Cynthia: Corporations amply fund research that generates marketable new technologies. But the fundamental goal of science is to achieve a comprehensive knowledge of the workings of the universe. The government should help fund those basic scientific research projects that seek to further our theoretical knowledge of nature.

Luis: The basic goal of government support of scientific research is to generate technological advances that will benefit society as a whole. So only research that is expected to yield practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine ought to be funded.

Speaker 1 Summary
Cynthia believes that the government should help fund basic scientific research projects that aim to further theoretical knowledge of nature. This is because the fundamental goal of science is to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the universe.

Speaker 2 Summary
Luis argues that the government should only fund scientific research that is expected to yield practical applications because the basic goal of government support for scientific research is to generate technological benefits for society.

Objective
Disagree: Cynthia and Luis disagree over what kinds of research the government should fund. Cynthia is much broader, while Luis believes that only research that results in practical applications should be funded.

A
The government should help fund pure theoretical research because such research might have unforeseen practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine.
Cynthia does not give an opinion on funding pure theoretical research, but there is an argument for why she may support this statement. Luis also clearly supports this statement, so this cannot be the right answer.
B
A proposed study of the effects of chemical fertilizers on crops, for the purpose of developing more-resistant and higher-yielding breeds, should not receive government funding.
Cynthia does not take a position against funding practical research, and Luis would disagree with this because he believes the government should fund research with practical applications.
C
Although some research projects in theoretical science yield practical benefits, most do not, and so no research projects in theoretical science should be funded by the government.
Cynthia easily disagrees with this statement because she is in favor of funding for theoretical science. This is too strong for Luis to agree with. Luis is in favor of funding projects that have practical benefits.
D
Research for the sole purpose of developing new technologies ought to be financed exclusively by corporations.
Cynthia does not give an opinion on who should exclusively finance new technologies, and Luis disagrees because he thinks the government should help fund such research
E
Knowledge gained through basic scientific research need not be expected to lead to new and useful technologies in order for the research to merit government funding.
Cynthia agrees with this because she believes that the purpose of science is to learn more about the universe. Luis disagrees because he believes that only projects with practical benefits should be funded.

39 comments

Consumer activist: When antilock brakes were first introduced, it was claimed that they would significantly reduce the incidence of multiple-car collisions, thereby saving lives. Indeed, antilock brakes have reduced the incidence of multiple-car collisions. I maintain, however, that to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with them.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

If antilock brakes have reduced the incidence of multiple-car collisions, why does the consumer activist maintain that, to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with antilock brakes?

Objective

The correct answer must identify how manufacturing cars without antilock brakes could directly or indirectly save more lives than manufacturing cars with antilock brakes even though antilock brakes have reduced the occurrence of multiple-car collisions.

A
Drivers and passengers in automobiles with antilock brakes feel less vulnerable, and are thus less likely to wear seat belts.

If fewer people wear seat belts while driving with antilock brakes than without, the lack of seatbelt usage could cause more lost lives than the number of lives saved from the reduction in multiple-car collisions because of antilock brakes.

B
Under some circumstances, automobiles with traditional brakes stop just as quickly as do automobiles with antilock brakes.

The stimulus tells us that antilock brakes have led to a decrease in multiple-car collisions, so this is irrelevant.

C
For inexperienced drivers, antilock brakes are easier to use correctly than are traditional brakes.

The level of difficulty of correctly using antilock brakes doesn’t matter. We want to know why the consumer activist advises that, to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with antilock brakes.

D
Antilock brakes are considerably more expensive to manufacture than are traditional brakes.

The cost of manufacturing antilock brakes is irrelevant. We need an answer that helps explain how producing cars without antilock brakes could save more lives than producing cars with antilock brakes.

E
Antilock brakes are no more effective in preventing multiple-car accidents than in preventing other kinds of traffic accidents.

The stimulus tells us that antilock brakes have led to a reduction in multiple-car accidents, so (E) doesn’t matter.


7 comments

Cookie Cutter Review
Causation
(A) direct cause
(B) alternate cause
(D) direct cause
(E) corroborating data


8 comments

Cookie Cutter Review
Causation
(A) direct cause
(B) alternate cause
(D) direct cause
(E) corroborating data

Cholesterol, which is a known factor in coronary heart disease and stroke, needs a carrier, known as a lipoprotein, to transport it through the bloodstream. Low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) increase the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke, but we can tentatively conclude that high-density lipoproteins (HDLs) help prevent coronary heart disease and stroke. First, aerobic exercise increases one’s level of HDLs. Second, HDL levels are higher in women than in men. And both aerobic exercise and being female are positively correlated with lower risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that HDLs prevent heart disease and stroke. This is based on a few phenomena: cardio increases HDL levels, women have higher HDL levels, and both cardio and being female are correlated with a lower risk of heart disease and stroke.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes causation from correlation. There could be a number of other factors that explain the phenomena described. For example, maybe exercise just improves overall health, and maybe women tend to exercise more than men, which is why exercise and being female are correlated with fewer heart issues.

A
HDLs, unlike LDLs, help the body excrete cholesterol.
This strengthens the argument. (A) says HDLs, unlike LDLs, help the body get rid of something that is known to contribute to heart disease and stroke: cholesterol.
B
Persons who are overweight tend to have a higher risk of early death due to coronary heart disease and stroke, and tend to have low levels of HDLs.
This strengthens the argument by offering a correlation between low HDL levels and higher risk of fatal heart disease and stroke. This reinforces the correlation described in the stimulus (that higher HDL levels are correlated with lower risk of these conditions).
C
HDLs are less easily removed from the bloodstream than are LDLs.
This does not affect the argument. While we know that LDLs increase the risk of heart disease and stroke, we don’t know anything about how them being more easily removed from the bloodstream affects one’s likeliness to have these conditions.
D
A high level of HDLs mitigates the increased health risks associated with LDLs.
This strengthens the argument. We know that LDLs increase the risk of heart disease and stroke—the idea that HDLs mitigate this risk suggests that they have the opposite impact on one’s risk of heart disease and stroke.
E
Men whose level of HDLs is equal to the average level for women have been found to have a lower risk of coronary heart disease and stroke than that of most men.
This strengthens the argument. (E) says men with above-average HDL levels (relative to other men) have a lower risk of heart disease and stroke than men with average HDL levels. (E) offers another correlation between high HDL levels and low risk of the conditions.

10 comments

Psychiatrist: While the first appearance of a phobia is usually preceded by a traumatizing event, not everyone who is traumatized by an event develops a phobia. Furthermore, many people with phobias have never been traumatized. These two considerations show that traumatizing events do not contribute to the occurrence of phobias.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The psychiatrist concludes that traumatic events do not contribute at all to the development of phobias. His reasoning is that not all phobia suffers have trauma, and not all trauma victims have phobias.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The psychiatrist assumes that, for trauma to cause phobias, each trauma must be linked to a phobia, and vice versa. But a causal relationship doesn’t require an absolute connection to be valid (unlike a conditional one). For example, consider how smoking causally decreases life expectancy. That doesn’t mean that everyone who smokes dies young, or that everyone who will die young smokes.

A
treats the cause of the occurrence of a type of phenomenon as an effect of phenomena of that type
The psychiatrist is denying the very existence of a causal relationship, so confusing cause and effect can’t be the flaw.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that some psychological events have no causes that can be established by scientific investigation
The psychiatrist is denying one proposed explanation for a class of events; he isn’t saying that no causal explanation of them is possible.
C
builds the conclusion drawn into the support cited for that conclusion
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning; it isn’t applicable here, because the author’s conclusion and premises are distinct.
D
takes for granted that a type of phenomenon contributes to the occurrence of another type of phenomenon only if phenomena of these two types are invariably associated
The psychiatrist assumes that, for traumas to play any role in causing phobias, there must be an absolute link between the two. But the bar for causality isn’t that high. X can be a partial cause of Y even if X and Y don’t always appear together.
E
derives a causal connection from mere association when there is no independent evidence of causal connection
On the contrary, the psychiatrist is denying that a causal connection exists, so this can’t be the flaw.

13 comments