Summarize Argument
The clinician concludes that patients with immune system disorders should take a new bone-growth drug in addition their bone-preservation drug. This is because that drug enhances the growth of new bone cells, and patients with immune system disorders are at risk of a bone-loss disease.
Notable Assumptions
The clinician assumes that the two drugs—bone-growth and bone-preservation—are fine to take together. This means she doesn’t believe the two drugs would interfere with one another, or that there would be some health risk to taking them together. She also believes that these patients should take a drug stimulating bone growth simply because they’re at risk of osteoporosis. This means she doesn’t believe that osteoporosis has to have developed for the bone-growth drug to be useful.
A
How large is the class of drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis?
We don’t care how large that class of drugs is. We care about what someone taking such drugs should do.
B
Why are immune system disorders treated with drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis?
Irrelevant. The clinician’s conclusion is about what should be done to address the risk of osteoporosis, rather than why osteoporosis develops in the first place.
C
Is the new drug more expensive than the drug that helps to preserve existing bone?
Price is beside the point. The clinician is recommending the best medical course of action to address the risk of osteoporosis.
D
How long has the drug that helps to preserve existing bone been in use?
We’re not interested in the bone-preservation drug. We have no idea what its history would even reveal about its efficacy.
E
To what extent does the new drug retain its efficacy when used in combination with the other drugs?
If the new drug doesn’t retain its efficacy in combination with the other drugs, then there’s no point in patients taking it. On the other hand, if it does retain its efficacy, then the clinician’s argument is strengthened: the drugs don’t have undesired effects in combination.
Summarize Argument
The astrophysicist concludes gamma ray bursts (GRBs) should no longer be called “short” or “long.” Why not? Because one recent GRB lasted a long time, but was more like a short GRB in every other way.
Notable Assumptions
The astrophysicist assumes there’s no use in labeling GRBs “short” or “long” if some GRBs are characteristic of the opposite type in every other way. In particular, this means assuming the “short” and “long” labels would only be useful if they always indicate properties of a GRB besides its actual duration.
A
No other GRBs with unusual properties have been sighted.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests keeping the “short” and “long” labels will only lead to issues for a very small number of GRBs.
B
The classification of GRBs can sometimes be made on the basis of duration alone.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests the “short” and “long” labels may still be useful for some GRBs—those for which duration is the distinctive property.
C
Properties other than duration are more important than duration in the proper classification of the unusual GRB.
This implies the “short” and “long” labels are really stand-ins for more important properties of unusual GRBs, which supports the astrophysicist’s contention that they should be abandoned for new labels.
D
GRBs cannot be classified according to the different types of cosmic events that create them.
This is irrelevant. It implies cosmic origin, not duration, is a poor basis for classification.
E
Descriptive labels are easily replaced with nondescriptive labels such as “type I” and “type II.”
This doesn’t mean the descriptive labels “short” and “long” are no longer useful. It’s possible nondescriptive labels would be even less useful than the descriptive ones.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that dramatic changes, such as switching to a vegetarian diet, may be necessary for people to reduce their cholesterol levels. As support, the author says that moderate dietary changes are often unsuccessful in lowering cholesterol levels.
Identify Argument Part
The statement in question stem provides support for the conclusion that dramatic changes may be necessary by eliminating the option to take a more moderate path.
A
It is presented to counter doctors’ suggestions that cholesterol levels can be reduced through dietary changes.
The doctors’ recommendations do not specify moderate or dramatic changes, so the claim that moderate changes are often unsuccessful cannot be said to counter the doctors’ suggestions.
B
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that vegetarian diets are more healthful than any diets containing meat.
The argument does not claim that vegetarian diets are more healthful in general; the scope of the argument is limited to cholesterol levels.
C
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that reducing cholesterol levels may require greater than moderate dietary changes.
The statement in the question stem is a premise that supports the claim that dramatic changes may be necessary, because moderate changes often are not enough.
D
It is offered as an explanation of the success of vegetarian diets in reducing cholesterol levels.
The statement in the question stem does not explain why vegetarian diets can be successful; it just demonstrates that moderate dietary changes may not be enough to cause lower cholesterol levels.
E
It is a conclusion for which the claim that dramatic changes in one’s diet are sometimes required to reduce cholesterol levels is offered as support.
(E) mixes up the support relationship; the claim in the question stem is a premise, and the conclusion is the claim that dramatic changes may be needed.