It is proposed to allow the sale, without prescription, of a medication that physicians currently prescribe to treat the common ear inflammation called “swimmer’s ear.” The principal objection is that most people lack the expertise for proper self-diagnosis and might not seek medical help for more serious conditions in the mistaken belief that they have swimmer’s ear. Yet in a recent study, of 1,000 people who suspected that they had swimmer’s ear, 84 percent had made a correct diagnosisa slightly better accuracy rate than physicians have in diagnosing swimmer’s ear. Thus, clearly, most people can diagnose swimmer’s ear in themselves without ever having to consult a physician.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people can diagnose swimmer’s ear in themselves without ever needing to consult a physician. As support for this conclusion, the author cites a recent study where 84% of a sample of 1,000 people who believed that they had swimmer’s ear made an accurate diagnosis. The author also notes that this 84% accurate diagnosis rate is slightly higher than doctors’ accuracy.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a high rate of successful self diagnosis supports the idea that people never have to see a doctor for swimmer’s ear; we don’t know that the people in the study had never seen a doctor for swimmer’s ear.

A
Cases in which swimmer’s ear progresses to more serious infections are very rare.
The argument is concerned with whether or not doctors are required for accurate diagnosis of swimmer’s ear. The argument is not concerned with severity of infections, so this information does not weaken the argument.
B
Most of those who suspected incorrectly that they had swimmer’s ear also believed that they had other ailments that in fact they did not have.
(B) provides information about the 16% who made an incorrect self-diagnosis of swimmer’s ear. The argument is about the high rate of accurate self-diagnosis, so this information does not weaken the argument.
C
Most of the people who diagnosed themselves correctly had been treated by a physician for a prior occurrence of swimmer’s ear.
This information attacks the argument’s key assumption that, because of the high rate of accurate self-diagnosis, most people can diagnose themselves without ever seeing a doctor. (C) says that previous visits to a doctor may have informed these accurate self-diagnoses.
D
Physicians who specialize in ear diseases are generally able to provide more accurate diagnoses than those provided by general practitioners.
This does not change the fact that self-diagnoses are more accurate than doctors’ diagnoses in general. The key support for the argument is that self-diagnoses are highly accurate. (D) does not weaken the argument that most people can self diagnose without ever seeing a doctor.
E
For many people who develop swimmer’s ear, the condition disappears without medical or pharmaceutical intervention.
The argument is concerned with diagnosis, not treatment, of swimmer’s ear.

2 comments

Hospital auditor: The Rodríguez family stipulated that the funds they donated to the neurological clinic all be used to minimize patients’ suffering. The clinic administration is clearly violating those terms, since it has allocated nearly one fifth of those funds for research into new diagnostic technologies, instead of letting that money flow directly to its patients.

Clinic administrator: But the successful development of new technologies will allow early diagnosis of many neurological disorders. In most cases, patients who are treated in the early stages of neurological disorders suffer far less than do patients who are not treated until their neurological disorders reach advanced stages.

Speaker 1 Summary
The hospital auditor argues that the clinic is not using all of the donated funds to minimize patients’ suffering, contrary to the terms of the donation. Why not? The clinic is using a portion of the money to research new diagnostic technology. The auditor presumably believes that this does not help to minimize suffering.

Speaker 2 Summary
The clinic administrator leads us to the implied conclusion that these research funds are helping to minimize suffering. How so? Because new technologies will allow early diagnosis of some disorders, and patients who are treated early usually suffer much less than patients who are treated later.

Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement between the speakers. They disagree about whether the clinic’s use of donated funds is meeting the requirement to minimize suffering.

A
whether early treatment of many neurological disorders lessens the suffering associated with those disorders rather than completely eliminating such suffering
Neither speaker discusses this claim. Even the clinic administrator, who talks about early treatment reducing suffering, never specifies whether the reduction is partial or whether it can eliminate suffering.
B
whether the patients being treated at the neurological clinic are currently receiving adequate treatment for the neurological disorders from which they suffer
Neither speaker talks about this point. The auditor and administrator are arguing about the use of donated funds, not about the actual quality of care patients are currently receiving.
C
whether the Rodríguez family clearly stipulated that the funds they donated to the neurological clinic be used to minimize patients’ suffering
The hospital auditor agrees that this is the case, but the clinic administrator never disagrees. The administrator doesn’t directly say anything about the terms of the donation.
D
whether the neurological clinic is adhering strictly to the conditions the Rodríguez family placed on the allocation of the funds they donated to the clinic
The auditor thinks that this is not true, while the administrator thinks that it is: this is the disagreement. The auditor explicitly states that the clinic is violating the conditions. The administrator, though, explains how the clinic is actually using the money as required.
E
whether the Rodríguez family anticipated that some of the funds they donated to the neurological clinic would be used to pay for research into new diagnostic technologies
Neither speaker makes this claim. Neither the hospital auditor nor the clinic administrator says anything about the specific ways that the Rodríguez family expected the money to be used.

8 comments

Monarch butterflies spend the winter hibernating on trees in certain forests. Local environmental groups have organized tours of the forests in an effort to protect the butterflies’ habitat against woodcutters. Unfortunately, the tourists trample most of the small shrubs that are necessary to the survival of any monarch butterflies that fall off the trees. Therefore, the tour groups themselves are endangering the monarch butterfly population.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that tour groups meant to protect butterfly habitats are actually harming the monarch butterfly population. She supports this by saying that the tourists damage most small shrubs, which are essential for the survival of butterflies that fall from the trees.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that tourists destroying the shrubs is enough to threaten the entire monarch population. To make this assumption, she must also believe that the monarchs that fall from the trees make up a significant portion of the entire population, so that, by endangering the subset of monarchs that fall off the trees, the tourists also endanger the population as a whole.

A
the amount of forest land suitable for monarch butterfly hibernation that is not currently used by monarch butterflies for hibernation

The author only discusses the effects of tourists on the land that is currently being used by monarchs for hibernation. Whether there is also some other land that could be used for hibernation isn’t relevant to her argument.

B
the amount of wood cut each year by woodcutters in forests used by monarch butterflies for hibernation

The author concludes that the tourists are endangering the monarch butterfly population by trampling shrubs. Whether or not the woodcutters are also threatening the butterfly population doesn’t help us to evaluate this argument.

C
the amount of plant life trampled by the tourists that is not necessary to the survival of monarch butterflies

The author is only concerned with the plant life, specifically the small shrubs, that is necessary to the monarchs’ survival. It doesn’t matter how much other plant life is trampled by the tourists.

D
the proportion of the trees cut down by the woodcutters each year that are cut in the forests used by monarch butterflies for hibernation

Like (B), this doesn’t help us evaluate the author’s argument because her conclusion is only about the effect of the tourists on butterfly survival. The effect of the woodcutters is irrelevant.

E
the proportion of hibernating monarch butterflies that fall off the trees

If only a small number of hibernating monarchs fall from the trees, the tourists' actions would have little impact on the population as a whole. However, if a large number fall, the tourists may indeed be endangering the entire monarch butterfly population.


6 comments

First legislator: Medical research is predominantly done on groups of patients that include only men. For example, the effects of coffee drinking on health are evaluated only for men, and studies are lacking on hormone treatments for older women. Government-sponsored medical research should be required to include studies of women.

Second legislator: Considerations of male/female balance such as this are inappropriate with respect to research; they have no place in science.

Summarize Argument
The second legislator concludes that considerations of male/female balance have no place in science, since such considerations are inappropriate in research.

Notable Assumptions
The second legislator assumes that what’s inappropriate in research (considerations of male/female balance) have no place in science. He also assumes that considerations of male/female balance wouldn’t helpfully affect the outcomes of the research in question, which may deal with physiological factors that differ between male and female participants.

A
Government-sponsored research is supported by all taxpayers, both male and female.
We would need a principle telling us that taxpayers should be equally represented in scientific research for this to be true. As it is, the second legislator simply argues that concerns about a male/female balance has no place in science.
B
Serving as a subject for medical research can provide a patient access to new treatments but also can subject the patient to risks.
We don’t care about the individual participants. We need to weaken the second legislator’s argument about male/female balance considerations.
C
Government-sponsored medical research is often done in military hospitals or prisons that hold only male residents.
This explains why research is often done only on male participants. We need to know why male/female balance considerations may in fact have a place in science.
D
The training of male and female scientists does not differ according to their sex.
We’re not interested in scientists. We need to know whether the participants’ sex is relevant to research.
E
Restriction to males of the patient base on which data are collected results in inadequate science.
Studying on males produces data that falls short of proper science. Thus, considerations about the male/female balance are in fact justified.

42 comments

One test to determine whether a person has been infected with tuberculosis consists of injecting the person with proteins extracted from the tuberculosis bacterium. Once a person has been infected by a bacterium, the person’s immune system subsequently recognizes certain proteins present in that bacterium and attacks the bacterium. This recognition also takes place in the test and results in a skin irritation at the injection site. Hence the physicians who designed the test reasoned that anyone who reacts in this manner to an injection with the tuberculosis proteins has been infected with tuberculosis.

Summary
The physicians conclude that anyone whose skin becomes irritated when injected with tuberculosis proteins has had tuberculosis. This is because people’s immune systems recognize proteins from bacteria that previously infected them. Furthermore, this immune system reaction also occurs (and leads to skin irritation) when someone has had tuberculosis and is then injected with tuberculosis proteins.

Notable Assumptions
The premises establish tuberculosis infection as a sufficient condition for skin irritation from this test, but not a necessary condition. However, the conclusion treats infection as being necessary. This means the physicians are assuming that there is no other reason someone’s skin would become irritated when injected with tuberculosis proteins, other than having had tuberculosis.

A
All of the proteins present in disease-causing bacteria can be recognized by the body’s immune system.
The argument is only concerned with the proteins in tuberculosis bacteria, so this kind of claim about all proteins in all disease-causing bacteria is too broad to be necessary.
B
Localized skin irritations are a characteristic symptom of tuberculosis in most people.
Whether or not skin irritation is usually a symptom of actual tuberculosis infection is irrelevant, because the argument is only concerned with reactions to the tuberculosis test.
C
The ability of the proteins present in the tuberculosis bacterium to trigger the skin irritation is exclusive to that bacterium.
In other words, there is no other bacterium which would lead to skin irritation when someone is injected with tuberculosis proteins. This is necessary because otherwise, we couldn’t conclude that a reaction meant tuberculosis and not some other bacterium.
D
Some people who have been injected with proteins extracted from the tuberculosis bacterium will contract tuberculosis as a result of the injection.
Whether or not it’s possible to get tuberculosis from being injected with tuberculosis proteins is irrelevant to whether a skin reaction truly indicates tuberculosis.
E
The body’s immune system cannot recognize infectious bacteria unless there are sufficient quantities of the bacteria to cause overt symptoms of disease.
What exactly it means to be “infected” by bacteria such that your immune system will recognize those bacteria isn’t relevant, because the argument doesn’t depend on that exact of a definition of “infected.”

50 comments

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following hypotheses?

This is a Most Strongly Supported question.

A purse containing 32 ancient gold coins that had been minted in Morocco was discovered in the ruins of an ancient Jordanian city some 4,000 kilometers to the east of Morocco.

It looks like we’re getting a potential phenomenon that needs to be explained. These gold coins were made in Morocco and found far away in an ancient Jordanian city. How did something so valuable, presumably, travel so far from their origin in ancient times?

In its time the Jordanian city was an important trading center along the trade route linking China and Europe, and it was also a popular stopover for pilgrims on the route between Morocco and Mecca.

This sentence suggests two hypotheses for how the coins got to the ancient Jordanian city. One option is they were used for trade – perhaps a merchant sold something in Morocco, got the coins in exchange, and then traveled along the trade route, passing or stopping in the city. The second option is that pilgrims who traveled between Morocco and Mecca may have brought the coins along their pilgrimage route.

The purse of a trader in the city would probably have contained a more diverse set of coins.

This fact casts doubt on the hypothesis that the coins were carried to the city by a merchant or trader. If they had been, the coins probably would have been more diverse. So the fact they are not as diverse as we would expect means they probably were not brought by a merchant or trader.

That leaves us with the pilgrimage hypothesis. When a stimulus in a Most Strongly Supported question raises potential hypotheses, but gives evidence suggesting that some of those hypotheses are not likely, there’s a strong chance the correct answer will relate to the hypotheses that are still left in contention. So we can anticipate that the answer likely relates to the pilgrimage hypothesis.

Answer Choice (A) Moroccan coins were more valuable in the ancient city than were Jordanian coins.

Nothing in the stimulus suggests anything about the value of Moroccan or Jordanian coins. The hypothesis that the Moroccan coins were carried to the ancient city because they were more valuable is weak. There are more obvious reasons why those coins were transported there. The stimulus suggests two and rejects one.

Answer Choice (B) Most gold coins available during the time when the ancient city thrived were minted in Morocco.

The stimulus doesn’t give us any reason to think this is true. All we have are 32 gold coins made in Morocco and found in the city. This doesn’t suggest anything about the origin of most gold coins in the world at the time – there could have been millions of gold coins in existence. Most could have been made in China, Russia, France, or anywhere else in the world. There’s no reason to think most were made in Morocco. Even if we take a more charitable interpretation of (B) to mean most gold coins available in only the ancient city, we still cannot infer this. Again, all we have are 32 gold coins. We won’t commit the hasty generalization flaw.

Correct Answer Choice (C) The purse with the gold coins had been brought to the ancient city by a pilgrim on the route between Morocco and Mecca.

This hypothesis is supported by the stimulus. The stimulus suggests two options for how the coins got to the city – by trader or by pilgrim. The last sentence told us a fact that cast doubt on the trader theory. So the pilgrim theory is more likely.

If you feel unsatisfied about (C), is it because you’re holding (C) up to too high of a standard? I do not think that the hypothesis in (C) must be true. In other words, I don’t think that this is guaranteed to be the explanation of the presence of the coins. But that’s not the standard we’re applying MSS questions. MSS sets a much lower standard of proof which (C) easily meets.

Answer Choice (D) Gold coins were the only medium of exchange used in the ancient city.

What about silver coins? Copper coins? Red or green rupees? Pokédollars? We have no reason to think gold coins were the only medium of exchange. They probably were one form of exchange, but the stimulus doesn’t give us evidence that they were exclusive.

Answer Choice (E) Pilgrims and traders in the ancient city were unlikely to have interacted with one another.

The stimulus doesn’t give us any evidence of how pilgrims and traders interacted. Perhaps they spoke to each other when they passed by on the streets. Maybe they stayed at an inn or met each other at local bars and shared tales of their journeys. We have nothing in the stimulus to tell us whether interaction was likely or unlikely.


35 comments