Medical researcher: Studies in North America have shown that the incidence of heart disease in a population is closely related to the average fat consumption for individuals in that population. However, although residents of France consume, on average, as much fat as residents of North America, heart disease presently occurs half as frequently among the French as among North Americans.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do residents of France have a rate of heart disease half that of North Americans, even though they eat as much fat as North Americans, and studies in North America show that the rate of heart disease in a population is closely related to the average fat consumption of individuals in that population?
Objective
The correct answer should tell us something special about the French compared to North Americans that would lead to a lower rate of heart disease.
A
The average level of fat consumption by the French has been falling for several decades.
This doesn’t differentiate the French from North Americans. In addition, we already know the French eat just as much fat as North Americans. We have no reason to think that higher rates of fat consumption in the past have any impact.
B
Other factors of diet besides high consumption of fat have not been similarly linked with incidence of heart disease.
If this has any impact, it deepens our confusion. If other diet factors haven’t been linked to heart disease, then it’s harder to explain the discrepancy by pointing to a difference in other foods eaten by the French and North Americans.
C
Heart disease takes years to develop and the average level of fat consumption in France increased to North American levels only a few years ago.
This points out a difference between French and North Americans that could explain the French people’s lower heart rate. They only recently reached the same level of fat consumption as North Americans, so the French’s heart disease rate may not have had enough time to rise.
D
Certain diseases other than heart disease have also been linked to average fat consumption, and the French have a higher incidence of these than do North Americans.
We’re trying to explain the discrepancy in heart disease rate. Lack of difference in rates of other disease doesn’t help explain why the French have a different rate of heart disease from North Americans.
E
Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of heart disease and France has a higher percentage of cigarette smokers in its population than does North America.
This deepens our confusion, because it would lead us to expect the French to have a higher rate of heart disease than North Americans. But they actually have a lower rate.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why is the ratio of X residents who are patients in hospitals to Y residents who are patients in hospitals lower than the ratio of X’s population to Y’s population?
Objective
This is an EXCEPT question. The four wrong answers should suggest a potential difference between X’s residents and Y’s residents that could lead to X’s residents being less likely to go to the hospital. For example, maybe X’s residents are healthier than Y’s residents, or maybe X’s residents have worse access to hospitals than Y’s residents.
A
Preventive health programs are more prevalent in city X than in city Y.
This is a potential causal mechanism that could explain why X’s residents are less likely to go to the hospital. Maybe they have fewer illnesses that require going to the hospital because of their more prevalent preventive health programs.
B
The hospitals in city X are noted as leaders in employing outpatient treatment wherever possible.
Outpatient treatment is treatment outside a hospital. This suggests X residents get more outside-the-hospital treatment than Y residents. That could be why comparatively fewer X residents are patients “in” hospitals.
C
The drinking water of city Y has dangerously high levels of pollutants, whereas this is not the case for city X.
This is a potential causal mechanism that could explain why X’s residents are less likely to go to the hospital. More dangerous water in Y could lead to more illness among Y residents, which might lead to more need for treatment in a hospital.
D
The hospitals in city Y are of very high quality, and residents of city X are often sent there for treatment.
We’re not trying to explain why X’s hospitals have fewer patients. We’re trying to explain why fewer X residents are patients in a hospital (regardless of location). X residents who go to hospitals in Y are still counted as “X residents who are patients in hospitals.”
E
The lifestyle in city X is significantly less stressful than the lifestyle in city Y.
This is a potential causal mechanism that could explain why X’s residents are less likely to go to the hospital. Less stressful lifestyles could lead to better health and less need to go to the hospital. A potential connection between stress and health is reasonable.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Industries monitored by government safety inspectors are more dangerous to workers than industries that aren’t monitored by government safety inspectors.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference between government-monitored industries and non-government-monitored industries. That difference must result in the latter being safer for workers, likely because of the work involved or because of some other monitoring system in place.
A
Government safety inspectors not only monitor but also train employees of the inspected firms to follow safe practices.
This suggests that the government-inspected industries would be rather safe. We need to know why they’re less safe than non-government-monitored industries.
B
Government safety inspectors do not have the authority to enforce safety regulations.
It doesn’t matter if the regulations are enforced. We need to know why government monitoring is correlated with lower workplace safety.
C
Only those industries with an inherently high risk of on-the-job injury are monitored by government safety inspectors.
Government-monitored industries are less safe because the industries are inherently dangerous. Other industries, even though they’re not monitored, pose less risks to workers. This explains the surprising finding in the study.
D
Workers behave especially cautiously when they believe their performance is being monitored by government safety inspectors.
If workers are more cautious than usual in government-monitored industries, wouldn’t injuries be less common than usual? We need something to explain why they’re more common.
E
Some of the industries that are monitored by government safety inspectors have much lower rates of injuries than do other industries that are also so monitored.
We’re not interested in outliers. Our stimulus tells us that government-monitored industries are generally less safe than other industries, and we need to know why that is.
Summary
Gahagan’s Greenstore sells a large volume of plants. Most of these plants are sold wholesale to commercial buyers, who are mainly landscape contractors. Gahagan also sells gardening implements, which are mostly purchased by home gardeners.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If someone bought a gardening implement from Gahagan, they are more likely to be a home gardener than a commercial buyer.
If someone bought plants from Gahagan, they were more likely a commercial buyer (or contractor) than a home gardener.
If someone bought plants from Gahagan, they were more likely a commercial buyer (or contractor) than a home gardener.
A
Gahagan’s makes a larger profit from the sale of plants than from the sale of all other products combined.
The stimulus does not provide any information about what aspect of Gahagan’s business is most profitable.
B
Most of those who make regular wholesale purchases from Gahagan’s have never purchased gardening implements from Gahagan’s.
The stimulus does not provide any information about whether customers purchase/don’t purchase different items.
C
There are more commercial buyers than home gardeners among Gahagan’s regular customers.
The stimulus gives information about those who buy plants and garden implements but does not provide information about which group is bigger.
D
Gahagan’s sells a few gardening implements wholesale to landscape contractors.
The stimulus explains that most gardening implements are sold to home gardeners but does not mention whether they are sold to contractors or not.
E
A plant purchased from Gahagan’s is more likely to have been purchased by a landscape contractor than by a home gardener.
The stimulus says that the vast majority of plants are sold wholesale to commercial buyers (contractors). Thus, it is more likely that it was purchased by a contractor than by a home gardener.
Ariel: I disagree. Because of businesses’ increasing need for computer-literate employees, companies will have to train nearly all workers in computer skills. This will lessen the division between the computer literate and the computer illiterate. So whatever might cause the economic gap between rich and poor to widen in the future, it won’t be the importance of computer literacy.
Speaker 1 Summary
The economic gap between rich and poor will widen due to the increasing importance of computer literacy. Why? Because the economic gap is partially responsible for the division between computer literate and computer illiterate people.
Speaker 2 Summary
The increasing importance of computer literacy will not cause the economic gap between rich and poor to widen. Why? Because companies will have to train nearly all workers in computer skills due to their increasing need for computer-literate employees. This will decrease the gap between the computer literate and computer illiterate.
Objective
We need a statement that James and Ariel disagree on. They disagree whether the need for computer literacy will cause the gap between rich and poor to widen. James thinks the need for literacy will widen the gap . Ariel thinks another factor, if anything, will widen the gap.
A
the economic gap between rich and poor will widen
Ariel does not express an opinion on this statement. Ariel does not explicitly express that the gap will widen. She only explicitly expresses that, if it does widen, it’s not the importance of computer literacy.
B
the economic gap between rich and poor is now partly responsible for causing the division between the computer literate and the computer illiterate
Ariel does not express an opinion on this statement. Ariel does not comment on why the division between the computer literate and computer literate exists in the first place.
C
businesses’ need for computer-literate employees will increase
James does not express an opinion on this statement. James’s comments do not address the needs of businesses at all.
D
the economic gap between rich and poor will widen as a result of the increasing importance of computer literacy
James and Ariel disagree on this statement. James agrees that the increased need for computer literacy is the cause of the gap to widen. Ariel disagrees and claims that it is likely some other factor to cause the gap to widen.
E
companies will have to train their employees in computer skills
James does not express an opinion on this statement. James’s comments do not address the needs of businesses at all.
The relationship between money and the things it allows one to purchase is like that between a tool and the tasks it enables its user to accomplish. Therefore, since tools are useless if there is no task that needs to be done, _______.
Summary
The relationship between money and purchases is comparable to the relationship between tools and tasks. Tools are useless if there is no task to be done.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Therefore, money is useless when there is nothing to purchase.
A
money should be thought of as no more useful than a tool
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not make a value judgment regarding how we should or should not think of money. Rather, the stimulus makes the comparison between money and tools as a matter of fact.
B
any tool that enables its user to accomplish a task is valuable
This answer is unsupported. To say that this statement would be true of any tool is too extreme. Moreover, we don’t know from the stimulus the value of tools, we only know about the usefulness of tools.
C
money is valueless in a world where nothing is for sale
This answer is strongly supported. Since tools are useless if there are no tasks, then similarly money is valueless when there is nothing to purchase.
D
money should be regarded as a tool rather than a commodity
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not make a value judgment regarding how we should or should not think of money. Rather, the stimulus makes the comparison between money and tools as a matter of fact.
E
the value of money derives from the tasks it allows one to accomplish
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is making an analogy between money and tools. This statement does not complete the analogy.
Summary
When polar ice gaps grow, greater concentrations of a heavy oxygen form are left in the ocean, which gets absorbed by marine life. When polar ice caps shrink, lower concentrations of this heavy oxygen are left in the ocean. So, we can predict whether ice caps were growing or shrinking by examining the concentrations of heavy oxygen in sea life during a time period. During one 30,000 year period, concentrations of heavy oxygen increased during the first 20,000 years, then decreased in the remaining 10,000 years.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Polar ice caps were growing during the first 20,000 years of that period, then shrinking during the last 10,000 years.
A
Average global temperatures 10,000 years after the beginning of the period approximately equaled average global temperatures 20,000 years later.
Unsupported, because the stimulus doesn’t give us evidence concerning average global temperature. Even if you think ice caps are evidence of global temperature, the stimulus would suggest global temperatures shrank over the first 20,000 years, because the ice caps were growing.
B
Polar ice caps at the beginning of the period were larger than they were at the end of the period.
Unsupported, because we don’t know the rate of growth or shrinkage. Ice caps grew for 20k years, then shrank for 10k years. But they could have grown much more than they shrank. This would mean the ice caps were larger at the end of the period.
C
The beginning of the period coincided with the onset of an ice age that lasted approximately 20,000 years.
Unsupported, because we don’t have reason to think that the period began at the “onset” of an ice age. An ice age could have been in effect for much longer, and the 30k period just begins in the final 20k years of an ongoing ice age.
D
The polar ice caps grew for about 20,000 years after the period began, then began to shrink.
Strongly supported, because concentrations of heavy oxygen grew for 20k years, then decreased for 10k years. This is evidence the ice caps grew during the first 20k years, then shrank in the next 10k years.
E
An ice age was drawing to an end during the first 20,000 years of the period.
Unsupported, because an ice age might have started at the beginning of the period and ended in 20k years. There’s no evidence that the 30k period began just as an existing ice age was ending.
Summary
Primatologist Suzuki found that monkeys often roam out of their mountain habitat to feed in apple orchards. After studying this behavior for a decade, Suzuki began feeding the monkeys in the mountains with soybeans, after which the monkeys no longer ate from the orchards. When Suzuki started, 23 monkeys lived in the region, which has grown to 270 today.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Feeding monkeys in their natural habitat led them to stop leaving their habitat for other sources of food.
A
Snow monkeys do not feed outside of their mountain habitat when food is readily available within it.
This is strongly supported because although the snow monkeys left their habitat to get apples at one point, they stopped doing this when Suzuki fed them soybeans in their natural habitat.
B
For snow monkeys, soybeans provide more complete nutrition than other beans.
This is unsupported because we don’t have any way of comparing soybeans to a different type of bean.
C
In feeding soybeans to the monkeys, Suzuki did not intend to provoke the phenomenal population growth that resulted.
This is unsupported because we don’t know what Suzuki’s intentions were when beginning this experiment.
D
Snow monkeys eat apples only if there is no other fruit to eat.
This is unsupported because we don’t know whether or not the monkeys would choose an apple or another fruit if they had equal access to both.
E
Feeding soybeans to snow monkeys has proved to be an environmentally unsound policy.
This is unsupported because we don’t know if the impact on the environment was negative due to feeding the monkeys soybeans.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author rejects Santayana’s recommendation that we should study history to avoid the mistakes of the past. Studying history doesn’t allow us to avoid the mistakes of the past, so it doesn’t make sense to study history for the purpose of avoiding those mistakes.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s rejection of Santayana’s recommendation: “we should not follow his advice.”
A
People should not study history, since doing so leads them to misunderstand the crises they now face.
This twists the conclusion. The author never suggested that we shouldn’t study history at all. Rather, he argued that we shouldn’t study it for the purpose of learning from mistakes. It might be OK to study it for another reason.
B
Every historical period is different from every other historical period.
This doesn’t capture the author’s rejection of Santayana’s recommendation. It’s also unclear whether the author ever discussed historical “periods” as opposed to historical events.
C
Although the crises one generation faces may appear to be the same as those another generation faces, they never are.
This relates to the premise and doesn’t capture the conclusion. Also, the author never suggested that the crises of one generation may look similar to those of another generation.
D
Studying history is valuable, but not for the reason that Santayana suggests.
This is never stated or implied, so it can’t be the conclusion. The author never suggested studying history is valuable.
E
One should not try to avoid repeating the mistakes of previous generations by studying history.
This is a paraphrase of the claim that we should not follow Santayana’s advice.