The temperature in Taychester is always at least 10 degrees lower than the temperature in Charlesville. However, the average resident of Charlesville spends 10 to 20 percent more on winter heating expenses than does the average resident of Taychester.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why does the average resident of Charlesville spend more on winter heating expenses than does the average resident of Taychester despite the fact that Taychester is always significantly colder than Charlesville?

Objective
Remember that this is an “except” question! The right answer will be the only one that does not offer an explanation of why Charlesville residents spend more on winter heating. The rest of the answers will explain some difference between Charlesville and Taychester that accounts for the greater winter heating expenses in Charlesville.

A
Heat loss due to wind is less in Taychester than in Charlesville.
This could explain why Charlesville residents spend more on winter heating: even with the higher temperatures, the wind causes more heat to escape houses there than it does in Taychester (which probably means it’s windier in Charlesville, but could be due to house structures).
B
Although Charlesville is always fairly warm during the daytime, temperatures in Charlesville drop steeply at night.
This doesn’t matter. Even if it’s way colder in Charlesville at night than it is during the day, the stimulus says that it’s always at least ten degrees colder in Taychester, night or day. We’d still expect the heating expenses there to be greater.
C
Utility rates in Taychester are lower than utility rates in Charlesville.
This could explain why Charlesville residents spend more on winter heating: the rates there are just higher! Even if they’re not actually using as much heat as the Taychester residents are, they’re paying more because it’s simply more expensive to heat a home in Charlesville.
D
People who are used to warmer temperatures generally keep their homes warmer in the winter than do people who are used to colder temperatures.
This could explain why Charlesville residents spend more on winter heating. Accustomed to colder temperatures, Taychester residents are less fazed by the winter than are the people in Charlesville, who are spoiled by a warmer climate and choose to heat their homes more.
E
Houses in colder climates are usually better insulated than houses in warmer climates.
This could explain why Charlesville residents spend more on winter heating: they have to generate more heat to make up for what they lose to poor insulation.

29 comments

Michele: In my professional experience, it’s usually not a good idea for a company to overhaul its databases. The rewards rarely exceed the problems experienced along the way, and I’d suggest that anyone considering a database overhaul think twice before proceeding.

Alvaro: But the problems are always caused by a failure to recode the database properly. The best advice for a company considering a database overhaul is to do the job right.

Speaker 1 Summary
Michele concludes that people should think twice before proceeding with a database overhaul. This is because the benefits of an overhaul rarely outweigh the problems of an overhaul.

Speaker 2 Summary
Alvaro asserts that problems of an overhaul are always caused by failing to recode the database properly. Thus, he concludes that a company considering an overhaul should do the overhaul correctly.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. A point of disagreement is difficult to predict up front. They seem to disagree over how to approach a database overhaul. Michele recommends strongly considering whether an overhaul is the right decision. Alvaro recommends doing an overhaul correctly, but doesn’t express as much caution about doing the overhaul as Michele does.

A
why companies should consider overhauling their databases
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t get into any particular reasons that a company should consider overhauling their databases.
B
whether the problems experienced during a database overhaul ever outweigh the rewards
Alvaro doesn’t have an opinion. He doesn’t discuss the benefits of a database overhaul and whether they ever outweigh the problems.
C
which kinds of database overhauls have more problems than are justified by the rewards
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss different kinds of database overhauls or which kinds have more problems than benefits.
D
what a company should do when considering a database overhaul
This is a point of disagreement. Michele thinks companies should think twice before proceeding. In other words, they should strongly consider not doing the overhaul. Alvaro recommends something different. To him, the best advice for companies is to do the overhaul correctly.
E
when professional experience is required to correctly recode a database
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss the need for professional experience to recode a database.

4 comments

There is a popular view among literary critics that a poem can never be accurately paraphrased because a poem is itself the only accurate expression of its meaning. But these same critics hold that their own paraphrases of particular poems are accurate. Thus, their view that poetry cannot be accurately paraphrased is false.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the view that poetry cannot be accurately paraphrased is false. This is based on the fact that certain critics who hold that view also hold another view that their own paraphrases of some poems are accurate.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author points out that the critics who believe a poem cannot be accurately paraphrased hold a contradictory view — that some of their own paraphrases of poems are accurate. But we don’t know which of these views is true, if any. The author assumes that the critics’ own paraphrases of poems are accurate. But it’s possible that the paraphrases are not accurate and that the critics’ view that poems can’t be accurately paraphrased is true. We don’t know which of the critics’ beliefs is true.

A
presupposes the falsity of the view that it sets out to refute
The author does not presuppose, on the way to reaching her conclusion, that the view poems can’t be accurately paraphrased is false. Rather, the author assumes that the critics have accurately paraphrased poems, which, if true, would show that poems can be accurately paraphrased.
B
takes for granted that the main purpose of poems is to convey information rather than express feelings
The author’s reasoning doesn’t relate to the purpose of poems. The issue is whether poems can accurately be paraphrased. Why poems are written or why they are read has no bearing on the argument.
C
takes for granted that a paraphrase of a poem cannot be useful to its readers unless it accurately expresses a poem’s meaning
The author’s reasoning doesn’t relate to the usefulness of a paraphrase. The issue is whether poems can be accurately paraphrased. Whether this paraphrasing is ever useful to a reader has no bearing on the argument.
D
provides no justification for favoring one of the literary critics’ beliefs over the other
The author gave no reason for favoring the view that the critics’ paraphrases are accurate. The author simply assumes that this view is true. This overlooks that the contradictory view could be the one that is true; perhaps poems can’t be paraphrased accurately.
E
provides no justification for following one particular definition of “paraphrase”
It’s not clear that the author is using any definition of “paraphrase” other than the dictionary definition. And it’s not flawed to use the dictionary definition of a word, unless we have some reason to use a different definition.

37 comments

In a scene in an ancient Greek play, Knights, the character Demosthenes opens a writing tablet on which an oracle had written a prophecy, and while looking at the tablet, he continuously expresses his amazement at its contents. His companion presses him for information, whereupon Demosthenes explains what the oracle had written.

Summary

In a scene in one ancient Greek play, a character (Demosthenes) opens a tablet and expresses amazement at what was written on it.

Demosthenes’s companion requests information in response to his reaction.

Demosthenes explains to his companion what was written on the tablet.

Notable Valid Inferences

In this scene, Demosthenes did not read the prophecy out loud.

A
In ancient Greek plays, characters are presumed to know how to read unless their illiteracy is specifically mentioned.

This could be true. We only know what happened in one specific scene in one play. Further, neither character’s illiteracy is specifically mentioned, so according to (A), both characters would be presumed to know how to read. This presumption isn’t rejected by the stimulus.

B
The character of Demosthenes in Knights is not based on a historical figure.

This could be true. We have no information to support or reject this claim.

C
In ancient Greek plays, the reading aloud of written texts commonly occurred as part of the on-stage action.

This could be true. We only have information about one scene in one play where something was read silently; we don’t know whether or not reading out loud occurred commonly.

D
In ancient Greece, people did not read silently to themselves.

The stimulus provides evidence against this. We can reject the claim in (D) because the stimulus provides an indication that someone read silently. (D) says that reading silently never happened, and the stimulus provides an example of it happening, so the stimulus rejects (D).

E
Only rarely in ancient Greece were prophecies written down on writing tablets.

This could be true. We only know what happened in this scene in this one play; we don’t know how commonly prophecies were written down in ancient Greece. We don’t have the information to reject this claim.


75 comments

The prehistoric fish Tiktaalik is the earliest known animal with fingers. Since variations were so great among prehistoric fish species, Tiktaalik would not have stood out as unusual at the time. However, Tiktaalik’s fingers were an important development in animal evolution because it is likely that Tiktaalik is an ancestor to the many land animals with fingers.

Summary
Tiktaalik is a prehistoric fish. Tiktaalik is the earliest known animal with fingers. Tiktaalik would not have stood out as unusual since variations were great among prehistoric fish. Tiktaalik is likely an ancestor to the land animals that have fingers.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Land animals with fingers today likely trace their ancestry back to a prehistoric fish. Comparing Tiktaalik to other fish at its time would not reveal its evolutionary importance.

A
Tiktaalik likely used its fingers to move on land.
This is unsupported because we don’t know where Tiktaalik lived, and its life may have been confined to the sea.
B
Tiktaalik’s fingers were its only feature to play a significant role in the development of modern land animals.
This is unsupported because the author never reveals if Tiktaalik also had other features that were unique or significant. The discussion is confined to its fingers.
C
Tiktaalik is not the ancestor of any currently surviving fish species.
This is unsupported because Tiktaalik may have had several descendants of fish, either with or without fingers.
D
No fish without fingers would ever be able to move on land.
This is unsupported because there may be other appendages besides fingers that could enable a fish to move on land.
E
The evolutionary significance of Tiktaalik could not be determined just through comparison to fish species of its time.
This is strongly supported because comparing Tiktaalik to other fish wouldn’t yield significant results since many different fish had unique characteristics. The evolutionary significance of Tiktaalik comes from its later land ancestors with fingers.

23 comments

Songwriters get much of the money they earn from their songs from radio airplay. A hit song is played thousands of times, and the songwriter is paid for each play. Only a fraction of songwriters actually achieve a hit, however, and even fewer manage to write several. Writers of hit songs are often asked to write songs for movie sound tracks, but they sometimes decline, because although such songs frequently become hits, their writers receive single up-front payments rather than continued revenues from radio airplay.

Summary
Songwriters get much of the money they earn from their songs from radio airplay. A songwriter is paid for each play, and hit songs are played thousands of times. Only some songwriters actually achieve a hit, however, and even fewer songwriters manage to write several hits. Writers of hit songs are often asked to write songs for movie soundtracks, but they sometimes decline. This is because, although such songs frequently become hits, their writers receive one up-front payment instead of continued revenues from radio airplay.

Notable Valid Inferences
Some songs written for movie soundtracks become hits and are played on the radio thousands of times.

A
Any songwriter who receives revenue from radio airplay has written a hit song.
Could be false. To claim this is true for any songwriter is too extreme. It is possible for a song that is not a hit to be played on the radio, and those songwriters would still receive some revenue.
B
All songwriters who write songs for movie sound tracks have had their songs played on the radio thousands of times.
Could be false. To claim this is true for all songwriters is too extreme. It is possible for an unknown songwriter to get asked to write songs for movie sound tracks. We only know that sometimes writers of hit songs are asked to write songs for movie sound tracks.
C
Some songs written for movie sound tracks are played on the radio thousands of times.
Must be true. The stimulus tells us that songs written for movie sound tracks frequently become hits. Since hit songs are played thousands of times, it must follow that some songs written for movie sound tracks are played thousands of times.
D
Most songwriters prefer the possibility of continued income to single up-front payments for their songs.
Could be false. The stimulus does not give us any information about what most songwriters prefer. It is possible that there are other options songwriters prefer.
E
Some songwriters earn money solely from the radio airplay of their songs.
Could be false. We don’t have enough information in the stimulus about sources of income for songwriters to make this claim. It is possible that there are no songwriters solely earning money from radio airplay.

29 comments

Lecturer: If I say, “I tried to get my work done on time,” the meanings of my words do not indicate that I didn’t get it done on time. But usually you would correctly understand me to be saying that I didn’t. After all, if I had gotten my work done on time, I would instead just say, “I got my work done on time.” And this example is typical of how conversation works.

Summary

The lecturer gives us an example of a statement that, in a conversation, contains meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words. The literal meaning of “I tried to get my work done on time” does not express that I didn’t get my work done on time. But if I made that statement, you’d be correct to understand me as asserting that I didn’t get my work done on time. This example is typical of other statements in a conversation.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

People say things that contain meanings beyond the literal meaning of the words.

A
Understanding what people say often requires more than just understanding the meanings of the words they use.

Strongly supported. We have an example of a statement that contains meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words. This was typical of conversations. So, understanding the meaning of some other things people say requires more than just the meaning of the literal words.

B
It is unusual for English words to function in communication in the way that “tried” does.

Unsupported. The stimulus gave us an example of something that is typical (usual) in conversations. There’s no support for a claim about the function of certain words being unusual.

C
Understanding what people use a word to mean often requires detecting their nonverbal cues.

Unsupported. We don’t know that understanding the meaning of the example in the stimulus requires nonverbal cues. We might get the meaning from the context in which it’s made, or from the fact the person didn’t say something else.

D
Speakers often convey more information in conversation than they intend to convey.

Unsupported. The example in the stimulus concerns a speaker who intends to express more than what the literal words mean. It doesn’t concern someone who expressed more than he intended.

E
Listeners cannot reasonably be expected to have the knowledge typically required for successful communication.

Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t tell us anything about how likely people will interpret statements accurately. Maybe most people interpret statements in conversations accurately; there’s no evidence either for or against this possibility.


8 comments