A
Many Winchester residents never use the branch libraries because of the irregular hours each branch keeps.
B
Most Winchester residents have complained about the selection of books at the branch libraries.
C
The only possible site for a new library is not readily accessible to most Winchester residents.
D
It would cost Winchester a significant amount of money to build a larger library.
E
Each of Winchester’s branch libraries attempts to cater to the tastes of the residents of the entire township.
This is a Most Strongly Supported question.
The stimulus provides two different types of information. First, we’re given a correlation, which turns out to be useless. Second, we’re given a logical chain, which is what produces the inference.
The correlation is that darker honey tends to be higher in antioxidants than lighter honey.
The next piece of information, even though it's still in the same sentence, expresses a different relationship. It says that all of the most healthful strains of honey are unusually high in antioxidants. The keyword is “all” which the test writers conveniently hid in the middle of the sentence. If you catch that, you can translate this into an all statement using the conditional arrow. The set of “the most healthful strains of honey” is completely subsumed under the set of “honey that's unusually high in antioxidants”:
most healthful → unusually high in antioxidants
Finally, we learned that there are some strains of honey that come from sage nectar and are among the lightest in color, yet are also among the most healthful. This is a “some relationship,” an overlap in two sets. One of the sets is what we've already talked about: the set of the most healthful strains of honey. The other is the set of honey that comes from sage nectar and is lightest in color.
sage and among lightest ←s→ most healthful
We can chain together this “some statement” and the previous “all statement”:
sage and among lightest ←s→ most healthful → unusually high in antioxidants
This is a commonly repeating valid argument form A ←s→ B → C which produces the valid inference A ←s→ C. Translated back into English, some of the lightest strains of honey produced by bees harvesting sage nectar are unusually high in antioxidants. This is what Correct Answer Choice (A) says. Almost. (A) drops “lightest” but that’s fine. If it’s true that some of the lightest sage honey is X, then it’s also true that some sage honey is X.
Answer Choice (B) says most plants produce nectar that results in light-colored honey. This is unsupported. The information in the stimulus is consistent with most plants producing dark-colored honey or light-colored honey.
Answer Choice (C) says light-colored honey tends to be more healthful than dark honey. This is not supported (or actually, a bit anti-supported). All we know is that darker honey tends to be high in antioxidants. We also know that the most healthful honeys are all unusually high in antioxidants. This weakly suggests that it's the antioxidants that are causally responsible for the healthful effects. If we take that to be true, then (C) is actually anti-supported. But we don’t have to because this is just an MSS question and being unsupported is good enough to eliminate this answer.
Answer Choice (D) says certain strains of honey produced by bees harvesting primarily sage nectar are unusually low in antioxidants. This is unsupported. It’s a tempting answer because we know that sage nectar produces “among the lightest strains of honey” and we also know that there is a general correlation between honey being light and it having less antioxidants. But we also have enough information to infer that sage is an exception to the correlation, because we know that sage-produced light honey is among the most healthful strains of honey and we further know that the entire set of the most healthful strains of honey is subsumed under the set of honey that is unusually high in antioxidants.
Answer Choice (E) says the strain of honey that has the highest antioxidant content is a light-colored honey. This is unsupported. It could be true but it also could be false. We only have information in the stimulus about the set of honey that is among the lightest or among the most healthful or is unusually high in antioxidants. We have no information about the specific strains of honey at any of the extremes of those spectrums.
A
Some strains of honey produced by bees harvesting sage nectar are unusually high in antioxidants.
B
Most plants produce nectar that, when harvested by bees, results in light-colored honey.
C
Light-colored honey tends to be more healthful than dark honey.
D
Certain strains of honey produced by bees harvesting primarily sage nectar are unusually low in antioxidants.
E
The strain of honey that has the highest antioxidant content is a light-colored honey.
Further Explanation
This is a Most Strongly Supported question.
The stimulus provides two different types of information. First, we’re given a correlation, which turns out to be useless. Second, we’re given a logical chain, which is what produces the inference.
The correlation is that darker honey tends to be higher in antioxidants than lighter honey.
The next piece of information, even though it's still in the same sentence, expresses a different relationship. It says that all of the most healthful strains of honey are unusually high in antioxidants. The keyword is “all” which the test writers conveniently hid in the middle of the sentence. If you catch that, you can translate this into an all statement using the conditional arrow. The set of “the most healthful strains of honey” is completely subsumed under the set of “honey that's unusually high in antioxidants”:
most healthful → unusually high in antioxidants
Finally, we learned that there are some strains of honey that come from sage nectar and are among the lightest in color, yet are also among the most healthful. This is a “some relationship,” an overlap in two sets. One of the sets is what we've already talked about: the set of the most healthful strains of honey. The other is the set of honey that comes from sage nectar and is lightest in color.
sage and among lightest ←s→ most healthful
We can chain together this “some statement” and the previous “all statement”:
sage and among lightest ←s→ most healthful → unusually high in antioxidants
This is a commonly repeating valid argument form A ←s→ B → C which produces the valid inference A ←s→ C. Translated back into English, some of the lightest strains of honey produced by bees harvesting sage nectar are unusually high in antioxidants. This is what Correct Answer Choice (A) says. Almost. (A) drops “lightest” but that’s fine. If it’s true that some of the lightest sage honey is X, then it’s also true that some sage honey is X.
Answer Choice (B) says most plants produce nectar that results in light-colored honey. This is unsupported. The information in the stimulus is consistent with most plants producing dark-colored honey or light-colored honey.
Answer Choice (C) says light-colored honey tends to be more healthful than dark honey. This is not supported (or actually, a bit anti-supported). All we know is that darker honey tends to be high in antioxidants. We also know that the most healthful honeys are all unusually high in antioxidants. This weakly suggests that it's the antioxidants that are causally responsible for the healthful effects. If we take that to be true, then (C) is actually anti-supported. But we don’t have to because this is just an MSS question and being unsupported is good enough to eliminate this answer.
Answer Choice (D) says certain strains of honey produced by bees harvesting primarily sage nectar are unusually low in antioxidants. This is unsupported. It’s a tempting answer because we know that sage nectar produces “among the lightest strains of honey” and we also know that there is a general correlation between honey being light and it having less antioxidants. But we also have enough information to infer that sage is an exception to the correlation, because we know that sage-produced light honey is among the most healthful strains of honey and we further know that the entire set of the most healthful strains of honey is subsumed under the set of honey that is unusually high in antioxidants.
Answer Choice (E) says the strain of honey that has the highest antioxidant content is a light-colored honey. This is unsupported. It could be true but it also could be false. We only have information in the stimulus about the set of honey that is among the lightest or among the most healthful or is unusually high in antioxidants. We have no information about the specific strains of honey at any of the extremes of those spectrums.
This is a Must Be True, Except question.
Four answers must be true on the basis of the information in the stimulus. The correct answer could be false.
The stimulus tells us that wildlife experts are adding lime to water to counteract the harmful effects of acid rain. How exactly does lime help? First, it neutralizes acid and thus prevents some damage. Second, it also helps to restore the health of some lakes where life has already been damaged by acid. Note the causal language, not that this affects the correct answer.
Next, specific details about this treatment. If a lake is treated with lime, this treatment must be periodic. That’s a conditional claim. Why? Because water in the lake is constantly being replaced and that has the effect of carrying away whatever lime we put in there. That’s a causal claim. How periodically? That we don't know. But we are told that if a lake's water is replaced more than once every six months, then we're not going to use lime because it's too expensive. That's another conditional claim followed with a causal explanation. This makes sense because the more frequently water in the lake is replaced, the more frequently we have to add lime to it. The lakes where the water is being replaced more than once every six months are apparently too expensive.
Answer Choice (A) says if the lake is a candidate for liming, its water is replaced every six months or less often. This must be true. This is simply the contrapositive of the last statement in the stimulus. Note that negation of “more often than once every six months” is “once every six months or less frequently.”
Answer Choice (B) says in some lakes, if liming is to be successful over the long term in counteracting the harmful effects of acid rain, liming must be repeated at intervals. This also must be true for it is simply a restatement of a conditional from the stimulus. The stimulus states lakes in which lime is used must be treated “periodically,” which just means “repeated at intervals.”
Correct Answer Choice (C) states unlimed lakes in which the water is replaced frequently are less likely to be harmed by acid rain than those lakes in which water is replaced infrequently. This is simply an appeal to our common sense. It is entirely unsupported by the information in the stimulus and therefore could be false. We know from the stimulus that acid rain damages lakes. We also know that adding lime helps to protect and restore those lakes. (C), however, talks about unlimed lakes. It tries to compare two different kinds of unlimed lakes, one where the water is replaced frequently versus the other where the water is replaced infrequently. (C) says the former is less likely to be harmed by acid rain. Again, no information above supports this statement. But our common sense wants to say this is true because we think that if water gets replaced, it should carry the acid away as well, which should be better for the health of the lake. That sounds reasonable and it may in fact be true in the world. But that is irrelevant. The question stem asked for valid support from the statements in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (D) says liming can be effective even if it is used after some life in a lake has been killed by acid rain. This must be true. It is simply what it means to “restore the health of some lakes where life has already been harmed by acidification.”
Answer Choice (E) says if a lake's water is replaced frequently, it may not be economical to attack the effects of acid rain there by liming. This also must be true. Depending on how frequently, it may in fact not be economical. And we know exactly how frequently because the stimulus tells us: more than once every six months.
A
If a lake is a candidate for liming, its water is replaced every six months or less often.
B
In some lakes, if liming is to be successful over the long term in counteracting the harmful effects of acid rain, liming must be repeated at intervals.
C
Unlimed lakes in which the water is replaced frequently are less likely to be harmed by acid rain than those lakes in which the water is replaced infrequently.
D
Liming can be effective even if it is used after some life in a lake has been killed by acid rain.
E
If a lake’s water is replaced frequently, it may not be economical to attack the effects of acid rain there by liming.
Further Explanation
This is a Must Be True, Except question.
Four answers must be true on the basis of the information in the stimulus. The correct answer could be false.
The stimulus tells us that wildlife experts are adding lime to water to counteract the harmful effects of acid rain. How exactly does lime help? First, it neutralizes acid and thus prevents some damage. Second, it also helps to restore the health of some lakes where life has already been damaged by acid. Note the causal language, not that this affects the correct answer.
Next, specific details about this treatment. If a lake is treated with lime, this treatment must be periodic. That’s a conditional claim. Why? Because water in the lake is constantly being replaced and that has the effect of carrying away whatever lime we put in there. That’s a causal claim. How periodically? That we don't know. But we are told that if a lake's water is replaced more than once every six months, then we're not going to use lime because it's too expensive. That's another conditional claim followed with a causal explanation. This makes sense because the more frequently water in the lake is replaced, the more frequently we have to add lime to it. The lakes where the water is being replaced more than once every six months are apparently too expensive.
Answer Choice (A) says if the lake is a candidate for liming, its water is replaced every six months or less often. This must be true. This is simply the contrapositive of the last statement in the stimulus. Note that negation of “more often than once every six months” is “once every six months or less frequently.”
Answer Choice (B) says in some lakes, if liming is to be successful over the long term in counteracting the harmful effects of acid rain, liming must be repeated at intervals. This also must be true for it is simply a restatement of a conditional from the stimulus. The stimulus states lakes in which lime is used must be treated “periodically,” which just means “repeated at intervals.”
Correct Answer Choice (C) states unlimed lakes in which the water is replaced frequently are less likely to be harmed by acid rain than those lakes in which water is replaced infrequently. This is simply an appeal to our common sense. It is entirely unsupported by the information in the stimulus and therefore could be false. We know from the stimulus that acid rain damages lakes. We also know that adding lime helps to protect and restore those lakes. (C), however, talks about unlimed lakes. It tries to compare two different kinds of unlimed lakes, one where the water is replaced frequently versus the other where the water is replaced infrequently. (C) says the former is less likely to be harmed by acid rain. Again, no information above supports this statement. But our common sense wants to say this is true because we think that if water gets replaced, it should carry the acid away as well, which should be better for the health of the lake. That sounds reasonable and it may in fact be true in the world. But that is irrelevant. The question stem asked for valid support from the statements in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (D) says liming can be effective even if it is used after some life in a lake has been killed by acid rain. This must be true. It is simply what it means to “restore the health of some lakes where life has already been harmed by acidification.”
Answer Choice (E) says if a lake's water is replaced frequently, it may not be economical to attack the effects of acid rain there by liming. This also must be true. Depending on how frequently, it may in fact not be economical. And we know exactly how frequently because the stimulus tells us: more than once every six months.
This is an RRE question.
The stimulus tells us that according to a new study, after a heavy rainfall, pollution levels in Crystal Bay reach their highest levels. We also learn that rainwater is almost totally pure. Together these constitute the phenomenon we are trying to explain. The stimulus also tries to generate a feeling of surprise or puzzlement by telling us what we should expect. That is, we should expect the pure rainwater to dilute the polluted seawater.
As with all RRE questions, whether or not we feel like the phenomenon is puzzling largely depends on what assumptions we were making. If we assume that the stimulus paints the whole picture, in other words, the phenomenon is merely as simple as that which the stimulus describes, then we might think this is surprising. On the other hand, if you are a subject matter expert, say someone who studies urban pollution, you probably already know that there are other factors at play. You probably already know the explanation for the phenomenon.
We don't need to be subject matter experts to get RRE questions right. We just need to keep an open mind about possible explanations.
Correct Answer Choice (B) says most of the rainwater that eventually reaches Crystal Bay falls on pesticide-treated fields before being carried into the bay. This is a specific version of what I described generally above. The story is indeed more complicated. While it's true that some rain falls directly into the bay and would have the effect of diluting the pollution in the bay, as it turns out, most rain doesn't fall directly into the bay. Rather, it falls onto land and then runs off into the bay, picking up and carrying whatever it is that it comes into contact with. This answer choice specifically tells us that it picks up and carries pesticides into the bay. We only need to assume that pesticides are a type of pollution.
Answer Choice (A) says compared to the total amount of polluted seawater in Crystal Bay, the amount of rainwater that falls into it is negligible. This answer choice might have worked had the phenomenon been different. If the phenomenon merely said that after a heavy rainfall, pollution levels remain unchanged in Crystal Bay, then perhaps this answer provides an explanation. Yes, it's true that rainwater is pure, which would dilute polluted seawater. But in order for the dilution to be measurable, there needs to be some minimum threshold amount of rainwater. For example, if you simply pour a bucket of rainwater into the bay, nobody would expect the pollution to be diluted because a bucket of rainwater is a negligible amount. That's what this answer choice provides. The explanation is that there just simply isn't enough rainwater. Fair enough, but the phenomenon above that we are trying to explain isn't that pollution remains unchanged after rainfall. Rather, it's that pollution reaches its highest levels after heavy rainfall. This answer does not explain that at all.
Answer Choice (C) says most rainwater carried by clouds consists of water that's evaporated from oceans around the world. This is irrelevant. C tells us the origins of rainwater. It treats rainwater as an effect and reveals to us rainwater's causes. We simply don't care about that. We already know rainwater is pure, and that sets up the expectation of diluting pollution in Crystal Bay. We’re simply trying to explain why that expectation was upset.
Answer Choice (D) says the single leading cause of pollution in Crystal Bay is beachgoers leaving behind trash which blows into the bay. In order for this answer to explain the phenomenon, we have to assume that heavy rainfall somehow causes more trash either to be left behind or to be blown into the bay. We might be tempted to say that rainfall tends to be accompanied by strong winds which would blow more trash and debris into the bay. Fair enough, but it still remains to be explained why the rainfall itself, which is mostly pure water, doesn't counteract the extra pollution from the trash by diluting the existing pollution in the bay. Contrast this answer with Answer Choice (B). There, we have no such lingering question. We are told there that most rainwater that reaches the bay carries pollution, which means that it's only a minority of rainwater that reaches the bay in its pure form.
Answer Choice (E) says other nearby ocean areas experience a pattern of pollutant increase and decrease that is extremely similar to that of Crystal Bay. This is a cookie-cutter wrong answer for RRE questions. This answer reveals a phenomenon consistent with the phenomenon in the stimulus and is also in need of an explanation just like the phenomenon in the stimulus. So rather than solving the problem, this answer only adds to the problem.
A
Compared to the total amount of polluted seawater, the amount of rainwater that falls into Crystal Bay is negligible.
B
Most of the rainwater that eventually reaches Crystal Bay falls on pesticide-treated fields before being carried into the bay.
C
Most rainwater carried by clouds consists of water that has evaporated from oceans around the world.
D
The single leading cause of pollution in Crystal Bay is beachgoers’ leaving behind their trash and debris, which then blows into the bay.
E
Other nearby ocean areas experience a pattern of pollutant increase and decrease that is extremely similar to that of Crystal Bay.
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question.
The stimulus says that if the proposed air pollution measures were to be implemented, ozone levels in the city's air would be one fifth lower, i.e., 20% lower, than current levels. Since the ozone in our air is currently responsible for $5 billion in health costs (premise), we would spend about a billion dollars less on these ozone-related health costs should the proposal be adopted (conclusion).
We always have two options when approaching Flaw questions. Either we identify the flaw in advance and go hunting for it in the answer choices, or use process of elimination. If you think this argument makes sense, keep an open mind as you go through the answer choices because the correct answer will point out something that you had not considered.
Answer Choice (A) says the argument fails to consider the possibility that other types of pollution not involving ozone might rise, perhaps even producing an overall increase in health costs. Sure, maybe particulate matter pollution or carbon dioxide pollution will rise. But the argument is completely contained to ozone and does not contemplate non-ozone-related health costs. So to criticize it for failure to do that is not a criticism of the logic of the argument.
(A) might be a fair criticism if we were having a discussion about health costs in general. But when we evaluate arguments in Weakening or Flaw/Descriptive Weakening, we have to limit that evaluation to the actual premise and conclusion presented, all of which are limited to ozone here. If (A) flies, then I can also say that the biggest contributor to health costs is heart diseases, not ozone, so we should talk about heart diseases if we really want to reduce health costs.
Correct Answer Choice (B) says the argument presumes, without providing evidence, that ozone-related health costs in the city vary roughly in proportion to ozone levels. This means if you reduce ozone levels by 20%, health costs would also go down by 20%. At a minimum, you should recognize that that is an accurate description of the assumption made. The argument is in fact presuming this, so (B) passes step one of the two-step test.
Now ask yourself if it is in fact reasonable to assume this. It turns out it is not. Ozone levels could generate health costs once the level of ozone passes a certain threshold. So it could be that ozone pollution is negligible until after a critical mass of the pollution has been accumulated, after which it becomes very damaging. If that were the case, then the 20% reduction might bring ozone levels under the threshold, which would result in health benefits of $5 billion. The opposite could also be true. Ozone levels could still be above the threshold even after the reduction, in which case we might not reduce health costs at all.
I am not saying this is how ozone levels actually work, but the point is that because we do not know how they work, we cannot make the naive assumption that the relationship between ozone levels and health care costs is proportional. There are so many other non-proportional relationships. And finally, in reality, the economic concept of diminishing marginal returns cuts against the assumption of proportionality.
Answer Choice (C) says the argument provides no explicit reason for believing that the proposed air pollution measures will in fact be adopted. Like (B), (C) is descriptively accurate. We do not know if the measures will be adopted or not. However, this is not the flaw. The premise says, “if the proposed air pollution measures were to be implemented,” so it is contemplating a hypothetical world. If we adopt it, what would happen?
Answer Choice (D) says the argument attempts to support the conclusion by making an appeal to emotions. The conclusion is supported by an appeal to math, not emotions. We think we would reduce health costs by 20% because the ozone levels will go down by 20%. An argument that did appeal to emotions would say something like “we should adopt the new ozone control measures because Timmy lost his mother to ozone pollution.”
Answer Choice (E) says the argument discusses air pollution to draw attention away from more significant sources of health-related costs. An argument actually guilty of this vulnerability would establish that a more significant source of health cost was, for example, heart disease. And the author would say, have you guys considered air pollution? There is ozone, nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, etc. That is trying to draw attention away from heart disease, which does not happen here.
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question.
The stimulus says that if the proposed air pollution measures were to be implemented, ozone levels in the city's air would be one fifth lower, i.e., 20% lower, than current levels. Since the ozone in our air is currently responsible for $5 billion in health costs (premise), we would spend about a billion dollars less on these ozone-related health costs should the proposal be adopted (conclusion).
We always have two options when approaching Flaw questions. Either we identify the flaw in advance and go hunting for it in the answer choices, or use process of elimination. If you think this argument makes sense, keep an open mind as you go through the answer choices because the correct answer will point out something that you had not considered.
Answer Choice (A) says the argument fails to consider the possibility that other types of pollution not involving ozone might rise, perhaps even producing an overall increase in health costs. Sure, maybe particulate matter pollution or carbon dioxide pollution will rise. But the argument is completely contained to ozone and does not contemplate non-ozone-related health costs. So to criticize it for failure to do that is not a criticism of the logic of the argument.
(A) might be a fair criticism if we were having a discussion about health costs in general. But when we evaluate arguments in Weakening or Flaw/Descriptive Weakening, we have to limit that evaluation to the actual premise and conclusion presented, all of which are limited to ozone here. If (A) flies, then I can also say that the biggest contributor to health costs is heart diseases, not ozone, so we should talk about heart diseases if we really want to reduce health costs.
Correct Answer Choice (B) says the argument presumes, without providing evidence, that ozone-related health costs in the city vary roughly in proportion to ozone levels. This means if you reduce ozone levels by 20%, health costs would also go down by 20%. At a minimum, you should recognize that that is an accurate description of the assumption made. The argument is in fact presuming this, so (B) passes step one of the two-step test.
Now ask yourself if it is in fact reasonable to assume this. It turns out it is not. Ozone levels could generate health costs once the level of ozone passes a certain threshold. So it could be that ozone pollution is negligible until after a critical mass of the pollution has been accumulated, after which it becomes very damaging. If that were the case, then the 20% reduction might bring ozone levels under the threshold, which would result in health benefits of $5 billion. The opposite could also be true. Ozone levels could still be above the threshold even after the reduction, in which case we might not reduce health costs at all.
I am not saying this is how ozone levels actually work, but the point is that because we do not know how they work, we cannot make the naive assumption that the relationship between ozone levels and health care costs is proportional. There are so many other non-proportional relationships. And finally, in reality, the economic concept of diminishing marginal returns cuts against the assumption of proportionality.
Answer Choice (C) says the argument provides no explicit reason for believing that the proposed air pollution measures will in fact be adopted. Like (B), (C) is descriptively accurate. We do not know if the measures will be adopted or not. However, this is not the flaw. The premise says, “if the proposed air pollution measures were to be implemented,” so it is contemplating a hypothetical world. If we adopt it, what would happen?
Answer Choice (D) says the argument attempts to support the conclusion by making an appeal to emotions. The conclusion is supported by an appeal to math, not emotions. We think we would reduce health costs by 20% because the ozone levels will go down by 20%. An argument that did appeal to emotions would say something like “we should adopt the new ozone control measures because Timmy lost his mother to ozone pollution.”
Answer Choice (E) says the argument discusses air pollution to draw attention away from more significant sources of health-related costs. An argument actually guilty of this vulnerability would establish that a more significant source of health cost was, for example, heart disease. And the author would say, have you guys considered air pollution? There is ozone, nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, etc. That is trying to draw attention away from heart disease, which does not happen here.