Summary
During the Industrial Revolution, employers utilized newly invented machines to replace many unskilled workers with just a few skilled workers to save money. Today, managers are looking for new technologies to replace highly paid skilled workers with fewer less-skilled workers.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Employers can use technology to save money.
Employers during the Industrial Revolution and in the present day share similar qualities.
Employers during the Industrial Revolution and in the present day share similar qualities.
A
Employers utilize new technology because it allows them to reduce labor costs.
The stimulus says that past employers used technology to replace many low-skill workers because it was “economically attractive.” And today’s managers seek technology to reduce labor costs.
B
Workers will need to acquire more education and skills to remain competitive in the labor market.
This is too broad to support. While the stimulus mentions that some low-skilled workers were fired in the Industrial Revolution, there is no support that they will need these qualities to stay competitive.
C
In seeking employment, highly skilled workers no longer have an advantage over less-skilled workers.
This is too broad to support. The stimulus only suggests that technology is sought to reduce the highly skilled workers needed, not that they no longer have an advantage. That could still be true.
D
Technology eliminates many jobs but also creates just as many jobs.
This is (at worst) anti-supported. Both examples show how technology is utilized to eliminate jobs so managers can hire fewer people.
E
Whereas technological innovations were once concentrated in heavy industry, they now affect all industries.
This is too strong to support. There is no indication that technological innovations were only heavily present in heavy industry. This is an assumption you have to make. There is also no support for their impact on all industries now.
Summary
The public interest is comprised of many varying interests, and broadcast media must serve them all. Although most television viewers would prefer an action show to an opera, a constant stream of action shows on all channels would not be in the public interest. Thus…(the correct answer will be the conclusion)
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If the broadcast media plays action shows all day, they will not be serving the public interest.
Programming decisions should not be based solely on popularity.
Programming decisions should not be based solely on popularity.
A
broadcasters’ obligations are not satisfied if they look only to popularity to decide their programming schedules
The stimulus acknowledges that while most people might prefer action shows (popularity), it would not be in the public interest. This is because broadcast media must cater to all interests (not just what is most popular).
B
television networks should broadcast more artistic and cultural shows and fewer action shows
The stimulus does not give any information as to what broadcast companies are *currently* airing. The balance between arts and action shows may be in balance. Thus, this kind of comparative statement is not supported.
C
the public interest should be considered whenever television producers develop a new program
The stimulus says nothing about what should be considered when *developing* new shows. It receives no support from the stimulus, so it does not logically complete it.
D
the popularity of a television program is a poor indicator of its artistic quality
This requires the assumption that action shows (or what is popular) is not of high artistic quality. The stimulus does not mention any standard to measure artistic quality.
E
broadcast media could be rightly accused of neglecting the public interest only if all channels carried mostly action shows
This has the lawgic flipped and is too restrictive. There are many other reasons that the broadcast company neglects public interest, not just *only* showing action shows.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The citizen concludes that making laws that are breed-specific will not be effective in protecting against vicious dogs. This is because the primary cause of violence in dogs is environment, not breed. The citizen supports this causal claim by pointing out that a bad owner can override careful breeding. Because environment, not breed, is the primary determinant of disposition, breed-specific legislation will overlook the main cause of violence in dogs.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that creating laws based on breed will not protect the public: “Breed-specific legislation could never effectively protect the public from vicious dogs.”
A
The public would not be effectively protected from violent dogs by breed-specific legislation.
This is the main conclusion. The rest of the argument supports this claim by showing that breed-specific legislation does not address the primary factor in determining disposition, which is home environment.
B
A good home environment is more important than breeding to a dog’s disposition.
This is a premise that supports the conclusion that breed-specific legislation will not be effective.
C
The home environment of dogs would not be regulated by breed-specific legislation.
This is a premise that shows why breed-specific legislation will not be effective: because it will not address the true primary cause of behavior.
D
Irresponsible dog owners are capable of producing dogs with bad dispositions regardless of generations of careful breeding.
This is a premise that demonstrates why home environment is more important than breed in determining the disposition of a dog.
E
The vicious-dog laws that are currently in effect do not address the effects of human behavior in raising and training dogs.
The only thing we know about the current laws is that the citizen thinks that they are perfectly accurate. We do not know what they do or do not address, so this cannot be the main conclusion.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why have high-rises within cities damaged by recent powerful earthquakes sustained little significant damage when computer models say these buildings are especially vulnerable to displacement pulses?
Objective
Any hypothesis that can resolve this will need to explain how these buildings manage to avoid significant damage during earthquakes, despite their expected vulnerability.
A
Displacement pulses travel longer distances than other types of seismic shock.
It doesn’t matter how far displacement pulses travel compared to other seismic shocks. We need to know why high-rises are able to withstand powerful displacement pulses.
B
Scientific predictions based on computer models often fail when tested in the field.
If scientific predictions based on computer models are frequently inaccurate, it’s possible the models’ predictions about high-rises may be inaccurate. Therefore, (B) presents the possibility that high-rises aren’t actually vulnerable to displacement pulses in the first place.
C
While displacement pulses have only recently been discovered, they have accompanied all earthquakes that have ever occurred.
This confirms that all earthquakes are accompanied by displacement pulses but does nothing to explain why high-rises have sustained little damage from these pulses.
D
The displacement pulses made by low- and medium-intensity earthquakes are much less powerful than those made by the strongest earthquakes.
We’re not concerned with low- and medium-intensity earthquakes or their displacement pulses. The stimulus only discusses powerful earthquakes and their displacement pulses.
E
Computer models have been very successful in predicting the effects of other types of seismic shock.
This fails to explain why high-rises suffer little significant damage. If anything, this deepens the mystery, because if computer models are so good at predicting the effects of other seismic shocks, then why are the models about the effects of displacement pulses on high-rises so at odds with real-world results?
Summarize Argument
Albritten’s groundwater will be unsuitable for consumption in the coming decades if its roads continue to be heavily salted. This is because water with more than 250 milligrams of dissolved salt per liter is unpalatable and currently, Albritten’s groundwater has about 100 mg of dissolved salt per liter. In comparison, the groundwater in a nearby area that isn’t heavily salted has about 10 mg of dissolved salt per liter.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the heavy salting of Albritten’s roads caused an increase in the salt concentration of its groundwater. By doing so, the author also assumes that the groundwater did not always have a high amount of dissolved salt per liter and that the cause of an increase is not some other factor (such as the highly urbanized nature of Albritten or traffic—two characteristics that the other area also lacks).
A
Even water that contains up to 5,000 milligrams of dissolved salt per liter is safe to drink.
This does not affect the argument. The author is not concerned with whether the water is safe to drink, but with whether the water is palatable (i.e., whether it tastes unacceptably salty).
B
The concentration of dissolved salt in Albritten’s groundwater is expected to reach 400 milligrams per liter within a few decades.
This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the idea that Albritten’s groundwater will become increasingly salty in the coming decades and thus, will become unpalatable. 400 mg per liter is much higher than 250, which is the concentration at which water becomes unpalatable.
C
Salting icy roads is the simplest way to prevent accidents on those roads.
This does not affect the argument. The author is not concerned with why the salting occurs, but with the consequences of the heavy salting.
D
Albritten’s groundwater contained roughly 90 milligrams of dissolved salt per liter 20 years ago.
This weakens the argument. It exploits the author’s assumption that the salt concentration of Albritten’s groundwater has increased because of heavy salting. (D) says the groundwater has always been salty—much saltier than the nearby area that does not heavily salt its roads.
E
Salting of Albritten’s roads is likely to decrease over the next few decades.
This does not affect the argument. The author only makes an argument about the consequences if Albritten’s roads continue to be heavily salted. The roads not being salted at the current rate is outside the scope of the author’s argument and is not relevant.
We’ve got an RRE question which we can identify from the question stem: Which one of the following, if true, would most help to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the committee’s position?
The discrepancy in the stimulus appears fairly straightforward: natural grass causes more injuries than turf, natural grass costs more than turf, and yet, the committee recommends using natural grass over turf. What’s going on here?!?
Whenever you are given conditions like these on an RRE question, start to interrogate what they may be leaving out. This is particularly true when it comes to quantitative comparisons, like “turf causes fewer injuries than grass.” What does fewer tell us? Well it tells us something about the number of injuries caused by both types of field. It’s quantitative, meaning it pertains only to the number of injuries. It’s important not to confuse that with meaning it’s qualitative. It doesn’t tell us anything about the quality of the injuries. What if on average, there are 10 injuries per year on a grass field as opposed to 5 on a turf field, but by and large the injuries on grass are superficial cuts and bruises whereas the injuries on turf require trips to the hospital? Well suddenly the number of injuries per year is looking a whole lot less important, right?
Now that we’ve identified a potential scenario that would resolve this discrepancy, let’s turn to the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) This is consistent with our facts but does nothing to resolve the paradox. Just because grass costs more than turf doesn’t mean that turf doesn’t cost anything at all. If the turf required extensive maintenance, who's to say that a grass field wouldn’t average even higher yearly maintenance costs?
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is our proposed resolution. Turf may cause less injuries, but they are more severe and cost more money. This goes even further than we did! Not only does it speak to the quality of the injuries, it undercuts the importance of the maintenance costs by suggesting that at least some of the money saved on turf maintenance costs would be offset by an increase in spending on injury management. It does everything we need it to, and is therefore, correct!
Answer Choice (C) This does nothing to resolve our paradox. The aesthetic difference between fields is not addressed anywhere in our stimulus and this is completely unrelated to the issues we are trying to reconcile.
Answer Choice (D) This is telling us what types of maintenance both field types require but it doesn’t matter. We know that grass costs more than turf to maintain but we don’t really care about how they are maintained.
Answer Choice (E) While the preferences of players may be worth considering in real life, we have no reason to think about them for this question as it does nothing to resolve our apparent paradox. We need to reconcile the higher cost and more injuries caused by natural grass with the committee’s recommendation to use natural grass. Athlete preference doesn’t do anything to resolve this discrepancy.