Summary
If the museum stays within this year’s budget, it won’t stay within next year’s budget. To support this conclusion, we’re given two conditional premises:
(1) If the museum doesn’t renovate this year, it must renovate next year.
(2) If the museum renovates next year, it won’t stay within next year’s budget.
(1) If the museum doesn’t renovate this year, it must renovate next year.
(2) If the museum renovates next year, it won’t stay within next year’s budget.
Missing Connection
The conclusion is a conditional claim involving this year’s budget, but this year’s budget doesn’t appear anywhere in the premises. Rather, the premises are all about how renovations will affect next year’s budget. So the correct answer must connect this year’s budget to those premises.
Specifically, we can reach the author’s conclusion if we assume that to stay within this year’s budget, the museum must not renovate this year. (Contrapositive: If the museum renovates this year, it must not stay within this year’s budget.)
Specifically, we can reach the author’s conclusion if we assume that to stay within this year’s budget, the museum must not renovate this year. (Contrapositive: If the museum renovates this year, it must not stay within this year’s budget.)
A
The museum will stay within this year’s budget.
This fails to show that this year’s budget affects next year’s. Because the premises don’t raise the subject of this year’s budget, staying within that budget has no effect on the argument. We still have no reason to think this year’s budget has any impact on next year’s.
B
This year’s budget is less than next year’s budget.
This compares the two budgets but fails to show that this year’s has any effect on next year’s. Because the premises don’t raise the subject of this year’s budget in any way, the relative value of that budget has no effect on the argument.
C
The museum will not renovate next year.
This fails to introduce this year’s budget to the argument. Even if we assume (C), the premises remain completely silent on the subject of this year’s budget. So we’re given no reason to think that this year’s budget has any effect on renovations or to next year’s budget.
D
The museum will exceed this year’s budget if it renovates this year.
Contrapositive: if the museum doesn’t exceed this year’s budget (i.e., if it stays within budget), it must not renovate this year. And from the premises, if the museum doesn’t renovate this year, it must renovate next year, meaning it won’t stay within next year’s budget.
E
The museum will stay within this year’s budget if it does not renovate this year.
This gets the sufficient and necessary conditions reversed. To reach the conclusion, we want an assumption that makes staying within this year’s budget sufficient for exceeding next year’s. But according to (E), staying within this year’s budget isn’t sufficient for anything.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
An Ecologist hypothesizes that the rodent populations in region T will increase over the coming decades. This is because:
Rodent populations increase during long periods of sustained rain
El Nono, which causes heavy rainfall in region T, is expected to become much more frequent due to global warming
Rodent populations increase during long periods of sustained rain
El Nono, which causes heavy rainfall in region T, is expected to become much more frequent due to global warming
Notable Assumptions
The Ecologist assumes that El Nino will consistently bring enough heavy rainfall to cause an increase in the rodent population.
The Ecologist also assumes that there are no unintended consequences from sustained levels of heavy rainfall that would offset the increases to the rodent population.
The Ecologist also assumes that there are no unintended consequences from sustained levels of heavy rainfall that would offset the increases to the rodent population.
A
In region T, there is typically much less rainfall in summer than there is in winter.
*When* it typically rains in region T has no impact on the reasoning of this argument. The reasoning is focused on the increased presence of El Nino causing increased rain, and thus increased rodent populations.
B
Rodent populations in region T often diminish during long periods in which there are no heavy rains.
This does not weaken the argument because the Ecologist assumes there *will* be heavy rains.
C
In many regions that, on average, experience substantially more winter rainfall than region T does, average rodent populations are considerably lower than they are in region T.
While this looks like it weakens the relationship between heavy rains and a high rodent population, the Ecologist is focused on region T. Data from other regions has too many conflicting variables.
D
In region T, winters marked by relatively high rainfall have usually not been marked by long periods of sustained rain.
This weakens the argument because it challenges the assumption that the heavy rainfall caused by El Nino will result in the *sustained* rainfall that is correlated with rodent population growth.
E
The global warming caused by air pollution produces a number of effects, other than the increase in the frequency of El Niño, that could affect rodent populations.
This answer choice doesn’t do anything because it does not specify *how* the global warning will impact rodent populations. Will it increase/decrease? It does not say.
Journalists often claim that their investigation of the private lives of political leaders is an effort to improve society by forcing the powerful to conform to the same standards of conduct as the less powerful. In reality, however, the tactic is detrimental to society. It makes public figures more concerned with mere appearances, and makes everyone else cynical about the character of their leaders.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
While journalists argue that their investigations of the private lives of political leaders improves society, it is actually detrimental to society. This is because it makes public figures more concerned with appearances and makes everyone else cynical about their leaders.
Identify Argument Part
The argument part refers to the position that journalists often claim. The author then says that position has bad consequences.
A
It is a claim that the argument attempts to refute.
This is incorrect because the author is not refuting that journalists view their investigations as an effort to hold the powerful to the same standards as less powerful citizens. The author is merely saying that effort has negative consequences.
B
It mentions a justification that is sometimes offered for a practice that, the argument concludes, has undesirable consequences.
This is correct because the argument part mentions the journalists’ justification for their practice of investigating the private lives of politicians. The author then concludes this investigating has negative consequences.
C
It is cited as evidence often given for an assertion that the argument concludes is false.
This is incorrect because the author isn’t concluding that journalists are wrong to assert that their investigations are an effort to hold the powerful and less powerful to the same standards. The author is merely arguing that practice has other, bad consequences.
D
It describes a phenomenon that, according to the argument, is much less damaging to society than journalists often assume.
This is incorrect because the author actually argues that the phenomenon is more damaging than what journalists assume.
E
It gives an example of a phenomenon that the argument contends has very different effects from those it is generally assumed by everyone to have.
This is incorrect because we don’t know whether or not it is generally assumed by everyone that journalists’ investigations into the private lives of politicians will have the positive effects journalists claim.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The anthropologist concludes that ice-age nomads’ food mostly came from plants and small animals, not big-game hunting as many people believe. In support, the anthropologist says that ice-age nomad communities likely only had about 15 to 20 members, and that big-game hunting would have risked multiple community members’ lives. This supports the idea that ice-age nomads would generally avoid big-game hunting.
Identify Argument Part
The text indicated by the question stem is the position the argument seeks to counter. The common portrayal of ice-age nomads as big-game hunters is shown to be a misconception by the anthropologist’s argument.
A
It is a premise used as support for the overall conclusion of the anthropologist’s argument.
The statement about ice-age nomads’ portrayal is not a premise, because it doesn’t support the argument’s conclusion. The claim that many people think ice-age nomads were big-game hunters gives us no reason to believe that nomads mostly got food from other sources.
B
It is a clarification of one of the premises of the anthropologist’s argument.
The statement that ice-age nomads are commonly portrayed as big-game hunters is unrelated to the argument’s premises, and definitely doesn’t clarify them. The premises are about how ice-age nomads actually lived, not about their popular depiction.
C
It is an objection that the anthropologist raises against an opposing theory.
Firstly, the argument doesn’t present an opposing theory, just a common misconception and an explanation of why it’s wrong—so this can’t be true. Secondly, the anthropologist doesn’t use this statement to make any kind of point; it’s not a premise of any kind.
D
It is the overall conclusion of the anthropologist’s argument.
The statement about common depictions of ice-age nomads isn’t the conclusion because nothing else in the argument supports it. The anthropologist’s conclusion, supported by factual premises, is that ice-age nomads mostly got their food from plants and small animals.
E
It describes a claim that the anthropologist attempts to refute.
This is exactly the role played by the claim that ice-age nomads are often portrayed as big-game hunters. The anthropologist’s argument is focused on proving why that portrayal is wrong, by showing that ice-age nomads mostly ate plants and small animals.
Peterson: Ionic liquids cost many times as much as organic solvents, so they are currently not practical for the chemical industry.
Summarize Argument
Montoya believes that chemical companies should switch from organic solvents to ionic liquids. Peterson disagrees, arguing that ionic liquids are not practical because they cost many times more than organic solvents.
Notable Assumptions
Peterson assumes that the cost of purchasing ionic liquids outweighs the money that the liquid’s benefits could save.
A
The cost of organic solvents is only one of many expenses involved in industrial production of chemicals.
This does not impact the reasoning at all. The fact that it is “one of many” does not cast doubt on how large the price is relative to other expenses.
B
New methods for removing by-products of chemical reactions have recently been developed.
If anything, this weakens Montoya’s argument because it provides less of an incentive to switch to ionic liquids
C
The chemical industry has historically been quick to adopt new techniques that increase the rate at which reactions occur.
This does not impact Peterson’s reasoning. Peterson is primarily focused on the costs outweighing the benefits.
D
Ionic liquids can be reused many times, whereas organic solvents can be used only once.
If ionic liquids can be reused many times, their higher initial cost might be made up, making them more cost-effective in the long run. This directly challenges Peterson’s main conclusion.
E
For the sake of public relations, companies will sometimes use a more environmentally friendly process even if it is slightly more expensive.
This does not impact the reasoning in the argument at all. Why a company chooses to switch to an environmentally sound process is completely unrelated.
Summary
The author concludes that, according to Newtonian theory, we don’t need a theory of the structure/constitution of the Sun/planets in order to calculate their orbits. Why?
Because according to Newtonian theory, gravitational force between two bodies depends exclusively on mass/distance, and does not depend on what the bodies are made of.
Because according to Newtonian theory, gravitational force between two bodies depends exclusively on mass/distance, and does not depend on what the bodies are made of.
Missing Connection
The conclusion brings up a new concept — what’s required to “calculate orbits.” The premises don’t say anything about what’s required or not required to calculate orbits. So, at a minimum, we know the correct answer must include something about what’s required or not required to calculate orbits.
To go further, we can try to anticipate a more specific connection between the premise and the conclusion. The premise establishes that to calculate gravitational force, we don’t need to consider “what the bodies are made of.” That part supports the idea that, in order to calculate graviational force, we don’t need to consider the structure/constitution of a body (because structure/constitution concerns what bodies are made of).
But what if calculating the orbits of bodies involves more than just calculating gravitational force between them? That opens the possibility that structure/constitution could be important for other factors that are relevant to calculating orbits. We want to eliminate this possibility. We want to establish that in order to calculate orbits, we don’t need anything else besides calculating gravitational force.
To go further, we can try to anticipate a more specific connection between the premise and the conclusion. The premise establishes that to calculate gravitational force, we don’t need to consider “what the bodies are made of.” That part supports the idea that, in order to calculate graviational force, we don’t need to consider the structure/constitution of a body (because structure/constitution concerns what bodies are made of).
But what if calculating the orbits of bodies involves more than just calculating gravitational force between them? That opens the possibility that structure/constitution could be important for other factors that are relevant to calculating orbits. We want to eliminate this possibility. We want to establish that in order to calculate orbits, we don’t need anything else besides calculating gravitational force.
A
Mass is dependent on gravitational force.
(A) doesn’t establish anything about calculating orbits. Since neither this answer nor the premise says anything about calculating orbits, it can’t make the argument valid.
B
According to the Newtonian theory, the calculation of planetary orbits requires considering only their gravitational forces.
If calculating orbits requires considering only gravitational forces, and if we know from a premise that gravitational forces don’t involve the structure/constitution of bodies, then calculating orbits doesn’t require considering the structure/constitution of bodies.
C
The Newtonian theory of gravity is mistaken about the data needed to calculate gravitational force.
(C) doesn’t establish anything about calculating orbits. Since neither this answer nor the premise says anything about calculating orbits, it can’t make the argument valid.
D
Knowing what an object is made of is sufficient for determining its mass.
(D) doesn’t establish anything about calculating orbits. Since neither this answer nor the premise says anything about calculating orbits, it can’t make the argument valid.
E
The gravitational force between the Sun and a planet is a factor in determining the distance between them.
(E) doesn’t establish anything about calculating orbits. Since neither this answer nor the premise says anything about calculating orbits, it can’t make the argument valid.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
A Researcher hypothesizes that several chemical compounds, particularly isoflavones, and phytosterols, found in soybeans effectively protect humans from cancer. This is because isoflavones inhibit estrogen production, which is linked to certain cancers.
Notable Assumptions
The Researcher assumes that no other factors will outweigh the anti-cancer impacts of isoflavones and phytosterols.
The Researcher also assumes that the animal studies used to introduce a premise are applicable to humans.
The Researcher also assumes that the animal studies used to introduce a premise are applicable to humans.
A
The soybean derivatives used in most studies are the products of specialized processing techniques and are not yet widely available to consumers.
This does not impact the reasoning of the argument at all. The fact that soybean derivatives used in *most* of the studies have these qualities is wholly irrelevant.
B
While phytosterols, which occur in high concentrations in soybeans, have been shown to decrease cholesterol absorption in the body, new evidence suggests that this decrease is not large enough to reduce susceptibility to cancer.
This directly weakens the argument because it weakens the Researcher’s second premise. This casts doubt on the argument that these compounds are effective anticancer agents.
C
A study of people with high levels of blood cholesterol showed no significant reduction in cholesterol levels after switching to a soybean-rich diet.
This challenges the link between eating soybeans and lowering cholesterol levels, thereby reducing cancer risk.
D
Consumption of soybean products might lower blood cholesterol in animals, but a study of people whose major source of protein is soybeans rather than animal products showed blood cholesterol levels no lower than normal.
This weakens the argument because it calls out one of the Researcher’s key assumptions: that the animal study she relied on *was* applicable to humans.
E
Preliminary studies have not shown isoflavones to have a significant effect on estrogen levels in humans.
If this is true, it weakens the reasoning between the first premise and the main conclusion. If isoflavones do not reduce estrogen levels in humans as they do in animals, the argument for their role in cancer prevention is weakened.