Summarize Argument
The author concludes that university graduates are more likely to be in favor of retaining or increasing social services than the overall population. As evidence, she cites polls showing that graduating university students view social services more favorably than incoming students.
Notable Assumptions
The author believes hat since graduating university students view social services favorably, people with university education view social services favorably. She therefore assumes people don’t change their views on social services sometime after graduating. The author also assumes that incoming university students are representative of the general population, without considering people who never attend university.
A
The polls of graduating university students were designed to avoid overrepresenting any single academic discipline.
This strengthens the author’s argument. The polls weren’t skewed any one way.
B
The political views of people with a university education are to a large degree influenced by their professors, and university professors are usually against reducing government social services.
Like (A), this strengthens the author’s argument. If people with a university education are strongly influenced by their pro-social service professors, then they likely are more in favor of social services than the general population.
C
Polls of retired persons who have not graduated from a university show a higher percentage of persons in favor of reducing government social services than do polls of retired persons who have graduated from a university.
This supports the author’s argument. Later in life, people with no university education are more likely in favor of cutting social services than people with a university education.
D
Polls of those who graduated from a university more than five years before being polled show a higher percentage of people in favor of reducing government social services than do polls of the overall population.
While graduating students are disproportionately in favor of social services, these views change within five years of graduation. Thus, people with a university education actually aren’t more likely than average to be in favor of social services.
E
In the polls cited, graduating university students were more likely to express strong opinions about the question of reducing government social services than were students entering a university.
We don’t care who has strong opinions on the issue. We simply care how favorably they view retaining or increasing social services.
It is not a good idea for farmers to grow genetically engineered crops. Studies that are critical of genetically engineered foods could be published, making the public even more wary of them. This leads to great financial risk, and the price at which the crops sell does not compensate for such risks.
Identify Conclusion
It is not a good idea for farmers to grow genetically engineered crops: “It is unwise for farmers to grow such crops.”
A
A farmer who grows genetically engineered crops on a large scale is taking a financial risk.
This is a sub-conclusion. It is supported by the premise that at any time a study could be published that would reduce consumers’ confidence in genetically engineered foods. The sub-conclusion in turn supports the conclusion that farmers are unwise to grow such crops.
B
It is not prudent for a farmer to grow genetically engineered crops.
This rephrases the conclusion.
C
The price paid for genetically engineered crops does not compensate for the financial risk farmers incur by growing them.
This is a premise: the rewards of growing genetically engineered crops do not outweigh the risks, which supports the conclusion that it is unwise for farmers to grow them.
D
A study could come out at any time that would greatly undermine public confidence in genetically engineered foods.
This is a premise. It supports the sub-conclusion that there is great financial risk associated with growing genetically engineered crops.
E
Consumers have very little confidence in genetically engineered foods.
This is a premise. Consumers having little confidence in genetically engineered foods supports the sub-conclusion that there is great financial risk associated with growing genetically engineered crops.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did Styron hammers outsell Maxlast hammers at the hardware store last week, even though both brands usually sell equally, and Maxlast hammers were on sale and displayed at the store entrance last week, while Styron hammers stayed at their regular spot and price?
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference in customers’ interest in the hammer brands before and after last week’s changes. It must either result in customers being more likely to buy Styron hammers, or less likely to buy Maxlast hammers.
A
For the first several seconds after shoppers enter a store, they do not take detailed notice of the store’s merchandise.
This explains the shift in customer interest in the hammer brands after last week's changes. Since customers don’t pay close attention in the first few seconds after entering a store, they were less likely to notice the Maxlast hammers displayed at the entrance.
B
Most of the hardware store’s customers are attracted by quality and service rather than low prices.
Just because customers prefer quality over low prices doesn’t mean they see lower-priced items as lower quality. Also, we don’t know which hammer brand is higher quality, or if they’re the same quality. So, we still can’t explain why Styron hammers outsold Maxlast last week.
C
Customers who bought the Maxlast hammers last week commonly mentioned the sale as their reason for buying a hammer at that time.
This makes the sale results even more surprising. If some customers bought Maxlast hammers because of the sale, why didn’t more customers do the same? We still don’t know why Styron hammers outsold Maxlast hammers during the week of the Maxlast sale.
D
The hardware store circulated flyers that publicized the sale prices on Maxlast hammers.
Again, this makes the sale results even more surprising. If the hardware store advertised the Maxlast sale, why did Styron hammers still outsell Maxlast hammers?
E
In general, a single item that is on sale will not motivate shoppers to make a special trip to a store.
Even if shoppers didn’t make a special trip to the hardware store to buy the discounted Maxlast hammers, it’s still surprising that Styron outsold Maxlast, especially because both brands usually sell equally.
Q: But any regulations that can potentially prevent money from being wasted are useful. If obeyed, the new safety regulations will prevent some accidents, and whenever there is an accident here at the laboratory, money is wasted even if no one is injured.
Speaker 1 Summary
P says that it’s useless to follow the new safety regulations at the lab. Why? Because the regulations don’t address the causes of a fire that happened last year, and so the regulations wouldn’t have stopped the fire or prevented any injuries.
Speaker 2 Summary
Although not stated, Q’s argument leads to the implicit conclusion that following the new regulations is useful. Q says that any regulations that save money are useful, and the new regulations would prevent some accidents, thus saving money. This implies that, therefore, the new regulations are useful.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. The usefulness of the new regulations is one such point: P thinks they’re useless, but Q thinks they’re useful.
A
last year’s fire resulted in costly damage to the laboratory
Neither of the speakers actually says how costly the damage from last year’s fire was. Q says that every accident wastes money, but doesn’t say how much; P never discusses money at all.
B
accidents at the laboratory inevitably result in personal injuries
Q disagrees with this, discussing the possibility of accidents where no one is injured. P, on the other hand, never states an opinion about any accident other than last year’s fire. We simply don’t know P’s perspective on this.
C
the new safety regulations address the underlying cause of last year’s fire
P explicitly disagrees with this, but we don’t know what Q thinks. Q never weighs in on how the new regulations relate to last year’s fire, which means we can’t say that P and Q disagree.
D
it is useful to comply with the new safety regulations
P explicitly disagrees with this, but Q implicitly agrees, making this the point of disagreement. Although Q never states that they new regulations are useful, Q’s argument logically leads to that conclusion, so we can infer that Q agrees with this claim.
E
the new safety regulations are likely to be obeyed in the laboratory
Neither speaker offers an opinion about how likely people are to obey the new regulations. The conversation is about the regulations’ usefulness, not lab members’ adherence to the regulations.