Researcher: In an experiment, 500 families were given a medical self-help book, and 500 similar families were not. Over the next year, the average number of visits to doctors dropped by 20 percent for the families who had been given the book but remained unchanged for the other families. Since improved family health leads to fewer visits to doctors, the experiment indicates that having a medical self-help book in the home improves family health.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that having a medical self-help book in the home improves family health. This is based on an experiment in which families that were given a medical self-help book experienced a decrease in doctor visits, whereas similar families that weren’t given such a book did not. In addition, we know that improved family health leads to fewer visits to doctors.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that having medical self-help books caused a reduction in doctor visits through improving family health. This overlooks the possibility that it may have caused a reduction in doctor visits through some other mechanism. Perhaps, for example, the books didn’t improve health, but simply made families think they don’t need to visit a doctor.

A
it is possible that the families in the experiment who were not given a medical self-help book acquired medical self-help books on their own
This possibility isn’t significant enough to affect how we interpret the study. As long as families that weren’t given a book ended up being less likely on average to own a self-help book than the ones that were given a book, the study’s results can still be evidence of cause.
B
the families in the experiment could have gained access to medical self-help information outside of books
The conclusion concerns the effect of “having a medical self-help book in the home.” Whether the families could access self-help through other means besides a book doesn’t relate to the effect of having a book in the home.
C
a state of affairs could causally contribute to two or more different effects
The flaw doesn’t concern one cause with multiple effects; it’s about one effect (fewer doc. visits) and two dcauses (book, improved family health). Also, if you view the books as causing two effects (improved health, fewer doc. visits), (C) is consistent with the reasoning.
D
two different states of affairs could each causally contribute to the same effect even though neither causally contributes to the other
The author overlooks that two different states of affairs (having book, improved family health) could each contribute to same effect (fewer doc. visits) even though neither contributes to the other. The books didn’t have to cause fewer visits through improving family health.
E
certain states of affairs that lead families to visit the doctor less frequently could also make them more likely to have a medical self-help book in the home
(E) might be true, but in the experiment 500 families were given a self-help book. So we know how these families got the book in their home. We then observed a decrease in doctor visits for these families after they were given a book.

78 comments

A study found that most of the strokes diagnosed by doctors occurred in the left side of patients’ brains. This suggests that right-side strokes are more likely than left-side strokes to go undiagnosed since _______.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that strokes in the right side of the brain are more likely to go undiagnosed than strokes in the left side of the brain. Why? Because most strokes diagnosed by doctors are left-side strokes.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes doctors diagnose more left-side strokes because they correctly identify them at a higher rate, and not for any other reason. In particular, this means assuming strokes are no more likely to occur in the left side of the brain than the right.

A
patients who have strokes typically also have other health problems
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t suggest that other health problems make a right-side stroke harder to diagnose than a left-side stroke.
B
it is very likely that just as many strokes occur in the right side of the brain as in the left side
This strengthens the author’s primary assumption: that left-side strokes are no more common than right-side strokes. It casts doubt on the possibility that left-side strokes are diagnosed more often simply because they occur more often.
C
doctors vary greatly in the accuracy of their diagnoses of strokes
This suggests strokes are often poorly diagnosed—but not that right-side strokes are under-diagnosed. It doesn’t say doctors are better at diagnosing left-side strokes than right-side strokes.
D
the symptoms of right-side strokes tend to be different than the symptoms of left-side strokes
This doesn’t say symptoms of left-side strokes are harder to detect than symptoms of right-side strokes. It suggests that left-side and right-side strokes tend to be diagnosed differently, but not that diagnosing right-side strokes is more difficult.
E
other studies have suggested that a large number of minor strokes go undiagnosed
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t say minor strokes are more likely to occur in the right side of the brain, or that left-side minor strokes are more likely to be diagnosed than right-side minor strokes.

13 comments

Editorial: Animated films appropriate for children are those that are innocently whimsical, mischievous perhaps, but not threatening. Since new animated films aimed at adults have dark themes such as poverty and despair, such films cannot be considered appropriate for children.

Summary
The author concludes that new animated films aimed at adults are not appropriate for children. This is because in order for an animated film to be appropriate for children, it must be innocently whimsical, but not threatening. However, the new animated films for adults have dark themes.

Missing Connection
We know that in order for an animated film to be appropriate for children, it must be innocently whimsical and not threatening. Do we know whether the new animated films are threatening, or whether they lack the quality of innocent whimsy? No; all we know is that the new animated films involve dark themes. To make the argument valid, we want to learn that films involving dark themes are threatening or lack innocent whimsy.

A
Films that are whimsical and mischievous are not threatening.
This doesn’t establish that the new films with dark themes are threatening or that they lack innocent whimsy.
B
Films that are appropriate for adults are seldom appropriate for children.
We don’t know whether the new animated films aimed at adults are appropriate for adults. In addition, even if we did, (B) would establish only that they these kinds of films are rarely appropriate for children. That would not guarantee that they are not appropriate for children.
C
Films that have dark themes are threatening.
(C) establishes that the new films with dark themes are threatening. This establishes that they do not meet one of the necessary conditions for being appropriate for children.
D
Children enjoy films only if the films include animation.
(D) doesn’t establish that the new films with dark themes are threatening or that they lack innocent whimsy.
E
Children do not attend to some details in films aimed at adults.
(E) doesn’t establish that the new films with dark themes are threatening or that they lack innocent whimsy.

6 comments

Economist: There have been large declines in employment around the globe, so it’s not surprising that the number of workers injured on the job has decreased. What is surprising, however, is that the percentage of workers injured on the job has also decreased.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

There’s a decrease in the percentage of workers injured on the job.

Objective

Since this is an “Except” question, the correct answer will not explain the decrease in the percentage of workers injured on the job. Wrong answers will explain why workers are less likely now than before to be injured on the job. The correct answer will either not address that likelihood or else make it more likely that workers are injured on the job.

A
Overall, people who are employed are working fewer hours each day.

Employed people are working less than before, so there’re less chances for them to be injured while on the job. Less hours means less opportunities for accidents and mishaps.

B
A decrease in the demand for products has reduced the pressure on workers to meet production quotas and deadlines.

Since workers aren’t working as hard to meet deadlines, they’re less likely to rush into accidents. Moreover, they’re more likely to follow time-consuming workplace-safety protocols if time isn’t an issue.

C
Some of the most dangerous industries have had especially big declines in employment.

There are less people working dangerous jobs relative to the working population than before. Therefore, a lower percentage of people are likely to suffer injuries from dangerous work.

D
There has been a general decline in the resources devoted to workplace safety.

A decline workplace-safety resources suggests workers would actually be more likely to be injured on the job than before. This doesn’t explain why the rate of job-related injuries has actually fallen.

E
Inexperienced workers have lost their jobs at higher rates than experienced ones.

Experienced workers who know how to operate equipment safely have retained their jobs, while inexperienced workers who’re prone to injury have been let go. Hence, a reduction in injuries.


13 comments

Archaeologist: Our university museum possesses several ancient artifacts whose ownership is in dispute. Although the museum has documentation showing that the items were obtained legally, there is an overriding principle that any important ancient artifact belongs by rights to the nation on whose territory it was discovered. Given that an institution is obliged to honor those rights, our museum should return the artifacts.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that his museum should return certain ancient artifacts whose ownership is in dispute. This conclusion is based on the principle that an important ancient artifact belongs to the nation on whose territory the artifact was discovered. Museums are obligated to follow this principle, which is why the ancient artifacts under dispute should be returned.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s opinion about what should be done with the artifacts: “[O]ur museum should return the artifacts.”

A
The university museum should return the ancient artifacts in dispute.
This is a restatement of the conclusion.
B
Any important ancient artifact belongs by rights to the nation on whose territory it was discovered.
This describes the principle the author uses as a premise.
C
The ancient artifacts whose ownership is in dispute were obtained legally by the university museum.
This is a concession point, but not the conclusion.
D
The university museum is in possession of several artifacts whose ownership is in dispute.
This is context. The argument concerns what should be done with those artifacts.
E
There is an overriding principle that any important ancient artifact belongs by rights to the nation on whose territory it was discovered.
This is a premise.

Comment on this

Letter to the Editor: The arts section of this paper shows a lamentable bias toward movies and against local theatrical productions. Over the last year alone, the paper has published over five times as many movie reviews as reviews of live plays.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the arts section of the paper is biased toward movies and against local theater. This is based on the fact that in the last year, the paper has published over five times as many movie reviews are review of live plays.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no other explanation for why the paper published over five times as many movie reviews as reviews of live plays besides bias. The author also assumes that the number of reviews about live plays is representative of the number of reviews of local theatrical productions. (This overlooks the possibility that the paper might have reviewed a lot of other local theatrical productions that weren’t classified as live plays.)

A
Some newspapers do not publish any reviews of live plays.
We’re talking about a particular newspaper that does publish reviews of plays. Whether other newspapers are biased or not biased or whether they publish play reviews or not has no impact on whether this newspaper is biased.
B
The number of movies released last year was significantly greater than the number of live plays performed locally.
This provides a potential alternate explanation for the disparity in publication of movie and play reviews. If there were a lot more movies, we’d expect a lot more movie reviews, even if there was no bias toward or against movies or plays.
C
The newspaper has five movie critics, but only one theater critic.
If anything, this could support the theory of bias. Perhaps the reason the newspaper has more movie critics is because they prefer publishing reviews of movies over reviews of plays.
D
The newspaper does not have the space in the arts section to publish a review of every movie that is released or every live play that is locally performed.
The author never suggested that the newspaper could publish a review of every movie or local play. The author’s simply pointing to the disparity in number of movie and play reviews.
E
The newspaper published more reviews of live plays in the last year than it did two years ago.
We care about the comparison between movie reviews and play reviews. More play reviews last year compared to the past might suggest the newspaper has gotten less biased against plays; but that doesn’t relate to whether the newspaper is more biased toward movies than plays.

2 comments

Policy analyst: Those concerned with safeguarding public health by reducing the risk of traffic fatalities typically focus their efforts on automotive safety measures such as increasing seat belt use, reducing distracted driving, and improving automotive technology. But what would contribute the most to safeguarding public health is a reduction in total miles traveled on our roads. The fact is that traveling by car is itself a major risk factor.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if we want to protect public health, getting people to drive fewer miles would be more impactful than automotive safety measures. This is because traveling by car creates a major risk of traffic fatalities.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s assessment about what measure would contribute most to reducing traffic fatalities: “[W]hat would contribute the most to safeguarding public health is a reduction in total miles traveled on our roads.”

A
Public health can be safeguarded through reducing traffic fatalities.
This might be an assumption of the argument, but it’s not the conclusion. The author’s conclusion concerns the best way to safeguard public health.
B
Those concerned with safeguarding public health should focus their efforts on reducing traffic fatalities.
The conclusion does not tell anyone that they should or should not do something. It’s simply an assessment of what would contribute most to safeguarding public health.
C
Increasing seat belt use, reducing distracted driving, and improving automotive technology all safeguard public health.
This is part of context. But the author’s conclusion is that there’s another method that would contribute more to protecting public health.
D
A reduction in total miles traveled would contribute more to safeguarding public health than would any automotive safety measure.
This is a paraphrase of the conclusion. The author asserted that reducing miles driven contributes the “most” to protecting public health. This means it contributes more than any other method.
E
Traveling by car is itself a major risk factor for traffic fatalities.
This is a premise.

3 comments

Researcher: During the rainy season, bonobos (an ape species closely related to chimpanzees) frequently swallow whole the rough-surfaced leaves of the shrub Manniophyton fulvum. These leaves are likely ingested because of their medicinal properties, since ingestion of these leaves facilitates the elimination of gastrointestinal worms.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The researcher hypothesizes that bonobos eat Manniophyton fulvum leaves during the rainy season because they have medicinal properties. For evidence, he points to one such property: the leaves help eliminate gastrointestinal worms.

Notable Assumptions

The researcher assumes bonobos eat Manniophyton fulvum leaves because of their medicinal properties, and not for some other reason. This means assuming bonobos benefit from having fewer gastrointestinal worms and that the leaves are not worth eating just for their nutritional value.

A
Bonobos rarely swallow whole leaves of any plants other than M. fulvum.

This suggests there’s something unique about M. fulvum leaves—but not necessarily their medicinal value. It makes bonobos’ ingestion of these leaves more anomalous, but throws no weight behind the researcher’s particular hypothesis.

B
Chimpanzees have also been observed to swallow rough-surfaced leaves whole during the rainy season.

This is irrelevant. It doesn’t say chimpanzees eat M. fulvum leaves in particular, nor does it imply chimpanzees eat those leaves for their medicinal properties.

C
Of the rough-leaved plants available to bonobos, M. fulvum shrubs are the most common.

This doesn’t suggest bonobos eat them for their medicinal value. It’s equally compatible with the leading alternative hypotheses—for example, that bonobos eat the leaves for their nutritional value.

D
The leaves of M. fulvum are easier to swallow whole when they are wet.

This implies bonobos would prefer to eat M. fulvum leaves during the rainy season, rather than the dry season—but not why they choose to eat them in the first place. It doesn’t say the leaves have greater medicinal value when wet.

E
The rainy season is the time when bonobos are most likely to be infected with gastrointestinal worms.

This suggests M. fulvum leaves have more medicinal value to bonobos during the rainy season, since those leaves are more likely to rid them of worms. It makes it more likely the bonobos eat the leaves for their medicinal properties, as opposed to nutritional or other reasons.


13 comments

Political scientist: When a bill comes before a legislative body, the majority of the representatives are usually prepared to vote for it. Moreover, when a bill is at first unlikely to get approval by the majority, a compromise regarding the content of the bill is usually possible, allowing its passage into law. Such compromises are impossible, however, when the bill concerns an issue of fundamental importance to a large bloc of representatives.

Summary

When a bill comes before a legislative body, most representatives are prepared to vote for it. Most of the time when a bill is unlikely to get approval by the majority, compromise regarding the content is possible. Compromise is impossible, however, when the bill concerns an issue of fundamental importance to a large bloc of representatives.

Notable Valid Inferences

Most bills concerning issues of fundamental importance to a large bloc of representatives do not pass into law following compromise.

A
Compromises regarding issues of fundamental importance to large blocs of representatives in the legislature usually do not enable the passage of any bill into law.

Must be true. The stimulus tells us that compromise is not possible when a bill concerns issues of fundamental importance to a large bloc of representatives. Therefore, this type of compromise does not enable the passage of any bill into law.

B
Most bills that do not concern any issues of fundamental importance to any large bloc of representatives in the legislature pass into law.

Could be true. We don’t have any information in the stimulus to contradict this idea. It is possible that most of these types of bills pass into law, if there are any at all.

C
Most bills concerning issues of fundamental importance to a large bloc of representatives pass into law as a result of compromises over the bills’ contents.

Must be false. As shown on our diagram, compromise is possible only if the bill does not concern issues of fundamental importance to a large bloc of representatives.

D
Most bills concern issues of fundamental importance to at least one large bloc of representatives in the legislature.

Could be true. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about the content of most bills.

E
Most bills do not concern any issues of fundamental importance to any large bloc of representatives in the legislature.

Could be true. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about the content of most bills.


19 comments