Summarize Argument
The economist tells us that the current recession appears to be ending. To support this, we get a chain of reasoning. First, a fact: consumers have started purchasing more durable goods. Second, an interpretation based on this fact (i.e. a sub-conclusion): consumers expect economic growth soon. And with this, the economist supports the conclusion that the recession seems to be ending.
Identify Argument Part
The claim that consumers are buying more durable goods than before is a factual premise. More specifically, it is a premise that supports a sub-conclusion (consumers expect economic growth), which then supports the main conclusion (the recession is ending).
A
It is the phenomenon that the argument seeks to explain.
The argument isn’t really trying to explain a phenomenon. Instead, the economist is trying to make a prediction about the future based on current data. This answer choice just isn’t accurate to the argument.
B
Its truth is required in order for the argument’s conclusion to be true.
The conclusion that the recession seems to be ending may be supported by the claim about consumers’ purchases, but that doesn’t mean one is required for the other. The economist could be mistaken about the consumers but the conclusion could still be true.
C
It is an inference drawn from the premise that the recession seems to be ending.
Like (D), this gets things backwards: the claim that the recession seems to be ending is the main conclusion, not a premise. Also, the claim about consumers’ purchases is stated as a fact, not inferred from something else.
D
It is an inference drawn from the premise that consumers expect economic growth in the near future.
Like (C), this gets things backwards: the claim about consumers’ expectations is a sub-conclusion supported by the claim about consumers’ purchases. Also, the claim about consumers’ purchases is a factual premise, not an inference.
E
It is the primary evidence from which the argument’s conclusion is drawn.
This accurately describes the role of the claim about consumers’ purchases. It’s the only pure factual premise in the argument, meaning it’s our only piece of hard evidence. The rest of the argument is just a series of inferences drawn from this evidence.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
How could lightning have produced the first amino acids on Earth, even though Earth’s atmosphere at that time had a lot of oxygen, and amino acids break apart unless the spark that produced them occurs in an atmosphere that has a lot of hydrogen and not much oxygen (a “reducing” atmosphere)?
Objective
The correct answer should explain how there still could have been a “reducing” atmosphere necessary to allow the first amino acids to form and persist, even though Earth’s atmosphere had a lot of oxygen (and so was not a “reducing” atmosphere).
A
Meteorite impacts at the time life began on Earth temporarily created a reducing atmosphere around the impact site.
This raises the possibility that lightning could have produced amino acids around the impact sites of meteors, which temporarily had a reducing atmosphere.
B
A single amino acid could have been sufficient to begin the formation of life on Earth.
This doesn’t address how an amino acid could have formed and avoided breaking apart in an atmosphere that wasn’t reducing. If there was no reducing atmosphere, how would that single amino acid have come about?
C
Earth’s atmosphere has changed significantly since life first began.
The current atmosphere doesn’t matter, since the stimulus tells us Earth’s atmosphere “was” - meaning, at the time of the first amino acids - rich in oxygen. So, if the atmosphere wasn’t reducing, how could the amino acids form and avoid breaking apart?
D
Lightning was less common on Earth at the time life began than it is now.
But if there was lightning, however rare it was, how could that have produced amino acids in a non-reducing atmosphere? This doesn’t provide a theory about how this happened.
E
Asteroids contain amino acids, and some of these amino acids could survive an asteroid’s impact with Earth.
We’re interested in explaining how lightning could have produced the first amino acids. It doesn’t matter whether asteroids could have already had amino acids. Those aren’t amino acids produced by lightning on Earth.
Accountant: If you look at individual restaurants, however, you find that the number of meals sold actually decreased substantially at every one of our restaurants that was in operation both last year and the year before. The desirability of our meals to consumers has clearly decreased, given that this group of restaurants—the only ones for which we have sales figures that permit a comparison between last year and the year before—demonstrates a trend toward fewer sales.
Summarize Argument
The account concludes that the desirability of the company’s meals has decreased. Her evidence is that a certain group of restaurants—those that permit a year-by-year comparison—shows that fewer overall meals are selling.
Notable Assumptions
The accountant assumes that a decrease in sales means that the company’s meals must be less desirable than before. This means that she believes desirability is the only factor that contributes to sales. The accountant also assumes that what’s true of the restaurants in question—those that permit a year-by-year comparison—is generally true of the company’s restaurants.
A
The company’s restaurants last year dropped from their menus most of the new dishes that had been introduced the year before.
We don’t know whether these new dishes were desirable or not. Even if we did know, it wouldn’t weaken the accountant’s argument.
B
Prior to last year there was an overall downward trend in the company’s sales.
We need to know about what happened last year. The years before don’t matter to the accountant’s argument.
C
Those of the company’s restaurants that did increase their sales last year did not offer large discounts on prices to attract customers.
Even if price discounts were attracting customers, there could be some other factor aside from desirability causing the increase in sales. We need to attack the connecting between desirability and declining sales.
D
Sales of the company’s most expensive meal contributed little to the overall two-year sales increase.
We’re not interested in specific meals. We need to know if the restaurants in question are representative of the company’s restaurants in general, and if we can draw a conclusion about desirability from those restaurants.
E
Most of the company’s restaurants that were in operation throughout both last year and the year before are located in areas where residents experienced a severe overall decline in income last year.
The restaurants in question aren’t necessarily a representative example of the company’s restaurants at large. These restaurants are in areas that experienced an economic downtown, which suggests the issue was personal finance rather than desirability.