A
It is a conclusion drawn and used in turn as a premise to support a more general conclusion.
B
It is attributed to certain researchers as the main conclusion of their reasoning.
C
It is the main point of the psychologist’s argument.
D
It is used to refute the claim that infants have no knowledge of language.
E
It states the hypothesis to be explained by the psychologist’s argument.
Economist: There have been large declines in employment around the globe, so it’s not surprising that the number of workers injured on the job has decreased. What is surprising, however, is that the percentage of workers injured on the job has also decreased.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
There’s a decrease in the percentage of workers injured on the job.
Objective
Since this is an “Except” question, the correct answer will not explain the decrease in the percentage of workers injured on the job. Wrong answers will explain why workers are less likely now than before to be injured on the job. The correct answer will either not address that likelihood or else make it more likely that workers are injured on the job.
A
Overall, people who are employed are working fewer hours each day.
Employed people are working less than before, so there’re less chances for them to be injured while on the job. Less hours means less opportunities for accidents and mishaps.
B
A decrease in the demand for products has reduced the pressure on workers to meet production quotas and deadlines.
Since workers aren’t working as hard to meet deadlines, they’re less likely to rush into accidents. Moreover, they’re more likely to follow time-consuming workplace-safety protocols if time isn’t an issue.
C
Some of the most dangerous industries have had especially big declines in employment.
There are less people working dangerous jobs relative to the working population than before. Therefore, a lower percentage of people are likely to suffer injuries from dangerous work.
D
There has been a general decline in the resources devoted to workplace safety.
A decline workplace-safety resources suggests workers would actually be more likely to be injured on the job than before. This doesn’t explain why the rate of job-related injuries has actually fallen.
E
Inexperienced workers have lost their jobs at higher rates than experienced ones.
Experienced workers who know how to operate equipment safely have retained their jobs, while inexperienced workers who’re prone to injury have been let go. Hence, a reduction in injuries.
Lopez: The real problem is mysis shrimp, which were originally introduced into the lake as food for mature kokanee; but mysis eat plankton—young kokanees’ food. The young kokanee are starving to death. So eradicating the shrimp is preferable to allowing trout fishing.
A
Eliminating a non-native species from a habitat in which it threatens a native species is preferable to any other method of protecting the threatened native species.
B
When trying to protect the food supply of a particular species, it is best to encourage the method that will have the quickest results, all else being equal.
C
The number of species in a given habitat should not be reduced if at all possible.
D
No non-native species should be introduced into a habitat unless all the potential effects of that introduction have been considered.
E
When seeking to increase the population of a given species, it is most important that one preserve the members of the species who are in the prime reproductive stage of their lives.
Michaela: I think doctors who complain about patients doing medical research on the Internet are being a little unfair. It seems only natural that a patient would want to know as much as possible about his or her condition.
Sam: It is not unfair. Doctors have undergone years of training. How can you maintain that a doctor’s opinion is not worth more than something an untrained person comes up with after searching the Internet?
Summary
In response to Michaela’s claim that doctors are being unfair when complaining about patients doing their own medical research, Sam states that these doctors are not being unfair because doctors have years of training. Sam asks how Michaela can believe a doctor’s opinion is not worth more than an untrained person.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The opinions of untrained patients are worth just as much as a doctor’s opinion.
A
health information found on the Internet is trustworthy
This answer is unsupported. Sam does not make a judgment call whether this information is in fact trustworthy or not.
B
the opinion of a patient who has done Internet research on his or her condition should have at least as much weight as the opinion of a doctor
This answer is strongly supported. Sam asks Michaela how she can maintain that a doctor’s opinion is not worth more than that of an untrained person.
C
the opinion of a patient’s own doctor should not be given more weight than the opinions of doctors published on websites
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not give us any information allowing us to make comparisons between doctors. We only have information to compare the opinions of doctors and untrained persons.
D
a doctor’s explanation of a patient’s symptoms should be taken more seriously than the patient’s own view of his or her symptoms
This answer is unsupported. Sam’s response indicates she believes a patient’s opinions should not hold as much weight as that of a doctor’s, not that doctor’s opinions should be taken more seriously.
E
patients who do not research their conditions on the Internet give their doctors’ opinions more consideration
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what type of patients take their doctor’s opinions more seriously.
Strengthen
Pretty hard question.
Premises tell us that Shooter Island's waters are exceptionally still and that there are lots of juvenile birds gathered around its waters. There aren't very many juvenile birds in waters in neighboring islands. We have to catch on that we are not told WHY the juveniles are gathering in still waters/Shooter Island. It could be for any number of reasons. The conclusion says that it's because it's their nursery. Okay, that makes sense I guess baby birds like still waters. They're probably using it as a nursery and that's why there are so many juvenile birds there.
If you thought that, then you likely overlooked (C). (C) tells us that whenever possible, waterbirds use still water as nurseries. We think... don't we already know that? Nope, we don't. This is a really powerful assumption that if established, would do wonders for the argument.
(C) tells us waterbird's preference is to use still waters for nurseries whenever it's possible. The stimulus tells us that there are in fact an overabundance of juveniles in still waters. You put the two statements together and now we're pretty sure that they're actually there because they're using it as a nursery and not for some other reason. Our argument is made much better.
(D) is an attractive trap. It says that the waters around the other islands are MUCH rougher. This seems like new information but it hardly is. We already knew from the premises that Shooter Island water is EXCEPTIONALLY still. Not just kind of still. It's exceptionally still. So even if the neighboring waters are a little bit rough, they're MUCH rougher than exceptionally still.
But let's just say that the waters in the neighboring islands are truly objectively rough. Okay, we still don't know why juvenile birds are gathering in still waters/Shooter Island. Is it as the conclusion says that it's because this is their nursery? Maybe. Or maybe it's for some other reason. That means the argument was as strong/weak as it ever was. We didn't do our job of strengthening the argument.