Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that by going on record as favoring property tax reform, she can attract additional voters in the northeastern part of the district without alienating voters elsewhere. This is based on the fact that in each election over the past 10 years, the candidate who supported property tax reform received a majority of the votes in the northeastern part of the district. No other part of the district has a detectible voting pattern for or against property tax reform.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the correlation between gaining a majority of votes in the northeastern part of the district and supporting property tax reform is explained by a causal relationship between the support and the votes. But the support for property tax reform might have had nothing to do with why the candidate got votes.
A
would not attempt to enact property tax reform if elected
The conclusion concerns what the author believes will win votes. Whether a candidate would actually attempt to enact reform is not relevant, because the argument concerns the effects of supporting such reforms. One might be able to win votes simply from support.
B
draws opposite conclusions about voting patterns in different parts of the district
There’s nothing flawed about drawing opposite conclusions if the evidence supports those differing conclusion. The evidence shows a discernible pattern in the northeast, but no discernible pattern elsewhere. So there’s nothing flawed about drawing different conclusions.
C
draws a general conclusion about patterns of voting based on a small sample
We have no reason to think the conclusion is based on a “small” sample. The sample includes the results of votes over elections in the past 10 years. This could be dozens of elections. We have no idea whether the sample is too small.
D
surmises from the fact that two phenomena are correlated that one causes the other
There’s a correlation between winning more votes in the northeast and supporting tax reform. The author assumes that the support for tax reform is what caused candidates to win more votes. This doesn’t have to be true. So we can’t conclude that supporting tax reform will attract additional voters.
E
draws a conclusion based solely on data that are ten years old
There’s nothing inherently flawed about drawing a conclusion from data that’s ten years old. In any case, the argument isn’t based “solely” on data that’s ten years old. The data concerns elections throughout the last 10 years.
Summary
Dairy farmers use BST to boost cow milk production. Some people oppose BST because it puts cows at a higher risk of infection. A higher risk of infections leads to more frequent use of antibiotics, which could appear in milk and be harmful at high levels. Milk from BST and non-BST cows is regularly screened for antibiotics.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If BST milk is not screened, it cannot be regarded as 100% safe.
If it is safe, then the milk has been scanned.
If it is safe, then the milk has been scanned.
A
Consumer groups have no legitimate reasons for opposing the use of BST.
This is anti-supported. The stimulus explains that some groups are opposed due to the presence of antibodies, which can be dangerous to humans.
B
Milk from BST-treated cows is as safe for human consumption as that from untreated cows.
This is anti-supported. The stimulus raises concerns about the potential for high amounts of antibiotics to be in BST milk.
C
There is no advantage to the use of BST on dairy cows.
This is anti-supported. The stimulus details that BST boosts milk production.
D
Milk from BST-treated cows can be presumed safe for humans only if it is successfully screened for high levels of antibiotics.
The stimulus explains that the notable difference between BST and non-BST milk is the potential increased concentration of antibiotics. Thus, if it is safe for humans, it must have been screened for antibiotics.
E
The only threat posed by drinking milk from cows treated with BST is high levels of antibiotics.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus does not claim that a heightened level of antibiotics is the *only* threat posed by BST milk, just that it is one of them.
Summarize Argument
The Legislator concludes that it is a mistake for universities to cut humanities departments when facing budget shortfalls for several reasons:
Teaching and research in the humanities costs less
(Sub-conclusion) So Humanities departments bring in more money than they spend
(Sub-conclusion) So Humanities departments subsidize science departments
Teaching and research in the humanities costs less
(Sub-conclusion) So Humanities departments bring in more money than they spend
(Sub-conclusion) So Humanities departments subsidize science departments
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the first part of the second sentence is a premise offered in support of a sub-conclusion, which is offered as support for the Legislator’s main conclusion.
A
It is offered as support for the accuracy of an alleged stereotype.
There is no support offered for the stereotype in the third sentence.
B
It is an alleged stereotype rejected in the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim is not a stereotype and the claim is not rejected by the Legislator.
C
It is put forward as a component of an explanation for a premise of the argument.
The claim is used as support for a sub-conclusion of the argument which is used to support the Legislator’s main conclusion.
D
It is an intermediate conclusion from which the argument’s overall conclusion is inferred.
The claim is used as support for a sub-conclusion of the argument. The claim itself is not a sub-conclusion.
E
It is one of many claims each presented as independent support for the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim is not independent support for the Legislator’s main conclusion.
Chapman: Heckling is only a long-standing tradition of comedy because it’s tolerated. And it’s usually only fun for the heckler. In most cases, heckling is just a distraction from the performance.
Speaker 1 Summary
McKee thinks that comedy venues shouldn’t prevent heckling. Why? For two reasons. First, heckling is a long-standing tradition in stand-up comedy. Second, comedians are able to give entertaining responses to heckling.
Speaker 2 Summary
Chapman argues toward the implied conclusion that venues should prevent heckling. To support this point, Chapman says that heckling is only a tradition because it’s tolerated, not for any merit of its own. Chapman also claims that heckling is usually a distraction that’s only fun for the heckler, rather than a source of entertainment.
Objective
We need to find the statement that McKee and Chapman do not disagree on. This could be a point of agreement, or something that at least one speaker is neutral about. One such point is that comedians’ responses to hecklers can sometimes be entertaining.
A
Comedy venues should tolerate audience members’ heckling the performers.
McKee agrees with this but Chapman disagrees. McKee states this claim explicitly. Chapman undermines McKee’s argument by pointing out problems with allowing heckling, which supports the unstated conclusion that venues should ban heckling.
B
Stand-up comedians’ responses to heckling should be considered part of their stand-up comedy performance.
McKee agrees with this, but Chapman disagrees. McKee thinks that comedians’ responses to heckling are a source of entertainment for the audience. Chapman calls heckling a “distraction” rather than part of the comedy routine.
C
The best stand-up comedians are able to respond entertainingly when they are heckled by audience members.
McKee agrees and Chapman states no opinion, so this is where the speakers don’t disagree. McKee says comedians in general respond entertainingly. Chapman says heckling is usually distracting, but leaves open the possibility that some skilled comedians can make it entertaining.
D
Many audience members at comedy venues enjoy watching stand-up comedians respond to heckling.
McKee agrees and Chapman disagrees. McKee calls performers’ response to heckling entertaining, which means that audiences are entertained. Chapman, however, says that heckling is distracting and only fun for the heckler, meaning the audience in general is not entertained.
E
It is unwise for comedy venues to disregard long-standing traditions of stand-up comedy.
McKee agrees but Chapman disagrees. McKee thinks it’s unwise for venues to ban heckling, which is a tradition—hence, it’s unwise for venues to ignore a particular tradition. Chapman’s conclusion is the opposite, that venues should ignore the tradition of heckling.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Certain changes in North American residential architecture after World War II (low ceilings and thin walls) were mainly due to the increased availability and affordability of air conditioning. This is because air-conditioned houses without high ceilings and thick walls sold well after World War II, even though those features typically kept houses cool during times of extreme heat.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the increased prevalence of low ceilings and thin walls was not due to something else like people changing their preferences/tastes about how they wanted their home to look.
A
High ceilings and thick walls enable houses to withstand many types of severe weather that are common in North America.
This is irrelevant because it does not address the main claim that the changes in architecture were due to the increased affordability and availability of air conditioning.
B
Thin-walled, low-ceilinged houses are more costly to heat in winter than thick-walled, high-ceilinged houses.
Although this provides a weakness for the feasibility of thin-walled, low-ceilinged houses, it does not weaken the argument for the main claim that air conditioning caused these architectural changes
C
Houses with low ceilings and thin walls were prevalent in North America even where there was no demand for residential air-conditioning.
This suggests that thin-walled houses with low ceilings were prevalent *before* the widespread availability of AC. Thus, this weakens the claim that AC was the primary driver of these architectural changes
D
Thin walls allow cool, air-conditioned air to escape more readily from houses than do thick walls.
This does not weaken the author’s argument that the increased availability of air conditioning increased the prevalence of houses with thin walls and low ceilings. It just highlights an inefficiency of the new homes.
E
Soon after World War II, new thermal-insulating technology was widely applied in house building.
While this could explain why these houses became more common, it does not weaken the causal link between the increased availability of AC and thin-walled houses with low ceilings.
Summarize Argument
The author argues that drunk drivers are deterred by the prospect of severe penalties. This is because statistics show that countries with the most severe penalties for drunk driving have a smaller percentage of alcohol-related traffic accidents when compared to other countries.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there are no other factors, such as cultural differences, in the countries with harsh punishments for drunk driving that would explain the lower rates of drunk driving accidents.
A
The countries with the largest populations do not have severe penalties for driving while intoxicated.
This is irrelevant to the reasoning of the argument. The size of countries with/without severe penalties does not impact the causal relationship between severe penalties and the rates of drunk driving accidents.
B
Very severe penalties against driving while intoxicated are in effect only in countries in which alcohol use is rare.
This weakens the argument by calling out one of the author’s main assumptions. If alcohol use is already rare in countries with the strictest penalties, then the low rate of alcohol-related driving accidents might be due to low alcohol consumption.
C
The higher a country’s speed limits, the more frequent traffic accidents tend to be in that country.
A country’s speed limits are irrelevant to the relationship between strict penalties and the rate of drunk driving accidents. You need to make a lot of unwarranted assumptions for this answer choice to work.
D
Only a relatively small minority of those who drive while intoxicated are actually apprehended while doing so.
Whether or not drunk drivers are apprehended is irrelevant to the relationship between strict penalties and the rate of drunk driving accidents. Also, this does not address the comparison between countries with/without strict penalties.
E
All countries impose severer penalties on those who cause accidents while driving intoxicated than on those who are merely apprehended while driving intoxicated.
This is irrelevant to the argument because it does not address how the severity of penalties impacts the rate of drunk driving accidents. This fact does not change anything about the argument.
Summary
The author concludes that computer passwords are not going to be replaced by alternate security options like fingerprint scanners. Why? Because in order for those options to replace passwords, they must become standard on most of the world’s computers. In addition, those other options are a lot more expensive than computer passwords.
Missing Connection
We can prove that computer passwords won’t be replaced by the alternative options if we can show that the alternatives won’t become standard on most of the world’s computers.
One way to prove that would be to establish that if the alternatives are a lot more expensive than computer passwords, then they won’t become standard on most of the world’s computers.
A
There are ways to make computer passwords a more secure means of protecting one’s information.
(A) doesn’t establish that the alternative methods won’t become standard on most of the world’s computers. So (A) doesn’t establish that the alternatives won’t replace computer passwords.
B
Any security option that is no more expensive to employ than computer passwords provides less security than computer passwords.
(B) concerns alternatives to computer passwords that are not more expensive than passwords. But those aren’t the alternatives we’re talking about. (B) doesn’t establish that the more-expensive alternatives won’t become standard on most of the world’s employers.
C
Most computer security experts do not believe that computer passwords will be replaced by an alternative security option anytime soon.
What experts believe doesn’t establish that the alternatives won’t become standard on most of the world’s computers. Maybe what the experts believe is wrong?
D
Security options that are significantly more expensive to employ than computer passwords will not become standard on most of the world’s computers anytime soon.
(D) establishes that the more-expensive alternatives won’t become standard on most of the world’s computers anytime soon. In connection with the last premise — which tells us that in order to replace passwords, those options have to become standard on most computers — (D) establishes that those options cannot replace passwords anytime soon.
E
As soon as a security option is developed that is not significantly more expensive to employ than computer passwords, computer passwords will be replaced as a security measure.
(E) establishes a condition under which computer passwords WILL be replaced. This doesn’t establish that computer passwords will NOT be replaced soon. If you think (E) does, you’re confusing sufficiency and necessity.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that jumping spiders defend EFN-producing plants against leaf-eating insects. He supports this by noting that ants that display behavior similar to that of the spiders defend the plants. He then cites experiments showing that the spiders land on plants with active EFNs six times more often than on those without EFNs, and they regularly eat the plant's nectar.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no alternative explanation for the spiders’ attraction to the EFN-producing plants, simply because the spiders’ behavior is similar to the ants’ behavior. He implicitly rules out all other explanations. But maybe the spiders just land on the plants for food and have a neutral or even negative effect on the plants’ health.
A
For many species of nectar-producing plants, productivity is increased when a plant is protected from leaf-eating insects.
Irrelevant—this doesn’t rule out any alternative explanations for the spiders’ behavior. It makes sense that plants are more productive when protected from leaf-eating insects, but (A) doesn’t address whether the spiders themselves are actually protecting the plants.
B
In field experiments, the introduction of jumping spiders into an environment was followed by a significant increase in the population of EFN-producing plants.
This strengthens the author’s hypothesis by validating a prediction that would follow from it. If his hypothesis were true, we’d expect to see the plants thriving and reproducing when the spiders are introduced, since the spiders protect them from leaf-eating insects.
C
Some species of EFN-producing plants cannot survive without some outside agent protecting them from leaf-eating insects.
Irrelevant— this fails to address whether jumping spiders are protecting the plants from leaf-eating insects and thus fails to strengthen the argument.
D
Experiments with types of spiders other than jumping spiders suggest that these other types of spiders do not defend EFN-producing plants.
Irrelevant— the argument is only concerned with whether or not the jumping spiders defend EFN-producing plants. The effect of other types of spiders on EFN-producing plants doesn’t matter.
E
Regions with large populations of ants also tend to have large populations of EFN-producing plants.
Irrelevant— we already know that certain ants protect EFN-producing plants from leaf-eating insects, so it makes sense that areas with lots of ants also have lots of EFN-producing plants. But (E) fails to address whether jumping spiders also protect these plants.