To be considered for this year’s Gillespie Grant, applications must be received in Gillespie City by October 1. It can take up to ten days for regular mail from Greendale to reach Gillespie City. So if Mary is sending an application by regular mail from Greendale, she will be considered for the grant only if her application is mailed ten days before the due date.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that, if she’s using regular mail from Greendale, Mary must mail her application ten days before the due date to be considered for the grant. He supports this with the following premises:

(1) Applications must arrive in Gillespie City by October 1 to be considered.

(2) Regular mail from Greendale can take up to ten days to reach Gillespie City.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author concludes that Mary must mail her application ten days before the due date to be considered for the grant. But his premises state that regular mail from Greendale can take up to ten days to reach Gillespie City. So he overlooks the possibility that some mail might take less than ten days.

What if Mary’s application only takes five days to arrive? In that case, he can’t conclude that she’ll only be considered if she mails it ten days before the due date.

A
does not establish that Mary is applying for the Gillespie Grant or mailing anything from Greendale

It’s true that the author never establishes this, but he doesn’t need to. He’s only addressing what would happen if Mary sends in an application from Greendale. Whether she actually does apply is irrelevant.

B
does not determine how long it takes express mail to reach Gillespie City from Greendale

It doesn’t matter how long it takes express mail to reach Gillespie City from Greendale. The author is only addressing what would happen if Mary sends her application by regular mail from Greendale.

C
does not consider the minimum amount of time it takes regular mail from Greendale to reach Gillespie City

What if the minimum amount of time it takes regular mail from Greendale to reach Gillespie City is five days? In that case, Mary might not need to send in her application ten days before the due date in order to be considered.

D
presumes, without providing justification, that if Mary’s application is received in Gillespie City by October 1, she will satisfy all of the other requirements of the Gillespie Grant application

The author doesn’t assume that Mary will satisfy all the requirements if her application is received on time. She might mail her application on time and still not be considered for the grant. The author just argues that if she is considered, she must mail her application on time.

E
overlooks the possibility that Mary cannot be certain that her application will arrive in Gillespie City unless she sends it by express mail

The author only addresses Mary sending her application by regular mail; express mail is irrelevant. Also, even if she can’t be sure that it will arrive by regular mail, this doesn't impact the conclusion that if it is considered, she must send it ten days before the due date.


18 comments

The goal of reforesting degraded land is to create an area with a multitude of thriving tree species. But some experienced land managers use a reforesting strategy that involves planting a single fast-growing tree species.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do some land managers use a reforestation strategy that involves planting a single fast-growing tree species when their goal is to create an area with multiple tree species?

Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that either describes a benefit of the fast-growing-single-tree-species method or else a drawback of the seemingly obvious approach of planting multiple tree species.

A
Tree species that require abundant sunlight tend to grow quickly on degraded land.
This is irrelevant. Presumably, there are multiple tree species that require abundant sunlight to grow, so why wouldn’t land managers plant a variety of those species rather than just one fast-growing species?
B
An area with a multitude of thriving tree species tends to be more aesthetically pleasing than an area with only a single tree species.
This is irrelevant. We already know that the goal of reforestation is to create an area with a multitude of tree species, and we don’t need another reason why that’s a good thing to do. We just need to know how planting one fast-growing species helps achieve that goal.
C
The reforestation of degraded land is generally unsuccessful unless the land is planted with tree species that are native to the area designated for reforestation.
There are likely multiple tree species that are native to any given area, so why wouldn’t land managers just plant all those species rather than focusing on only one? We also don’t even know if the chosen fast-growing species are native to the degraded areas!
D
The growth of trees attracts wildlife whose activities contribute to the dispersal of a large variety of tree seeds from surrounding areas.
This explains why some land managers plant one fast-growing tree species! As those trees rapidly grow, wildlife come to the area, and with them they carry a large variety of tree seeds from nearby regions. Those seeds grow into trees and the goal of reforestation is complete!
E
The process of reforesting degraded sites is time consuming and labor intensive.
This is a blanket statement that doesn’t tell us anything that differentiates or explains distinct reforestation methods. Because we’re looking for an explanation of one specific reforestation method, this answer choice isn’t helpful.

3 comments

Many newspapers have cut back on book reviews, replacing them with other features that, according to focus group research, are of greater interest to potential readers. Such a move is ill-advised. Though meant to increase readership, it actually decreases readership by alienating loyal readers while catering to casual readers who are more likely to watch television than pick up a newspaper.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The author concludes that newspapers are making a bad decision by cutting back on book reviews. The move will decrease readership by annoying regular readers while appealing to an audience who are more likely to watch TV than read newspapers.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is about whether newspapers’ decision to cut back on book reviews is wise: “Such a move is ill-advised.”

A
The newspapers should not have cut back on book reviews.
Newspapers are trying to increase readership by cutting back on book reviews, but the move will actually decrease readership. So, newspapers shouldn’t have cut back on book reviews.
B
Many newspapers have cut back on book reviews, replacing them with other features.
This is context about what newspapers have done. The author takes an opinion on whether or not this was a wise decision.
C
Focus group research concluded that features other than book reviews were of greater interest to potential readers.
The author takes no stance on whether or not this is true. Instead, she simply states that the decision to cut back on book reviews won’t have the desired effect.
D
The move to replace book reviews with other features was meant to increase readership, but it actually decreases it.
This is support for the conclusion. The move to cut back on book reviews was ill-advised because it will decrease rather than increase readership.
E
The move to replace book reviews with other features alienates loyal readers and caters to casual readers.
This supports the conclusion that the move to cut back on book reviews was ill-advised. By annoying loyal readers and catering to casual ones who’d rather watch TV, newspapers decrease their readership.

8 comments