusion of the argument. This is an analogy that lends support to the conclusion that the government leaders’ plan makes no sense.
B
It does not make sense for the government to use the budget surplus to pay down the national debt.
This is main point of the entire argument. It receives support from the following sentences and the analogy.
C
A homeowner’s personal financial situation is analogous in relevant ways to the financial situation of a country’s government.
While the author believes this, it is not the main conclusion of the argument. The author uses the homeowner as an analogy to support the conclusion that the plan does not make sense.
D
Because of underfunding, the government does not maintain adequate standards in the services it provides.
This is a premise that supports the argument’s main conclusion. This cannot be a conclusion because it does not receive support anywhere else in the argument.
E
Government leaders want to use the country’s large budget surplus to pay down the national debt.
The conclusion is *not* that the government wants to use the surplus to pay off the debt. The conclusion is that this plan does not make sense.
Summarize Argument
Whether someone’s faithfulness is considered a good thing depends on what they’re faithful to. Virtues are qualities we admire and praise, which is why resentment isn’t seen as a virtue, even though it shows faithfulness to anger or grudges. Being faithful to something harmful, like hatred, isn’t praiseworthy, so it’s not considered a virtue.
Identify Conclusion
The argument's conclusion is that whether or not a person's faithfulness can be considered a virtue depends on the object of that faithfulness. In other words, faithfulness is only a virtue if it is directed toward something praiseworthy.
A
The object of a person’s faithfulness partially determines whether or not that faithfulness is virtuous.
This statement summarizes the argument’s main conclusion because it captures the idea that the virtue of faithfulness depends on what it's directed toward. If the object is praiseworthy, the faithfulness is virtuous; if the object is not, the faithfulness isn't.
B
Virtuous behavior is praiseworthy by definition.
This serves as a supporting premise. It explains why only faithfulness to something praiseworthy can be considered a virtue, but it doesn't capture the main point of the argument, which is that the virtue of faithfulness depends on its object.
C
Behavior that emerges from hatred or animosity cannot be called virtuous.
This is a premise of the argument. It provides an example that supports the conclusion by showing that not all forms of faithfulness are virtuous. It uses hatred or animosity to demonstrate that the virtue of faithfulness depends on what it’s directed toward.
D
Faithfulness and resentment are obviously different, despite some similarities.
This statement contradicts a premise of the argument. The stimulus argues that resentment is a type of faithfulness, not that they are "obviously different."
E
Resentment should not be considered a virtuous emotion.
The stimulus doesn't make this claim. It states that resentment isn’t considered a virtuous emotion but doesn’t discuss whether it should be. The stimulus doesn’t judge whether it’s right that resentment isn't viewed as virtuous; it simply presents this as an objective fact.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Wilson’s net income from sales of hair dryers must be half of what it was 5 years ago. This is because 5 years ago, the hair dryer from Wilson was 50% of all hair dryers sold nationwide. But today it’s only 25% of all hair dryers sold nationwide. In addition, the net income Wilson gets per hair dryer sold has stayed the same.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author takes for granted that there hasn’t been an increase in overall hair dryer sales nationwide. In other words, the author overlooks that even though Wilson’s market share has gone down, it can still be selling more hair dryers than it did 5 years ago.
A
mistakes a decline in the market share of Wilson Appliance’s hair dryer for a decline in the total sales of that product
The author thinks the decline in market share (from 50% to 25%) implies a decline in overall sales of Wilson hairdryers. This is flawed, because the overall hairdryer market could have increased, such that 25% of the market involves more sales than 50% of the market 5 years ago.
B
does not provide specific information about the profits hair dryers generate for the companies that produce them
Hair dryer profits are irrelevant, because the conclusion is just about net income from sales of hair dryers. Profits involve income minus expenses.
C
fails to discuss sales figures for Wilson Appliance’s products other than its hair dryers
The argument doesn’t need to comment on sales of other products. The argument’s conclusion is concerned only with Wilson’s hair dryer.
D
overlooks the possibility that the retail price of Wilson Appliance’s hair dryer may have increased over the past 5 years
The price of the hair dryer is irrelevant because we already know that the net income Wilson receives per hair dryer hasn’t changed. Maybe the price went up, maybe it went down — regardless, the net income is the same.
E
provides no independent evidence that Wilson Appliance’s hair dryer is one of the company’s least profitable products
The argument doesn’t conclude or assume that the hair dryer is one of the company’s least profitable products.