Summary
In a recent election, the political candidate, Alder, won in a landslide over Burke. While voters knew that Burke had more effective strategies for dealing with most of the country’s problems and had a long record of successful public service, Burke’s environmental interests aligned with the country’s most dangerous polluter. On the other hand, Adler proposed strict environmental regulations.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The difference between Adler and Bruke’s environmental policy played a significant factor in the election.
A
Throughout their respective political careers, Adler has been more committed to taking measures to protect the country’s environment than Burke has been.
There is no support to compare Adler and Burke’s political careers. It could be that Burke recently changed his mind about the environment.
B
Voters realized that their country’s natural resources are rapidly being depleted.
The stimulus does not say *why* voters favored the environment over other issues. You have to assume that this is the reason.
C
The concern of the country’s voters for the environment played an important role in Adler’s election.
While Burke had better solutions for dealing with most of the country’s issues, he overwhelmingly lost. The main point of comparison between the candidates is their environmental policy. It is thus reasonable that the environment was a major factor in Adler’s election.
D
Offering effective strategies for dealing with a country’s problems is more important in winning an election than having a long record of successful government service.
There is no support to compare these two things. Burke had more effective strategies for most of the country’s issues *and* a long record of government service, yet still lost.
E
In every respect other than environmental policy, Burke would have served the country better than Adler will.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that Burke had more effective strategies for *most* of the country’s issues. There is no support that he would have served the country *better* in all other aspects.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that South America and Africa were once joined. This is because the continents used to be part of a single massive landmass, which then broke apart as plates shifted.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that South America and Africa are situated in such a way that suggests they were once joined before breaking apart.
A
A large band of ancient rock of a rare type along the east coast of South America is of the same type as a band on the west coast of Africa.
This is evidence that South America and Africa were once joined. The rare rock in question is unlikely to exist on both coasts if the continents weren’t joined at one point.
B
Many people today living in Brazil are genetically quite similar to many western Africans.
Continental drift happened long before humans existed. Such genetic differences have different explanations.
C
The climates of western Africa and of the east coast of South America resemble each other.
Irrelevant. Climates are affected by many things, but continental drift from millions of years ago aren’t one of them.
D
Some of the oldest tribes of people living in eastern South America speak languages linguistically similar to various languages spoken by certain western African peoples.
Like (B), continental drift happened long before humans. Such linguistic differences have different explanations.
E
Several species of plants found in western Africa closely resemble plants growing in South America.
Plants migrate for many reasons. It’s likely these species were carried across the ocean in more recent times.
The label is correct: This video is Misc. PSA and not Principle. Ignore the first 10 seconds of the video.
The label is correct: This video is Misc. PSA and not Principle. Ignore the first 10 seconds of the video.
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
Peter concludes that farmers should water their plants just enough to ensure there’s no threat to the yield or growth of the crops. This is because plants that are abundantly watered are susceptible to pests.
Notable Assumptions
In order for his recommended strategy to be sound, Peter assumes that mildly drought-stressed plants are not at greater risk than are the abundantly watered plants that insects eat. Were the opposite true, it would be preferable for farmers to water their crops and avoid the stress of drought at all costs.
A
The leaves of some crop plants are much larger, and therefore absorb more water, than the leaves of some other crop plants.
Peter thinks all these crops should be watered just enough to avoid being targeted by insects. We don’t care how much water it takes to get these crops to that point.
B
In industrialized nations there are more crops that are abundantly watered than there are crops grown under mild drought stress.
Peter thinks industrialized nations should switch their strategy.
C
Insect damage presents a greater threat to crop plants than does mild drought stress.
Plants can either be exposed to mild drought stress or insects. Insects are more damaging, so the alternative is a better option. This is what Peter argues.
D
Farmers are not always able to control the amount of water that their crops receive when, for instance, there are rainstorms in the areas where their crops are growing.
Peter argues for what farmers should do when watering their plants. We don’t care about rainstorms, which are totally out of farmers’ control.
E
Mexican bean beetles are more likely to feed on the leaves of slightly drought-stressed soybeans than oak lace bugs are to feed on the leaves of abundantly watered soybeans.
This is strangely specific. It’s an exception to a rule Peter gives us: insects are more likely to feed on abundantly watered plants. We can’t directly contradict that premise.