Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
An Economist argues that increasing the minimum wage in Country X will quickly lead to a decrease in the country’s unemployment rate. This is because raising the minimum wage will increase people’s disposable income, which people will spend on consumer goods. This increase in demand will then lead to an increase in factory jobs to meet the demand for new goods.
Notable Assumptions
The Economist assumes that the number of jobs created by increasing demand will outpace the number of jobs lost by raising the minimum wage and that the cost of goods will not increase due to increasing the minimum wage.
A
The cost of a minimum-wage increase in Country X will be passed on to consumers in the form of significantly higher prices for consumer goods.
This weakens the author’s claim that the demand for goods will cause more factory workers to be hired. If prices rise, demand could potentially not increase to a level that would rapidly create more jobs to keep up with consumer demand.
B
Most of the consumer goods sold in Country X are produced outside the country.
This weakens the argument because most of the factory jobs created to keep up with demand would not come from *within* the country. Thus, the country’s unemployment rate would not rapidly decrease to the extent that the Economist predicts.
C
In many factories in Country X, most workers are paid much more than the current minimum wage.
This does not weaken the argument because it only addresses *one* industry in Country X. It is unclear how large this industry is. This does not weaken the author’s claim that raising the minimum wage would lead to more income for a large segment of the working population.
D
The cost to employers of an increase in the minimum wage in Country X will be made up by reductions in the workforce.
This weakens the argument because it undermines one of the Economist’s key assumptions: that the increase in factory jobs will outpace the number of job losses around the country. If this were true, then it is not likely that the unemployment rate would drastically decrease.
E
Most factories that produce consumer goods in Country X have large surpluses of goods as a result of years of overproduction.
This weakens the argument because if the factories have large surpluses, then they will not need to hire more workers to keep up with the demand for consumer goods.
Binh: Undeniably, the insurer is in business to make money. But the mere fact that an insurer draws a profit in no way implies that buying one of its policies is unwise.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Kira concludes that it’s unwise for us to buy the insurance policy. This is because Kira thinks it’s designed to make money for the insurance company.
Binh concedes that an insurance company wants to make money. But Binh points out that this fact doesn’t imply that buying an insurance policy is unwise.
Binh concedes that an insurance company wants to make money. But Binh points out that this fact doesn’t imply that buying an insurance policy is unwise.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Binh points out that Kira’s premise is not sufficient to prove her conclusion.
A
suggesting that Kira has overlooked a fact that, although consistent with her premises, is in direct conflict with her conclusion
Binh doesn’t point out any fact that Kira has overlooked. Binh points out that Kira’s own premise doesn’t support her conclusion.
B
denying Kira’s premises while suggesting that her conclusion, although possibly true, is highly unlikely
Binh does not deny Kira’s premises. He admits that insurance companies want to make money, and he does not deny that insurance companies set prices to ensure profits.
C
arguing that Kira’s premises are not only inadequate to prove her conclusion but in fact point strongly toward its being false
Binh does not argue that Kira’s premises strongly point toward her conclusion being false. Binh simply notes that her premises do not prove her conclusion.
D
conceding Kira’s premises without denying her conclusion, while asserting that the latter does not follow from the former
Binh concedes Kira’s premises (acknowledges insurer wants money and makes profit) and asserts that her conclusion (that the insurance policy is unwise) does not follow from her premises.
E
observing that while Kira’s premises each independently support her conclusion, the premises themselves are inconsistent with one another
Binh does not suggest that Kira’s premises provide any support to her conclusion. He also does not suggest that her premises contradict each other.
Summary
The author concludes that if ad agencies gear their ads mainly to older adults, then they can maximize their clients’ profits. This is based on the fact that older adults control most of this nation’s disposable income.
Missing Connection
We have no compelling reason to believe that targeting older adults will maximize profits. Sure, older adults may control most of the nation’s disposable income. But that doesn’t imply that ads targeted toward them will get them to spend more money than ads targeted toward other groups.
To make the argument valid, we want to establish the following relationship:
If ad agencies target their ads toward a group of people who control most of this nation’s personal disposable income, that will maximize their clients’ profits.
To make the argument valid, we want to establish the following relationship:
If ad agencies target their ads toward a group of people who control most of this nation’s personal disposable income, that will maximize their clients’ profits.
A
Older people generally have larger incomes and have had longer to accumulate resources than younger people.
This might explain why older people control most of this nation’s personal disposable income. But (A) doesn’t establish that targeting ads toward this group of people will maximize profits. Older people might not spend as much in response to ads compared to other groups of people.
B
No company can maximize its profits unless it markets its products primarily to a population segment that controls most of this nation’s personal disposable income.
(B) establishes that if a company does NOT market its products toward a population that controls most of the disposable income, then a company will NOT maximize its profits. But we’re trying to establish that if a company DOES gear its ads toward a population that controls most disposable income, that it CAN maximize its profits.
C
Advertising that is directed toward the wealthiest people is the most effective means for a business to improve the reputation of its products.
(C) can establish that a particular advertising strategy would do the best to “improve the reputation” of a company’s products. But this doesn’t establish what can maximize profits.
D
No advertising agency that tailors its advertisements mainly to an audience that does not control much of this nation’s personal disposable income will maximize its clients’ profits.
(D) establishes that if you tailor your ads to people who don’t control a lot of disposable income, you won’t maximize clients’ profits. But we’re trying to establish companies CAN maximize profits by targeting a certain group.
E
Any advertising agency that gears its advertisements mainly to a population segment that controls 50 percent or more of this nation’s personal disposable income will maximize its clients’ profits.
Older adults control more than 50% of the nation’s disposable income (because they control more than does the rest of the population combined). (E) establishes that gearing ads toward this group of people will maximize profits.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the correlation observed in teenagers between between broken bones and drinking carbonated beverages with caffeine is due to caffeine consumption. The author supports this hypothesis by the fact that caffeine causes people to excrete a lot of calcium, and calcium deficiency can make bones more brittle.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the main factor causing the correlation observed in teenagers between broken bones and consumption of carbonated beverages is caffeine consumption. The author also assumes that if teenagers who drink carbonated beverages with caffeine have calcium deficiency, that this is mainly due to the beverages rather than some other cause.
A
Teenagers who drink large quantities of carbonated beverages containing caffeine tend to drink smaller quantities of calcium-rich beverages than other teenagers do.
This provides an alternate explanation for the correlation between broken bones and the beverage consumption. If teens who drink the beverage drink less calcium-rich beverages (ex. milk) than other teens, the disparity in calcium-rich beverages could be the primary causal factor.
B
Teenagers engage in the types of activities that carry a high risk of causing broken bones much more often than both older and younger people do.
This compares teenagers vs. older people. We want a comparison between teenagers who drink the caffeine-rich carbonated beverages and teenagers who don’t drink the beverages.
C
Some teenagers have calcium deficiencies even though they do not consume any caffeine.
The author never assumed that calcium deficiency can never be caused by anything else besides caffeine consumption. The author’s theory requires only that caffeine consumption increases the likelihood that a child will have calcium deficiency and broken bones.
D
Some of the less popular carbonated beverages contain even more caffeine than the more popular ones.
The correlation and the conclusion do not make any distinction between different kinds of carbonated beverages with caffeine.
E
The more calcium a person ingests as a regular part of his or her diet, the more calcium that person will tend to excrete.
So, eating more calcium leads to more excretion of calcium. This doesn’t change the fact that eating caffeine causes people to excrete a lot more calcium than they otherwise would.
Summary
In a study, six medical students were presented with the same patient. The attending physician asked each student a leading question in the form, “What tests should we order to try to rule out diagnosis X?” For each student, the physician stated a different medical condition for X. A week later each student was presented a second patient with similar symptoms, but a different attending physician did not ask any leading questions. Each student tested for the diagnosis that had been suggested by the first attending physician.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
None of the medical students tested for the same diagnosis as each other when diagnosing the second patient.
A
On the second occasion, none of the medical students began by testing the same diagnosis as any of the other medical students.
This answer is strongly supported. On the first occasion, the attending physician suggested a different diagnosis to each medical student. Therefore, each student tested for a different diagnosis on the second occasion.
B
At most one of the medical students knew which of the several medical conditions was most likely to lead to the patients’ symptoms.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t have any information from the stimulus about the knowledge of any of the medical students. We only know about the actions the medical students took.
C
The second attending physician was unaware of the results of the students’ encounter with the first attending physician.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the second attending physician was aware or unaware of the first occasion.
D
On the second occasion, exactly one of the students tested for the medical condition that actually caused the patient’s symptoms.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether any of the diagnoses the medical students tested were correct.
E
At least some of the medical students were unaware that the patients’ symptoms could be the result of medical conditions other than the one suggested by the original attending physician.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about the medical students’ awareness or knowledge from the stimulus. It could be the case that the medical students were aware but nevertheless followed the attending physician’s suggestions.
Summarize Argument
Attributing the quality of praise or blame to a group must be translated into a statement about individuals. Why? Because groups cannot be worthy of praise or blame. Blameworthiness requires conscience and agency. Nations and families, for example, possess neither of these qualities.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the third sentence is used as support for a sub-conclusion, which supports the Philosopher’s main conclusion.
A
It is an intermediate conclusion offered as direct support for the argument’s main conclusion.
The claim is not a sub-conclusion. The claim is used as support for a sub-conclusion in the Philosopher’s argument.
B
It is offered as support for an intermediate conclusion that is in turn offered as direct support for the argument’s main conclusion.
The claim supports a sub-conclusion in the Philosopher’s argument.
C
It is cited as an implication of the main conclusion drawn in the argument.
The claim is not an implication the Philosopher is inferring. The claim is stated as fact.
D
It is cited as an instance of a general conclusion drawn in the argument.
The claim does not directly support the Philosopher’s main conclusion.
E
It is the main conclusion drawn in the argument.
The claim is not the Philosopher’s main conclusion.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that overcoming negative emotions can cause one’s health to improve. This is based on the fact that stress is known to cause both negative emotions and worse health.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that negative emotions cause worse health, simply because both are caused by stress. This overlooks the possibility that two things can have no causal impact on each other, even though they are both effects of a common cause.
A
It presumes without justification that two conditions that together have a certain effect causally influence one another.
The author doesn’t present “two conditions that together have a certain effect.” We’re not told that negative emotions and worse healthy together have some other effect.
B
It presumes, merely on the basis that two conditions have a common cause, that one of these two conditions can causally influence the other.
The author assumes, merely because both negative emotions and worse health have a common cause (stress), that negative emotions causally infuence health.
C
It confuses two causes that together are necessary to bring about an effect with causes that are sufficient for that effect.
The author doesn’t present “two causes that together are necessary to bring about an effect.” We’re not told that negative emotions and worse health are necessary to cause something else.
D
It takes for granted that two conditions that together have a certain effect can, each by itself, produce the same effect.
The author doesn’t present “two conditions that together have a certain effect.” We’re not told that negative emotions and worse health togethr produce an effect.
E
It takes for granted that removing a condition that causally contributes to another condition suffices to eliminate the latter condition.
The author doesn’t establish that negative emotions cause worse health. In addition, the author doesn’t conclude that overcoming negative emotions will “eliminate” any health impairments, only that it will help one’s health improve.