The wholesale price of one bottle of Veritas Vineyards wine, always a profitable brand, is the same today as it was in 1991. The winegrower’s profit is equal to the wholesale price minus the costs of producing the bottled wine, which include the cost to the winegrower of the glass bottles themselves and of the corks. Between 1991 and the present, all of the costs to the winegrower of producing a bottle of Veritas Vineyards wine have remained constant, except that of the corks, which cost nearly twice as much today as they did in 1991.

Summary
The wholesale price of one bottle of Veritas Vineyards win is the same today as it was in 1991. The winegrower’s profit is equal to the wholesale price minus the cost of the glass bottles and the corks. Between 1991 and today, all of the costs to produce a bottle of Veritas Vineyards win have remained constant, except that of the corks. Corks cost twice as much today as they cost in 1991.

Notable Valid Inferences
Each bottle of Veritas Vineyards wine sold today generates less profit than each bottle sold in 1991.

A
The number of bottles of Veritas Vineyards wine sold has remained unchanged between 1991 and the present.
Could be false. We have no information in the stimulus about the number of bottles being sold. We only have information about the price of each bottle and what costs affect the winegrower’s profits.
B
Each bottle of Veritas Vineyards wine that is sold today brings the winegrower less profit than did each bottle sold in 1991.
Must be true. We can combine the facts that profit is a function of the wholesale price minus the cost of bottles and corks, corks today are twice as expensive, and the wholesale price is the same today as it was in 1991.
C
The cost to the cork maker of producing the corks used in bottles of Veritas Vineyards wine has increased since 1991.
Could be false. We have no information in the stimulus about the costs imposed on cork makers. We only have information about the price of each bottle and what costs affect the winegrower’s profits.
D
The aggregate profit generated by the winegrower’s sales of Veritas Vineyards wine this year is smaller than the aggregate profit generated in 1991.
Could be false. The stimulus is limited to a winegrower’s profit per bottle of wine sold. Aggregate profit is the profit generated accounting for all bottles sold. We have no information in the stimulus about the number of bottles sold to infer this statement.
E
The cost of each cork used in bottling Veritas Vineyards wine is currently greater than the cost of each glass bottle itself.
Could be false. We have no information about the cost of corks compared with the cost of bottles. We cannot assume that just because corks have doubled in price that means corks are twice as expensive as bottles. We only know corks today are twice as expensive as corks in 1991.

19 comments

Claude: To introduce greater public accountability into French foreign-policy decisions, France should hold referenda on major foreign-policy issues. Election results are too imprecise to count as a mandate, since elections are decided on multiple issues.

Lorraine: The general public, unlike people in government, is unwilling or unable to become informed about foreign-policy issues. Therefore, the introduction of such referenda would lead to foreign-policy disaster.

Summarize Argument
Lorraine concludes that introducing referenda in France would be a disaster for foreign policy. This is because the general public is, and will continue to be, uninformed on foreign policy.

Notable Assumptions
Lorraine assumes that it’s preferable to give power to a small group of people who lack a mandate than to an ignorant general public. Even if the public knows nothing about foreign policy, governmental foreign policy could also be an utter disaster. This would mean that referenda are no worse than leaving things up to the government.

A
The public would become better informed about an issue in foreign policy if a referendum were held on it.
This weakens Lorraine’s argument. She claims referendums shouldn’t happen because people are uninformed, but people would inform themselves if referendums were to happen.
B
Not every issue would be subject to referendum, only the major outlines of policy.
The general public doesn’t know anything about foreign policy. Lorraine’s not saying they only lack the specifics.
C
Decision by referendum would make the overall course of policy unpredictable, and countries friendly to France could not make reasonable decisions based on a consistent French line.
This strengthens the claim that referendums would be a “disaster” for French foreign policy. France’s allies want predictable policy, but referendums would make policy unpredictable.
D
Requiring a large minimum number of voters’ signatures on a petition for a referendum would ensure that many people would consider the issue and treat it as important.
Like (A), this weakens Lorraine’s argument. The public would have to become informed for referendums to take place.
E
Elections decided mainly on foreign-policy issues have perhaps constituted ratifications by the public of past decisions, but certainly not judgments about future issues posing new problems.
This isn’t talking about referendums. We don’t care.

13 comments

Peter: Because the leaves of mildly drought-stressed plants are tougher in texture than the leaves of abundantly watered plants, insects prefer to feed on the leaves of abundantly watered plants. Therefore, to minimize crop damage, farmers should water crops only just enough to ensure that there is no substantial threat, from a lack of water, to either the growth or the yield of the crops.

Jennifer: Indeed. In fact, a mildly drought-stressed plant will divert a small amount of its resources from normal growth to the development of pesticidal toxins, but abundantly watered plants will not.

Summarize Argument
Jennifer agrees with Peter’s claim that farmers should water plants just enough to ensure no substantial threat from lack of water. As evidence, she points out that mildly drought-stressed plants will develop pesticidal toxins, but abundantly watered plants will not.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Jennifer supports the judgment reached by Peter. She does this by presenting independent evidence which supports his conclusion. The fact mildly drought-stressed plants produce pesticidal toxins supports the judgment that farmers should only water crops just enough.

A
It offers information that supports each of the claims that Peter makes in his argument.
Jennifer’s comment does not support each of Peter’s claims. Jennifer’s comment is offered as directy support for Peter’s conclusion.
B
It supports Peter’s argument by supplying a premise without which Peter’s conclusion cannot properly be drawn.
Jennifer’s comment is not a necessary assumption that Peter’s argument relies on. Jennifer’s comment supports Peter’s conclusion, but it does not have to be necessary.
C
It supports Peter’s argument by offering an explanation of all of Peter’s premises.
Jennifer’s comment does not explain any of Peter’s premises. Jennifer’s comment is independent from Peter’s premises.
D
It supports one of Peter’s premises although it undermines Peter’s conclusion.
Jennifer’s comment does not support one of Peter’s premises. Jennifer’s comment is offered as support for Peter’s conclusion.
E
It supports the conclusion of Peter’s argument by offering independent grounds for that conclusion.
The conclusion Jennifer supports is that farmers should only water crops just enough to ensure no substantial threat from lack of water. Jennifer’s comment is independent support for this conclusion.

29 comments

Company president: Whenever you subcontract the manufacturing of a product, you lose some control over the quality of that product. We do subcontract some manufacturing, but only with companies that maintain complete control over the quality of the products they supply.

Summary

Company president:

Subcontracting manufacturing means losing some control over product quality.

We do subcontract some manufacturing.

We only subcontract with companies that have complete control over the quality of their products.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

The president’s company loses some control over its product quality.

The company’s subcontractors do not lose any control over their product quality.

The company’s subcontractors do not subcontract their manufacturing.

A
When the president’s company subcontracts manufacturing of a product, it does not allow the subcontractor to further subcontract manufacturing of that product.

Very strongly supported. Subcontracting manufacturing means losing some control over product quality. But the company’s subcontractors “maintain complete control over the quality of the products they supply.” So the subcontractors must not further subcontract their manufacturing.

B
Companies that subcontract the manufacturing of products are often disappointed in the quality of those products.

Unsupported. Subcontracting manufacturing reduces control over product quality, but it doesn't necessarily mean lower quality. It also doesn’t mean that companies will be disappointed with the quality of products that have been manufactured by a subcontractor.

C
The company president insists on having as much control as possible over the quality of the company’s products.

Anti-supported. Subcontracting manufacturing means losing some control over product quality. Since the company president subcontracts some manufacturing, he likely doesn’t insist on having as much control as possible over product quality.

D
When consumers know that a product has been manufactured by a subcontractor, they are generally dubious about the product’s quality.

Unsupported. Subcontracting manufacturing reduces control over product quality, but it doesn't necessarily mean lower quality. It also doesn’t mean that customers will question the quality of a product that has been manufactured by a subcontractor.

E
When a company manufactures some products in-house and subcontracts the manufacturing of others, the products made in-house will be of uniformly better quality.

Unsupported. Subcontracting manufacturing reduces control over product quality, but it doesn't necessarily mean lower quality. Just because a product is made in-house doesn’t ensure that it will be of better quality.


9 comments

Vincent: No scientific discipline can study something that cannot be measured, and since happiness is an entirely subjective experience, it cannot be measured.

Yolanda: Just as optometry relies on patients’ reports of what they see, happiness research relies on subjects’ reports of how they feel. Surely optometry is a scientific discipline.

Speaker 1 Summary
Vincent argues that scientific disciplines can only study things that can be measured. Because happiness is a subjective experience, it cannot be measured.

Speaker 2 Summary
Yolanda counters by making an analogy to optometry. She argues that optometrists rely on patients’ subjective reports of what they see, and that optometry is surely a scientific discipline.

Objective
Disagree: Vincent and Yolanda disagree over whether a scientific discipline can rely on subjective reports.

A
Happiness is an entirely subjective experience.
Vincent directly agrees with this in his argument, but Yolanda does not address whether happiness is an entirely subjective feeling. If anything, she may agree with this.
B
Optometry is a scientific discipline.
Yolanda agrees with this statement in her argument, but Vincent does not address anything about optometry. His argument is solely concerned with happiness.
C
A scientific discipline can rely on subjective reports.
Vincent opposes this statement in the first sentence of his argument. Yolanda agrees with this statement because she believes optometry is a scientific discipline despite relying on subjective reports.
D
Happiness research is as much a scientific discipline as optometry is.
Vincent has no position on this because he does not mention optometry. Yolanda also does not say anything that could support this comparative statement. She does not mention happiness or compare it to optometry.
E
Experiences that cannot be measured are entirely subjective experiences.
Neither Vincent nor Yolanda addresses whether unmeasurable experiences are subjective. Their disagreement centers around whether a scientific discipline can rely on subjective experiences.

13 comments