Summarize Argument
The university administration’s rationale for the school’s tuition increase is unconvincing. The university said the increase is due to increased costs associated with teachers’ salaries and need-based aid for students, but the budget does not reflect these claims.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that, while faculty salaries are only a small part of the school’s spending, it did not increase significantly enough from the previous year to justify the tuition increase.
A
With this year’s budget, the university has increased its total spending on scholarship aid by 5 percent.
This does not affect the argument. The author already notes that the budget shows a significant increase in scholarship aid (specifically, to academic scholarships).
B
With this year’s budget, the university increased the allotment for faculty salaries by 5 percent while tuition was increased by 6 percent.
This weakens the argument by attacking the assumption that, while faculty salaries are a small part of the university’s budget, the amount spent on them did not significantly increase this year, which could potentially justify the tuition increase. (B) says this may be the case.
C
Faculty salaries at the university have increased in line with the national average, and substantial cuts in government student-loan programs have caused financial difficulties for many students at the university.
This does not affect the argument. (C) says the increase in faculty salaries is not unusually large and, while students may be facing financial difficulties, the budget shows that the school is not putting more money to need-based aid.
D
Of the substantial items in the budget, the greatest increase was in administrative costs, facilities maintenance costs, and costs associated with the provision of athletic facilities.
This strengthens the argument by showing that the administration’s explanation is unreliable. While the school justified the increase by citing increased spending on need-based aid and faculty salaries, the costs outlined in (D) are actually the largest increases in the budget.
E
Because enrollment projections at the university are very unreliable, it is difficult to accurately estimate the amount of money the university will collect from tuition fees ahead of time.
This does not affect the argument, which is about whether the administration’s explanation is believable. (E) does not elaborate on the explanation or its reliability, making it irrelevant to the argument.
Naturalist: To be dependable, the accounting framework used by national economists to advise the government must take into account all of our nation’s assets; but the current accounting framework used by our national economists assigns no value to government-owned natural resources, which are clearly assets.
Summary
If the accounting framework used by national economists is dependable, then the framework must account for all of our nation’s assets. However, the current accounting framework used by national economists assigns no value to government-owned natural resources, which are assets.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The accounting framework used by national economists is not dependable.
A
Economists’ indifference toward the destruction of natural resources will lead policymakers to make poor decisions.
We don’t know whether national economists are indifferent towards the destruction of natural resources.
B
Naturalists and economists disagree about whether natural resources have value.
We don’t know whether national economists believe natural resources have value or not.
C
The accounting framework used by national economists is not reliable.
The accounting framework must be unreliable since it fails the requirement of accounting for all of the nation’s assets.
D
Natural resources are a vital economic asset for every nation.
We don’t know whether natural resources are an asset for every nation. The stimulus is limited to the Naturalist’s nation.
E
Changes in the environment have a value that is not represented in any accounting framework.
We don’t know if changes in the environment are not accounted for in any accounting framework.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The editorial concludes that it may not be true that increased government services have caused a decrease in volunteer organizations. This is supported by the proposal that declining volunteerism may instead have caused the increase in government services.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The editorial points out that a correlation between two events could potentially be explained with an opposite causal relationship than the one put forward by others. By introducing an alternative explanation, the editorial casts doubt on others’ explanation of the correlation.
A
showing that there is no causality involved
The editorial does not claim that there is no causality involved, just that the particular causal relationship proposed by others is not necessarily true.
B
offering a counterexample to the alleged correlation
The editorial does not deny or attempt to counter the correlation between increasing government services and decreasing volunteerism.
C
proving that no generalization can properly be drawn about people’s motives for volunteering
The editorial doesn’t make any claims regarding drawing a generalization about people’s motivation for volunteering.
D
offering an alternate explanation of the correlation cited
The editorial offers an alternate explanation of the correlation between increased government services and decreased volunteering: that the latter phenomenon could cause the former, instead of the other way around.
E
proving that governments must do what community organizations fail to do
The editorial doesn’t make any judgments about what governments must or must not be responsible for.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that Fred’s claim that Kathleen has likely worked with many famous actors is not warranted by Kathleen being a successful director. The author’s evidence is that directors of documentary films, such as Kathleen, do not usually work with famous actors.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author introduces overlooked information about Fred’s subject to undermine Fred’s conclusion. The author points out that Fred, in making a conclusion about Kathleen as a successful film director, has ignored the relevant fact that she is a successful documentary film director.
A
maintaining that too little is known about Kathleen to justify any conclusion
The author doesn’t claim that there is not enough information about Kathleen to draw any conclusion, but actually introduces more information to undermine Fred’s conclusion.
B
showing that Kathleen must not have worked with famous actors
The author does not show that Kathleen has not worked with famous actors, but only shows that being a documentary director does not make it likely that she has worked with famous actors.
C
claiming that Fred has failed to take relevant information into account
The author claims that Fred has failed to account for the relevant information that Kathleen is a documentary filmmaker. This oversight is used to undermine Fred’s conclusion.
D
showing that Fred has mistakenly assumed that all successful film directors work with famous actors
The author doesn’t claim that Fred makes this assumption—Fred’s reported claim is just that a successful director will “probably” work with famous actors.
E
demonstrating that Fred has failed to show that most successful film directors work with famous actors
The author does not contradict the idea that most successful film directors work with famous actors. Rather, it is accepted as a premise from which Kathleen, as a documentary director, is an exception.