There are two kinds of horror stories: those that describe a mad scientist’s experiments and those that describe a monstrous beast. In some horror stories about monstrous beasts, the monster symbolizes a psychological disturbance in the protagonist. Horror stories about mad scientists, on the other hand, typically express the author’s feeling that scientific knowledge alone is not enough to guide human endeavor. However, despite these differences, both kinds of horror stories share two features: they describe violations of the laws of nature and they are intended to produce dread in the reader.
Summary
There are two types of horror stories: stories about mad scientists and stories about monstrous beasts.
In some stories about monstrous beasts, the beast symbolizes the psychological disturbance of the protagonist.
In some stories about mad scientists, the author expresses the feeling that science isn’t enough to guide humanity.
Both kinds of stories describe violations of the laws of nature and are intended to produce dread in the reader.
Notable Valid Inferences
Some stories that describe violations in the laws of nature are also intended to produce dread in the reader.
Some stories that express the author’s feeling about science describe violations in the laws of nature.
Some stories that symbolize the protagonist’s psychological disturbances describe violations of the laws of nature.
A
All descriptions of monstrous beasts describe violations of the laws of nature.
This could be false. We know that all horror stories that are about monstrous beasts describe violations of the laws of nature; maybe stories with monstrous beasts of other genres don’t describe violations of nature.
B
Any story that describes a violation of a law of nature is intended to invoke dread in the reader.
This could be false. We only know about horror stories that describe a violation of nature, not all stories that do so.
C
Horror stories of any kind usually describe characters who are psychologically disturbed.
This could be false. We don’t know that horror stories “of any kind” usually describe characters’ psychological disturbance; we just know that horror stories about monstrous beasts sometimes describe psychological disturbance.
D
Most stories about mad scientists express the author’s antiscientific views.
This could be false. We don’t have any indication that authors have antiscientific views; some authors may just believe that science alone isn’t enough to guide human endeavor.
E
Some stories that employ symbolism describe violations of the laws of nature.
This must be true. Whether a horror story is about a scientist or a beast, it describes a violation in the laws of nature. Some horror stories about beasts use symbolism, so there is overlap between stories that use symbolism and those about violations of natural laws.
Summary
To be happy, people need to feel that they are needed by others. Most people in modern society can only feel needed by others within family and friend relationships. Almost everyone knows that their job could be done by any one of thousands of others.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Fewer than most people can find happiness outside of family and friend relationships.
A
People who realize that others could fill their occupational roles as ably as they do themselves cannot achieve any happiness in their lives.
This answer is unsupported. To say that these people cannot achieve “any” happiness is too strong. Moreover, it’s likely that the people who realize this fact are the same people who can only find happiness within family and friend relationships.
B
The nature of modern society actually undermines the importance of family life to an individual’s happiness.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about the nature of modern society from the stimulus.
C
Most people in modern society are happy in their private lives even if they are not happy in their jobs.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether most people in modern society are in fact happy. We only know that most of these people can achieve happiness through family and friend relationships.
D
A majority of people in modern society do not appreciate having the jobs that they do have.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about what people do or do not appreciate from the stimulus.
E
Fewer than a majority of people in modern society can find happiness outside the sphere of private interpersonal relationships.
This answer is strongly supported. If most people in modern society can only achieve happiness through family and friend relationships, then some people in modern society can achieve happiness elsewhere. This statement is a logically opposite relationship from the stimulus.
Summarize Argument
Successful writers should immediately destroy any recently completed manuscripts they decide not to publish. When these writers pass away, their heirs often publish works that the writers chose not to release during their lifetime. Many writers would prefer that unpublished manuscripts remain unpublished posthumously.
Notable Assumptions
The critic assumes that writers are confident in their preliminary evaluations of recently completed manuscripts—confident enough to destroy them immediately if they decide not to publish.
A
Some writers whose work becomes both popular and respected after they die received no literary recognition during their lifetimes.
This does not affect the argument. The literary critic argues that writers often have manuscripts they do not want published at all; the potential for posthumous success does not alter this stance.
B
Writers who achieve a certain degree of fame can expect that some of their personal correspondence will become publicly available after they die.
This does not affect the argument. The scope of the literary critic’s conclusion is limited to manuscripts and does not include personal correspondence.
C
Most successful writers’ judgments of their recently completed work is unnecessarily harsh and is often later revised.
This weakens the argument. It exploits the critic’s assumption that writers’ immediate evaluations of their manuscripts are reliable and that they won’t soon change their minds about the quality of their work, leading to regret over having destroyed them immediately.
D
Many posthumously published books would have been published by the author had the author lived.
This does not affect the argument. The critic does not claim that all manuscripts left behind by a deceased writer were deemed unworthy. Rather, the critic argues that writers should destroy unworthy manuscripts to prevent the publication of works they do not want released.
E
Some heirs of successful writers do not consider themselves qualified to judge the merits of a literary work.
This does not affect the argument. The critic claims that a successful writer’s heirs will often publish the writer’s works regardless of their merit. The heirs’ ability (or inability) to judge the quality of these works does not seem to influence their tendency to publish them.
Summarize Argument
The editorialist concludes that the proposed tax increase would to more harm than good. This is because the tax increase would cause a number of economic problems for the country in question.
Notable Assumptions
In order for the tax increase to do more harm than good, the economic problems the tax increase would cause must outweigh whatever benefits the tax would bring. The author must therefore assume that the economic problems are of greater concern for the country than whatever environmental and/or economic problems the tax may offset.
A
The editorialist’s country’s budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus benefiting the economy.
Contrary to what the editorialist suggests, the tax would in fact benefit the country’s economy. This weakens her argument.
B
Higher gasoline prices tend to lead to a cleaner environment, because people do less nonessential driving.
Despite the economic problems the tax might bring, the environmental benefits will be substantial. For one thing, people will drive less and consequently have a cleaner environment.
C
The proposed tax increase would be larger for some energy sources than for others.
The editorialist never specifies which energy source the tax will impact most. We don’t care about how the tax is distributed—we care about its effects.
D
Higher gasoline prices will encourage people to carpool, which will reduce individual transportation costs.
Even though the tax may hurt people in one way, the editorialist overlooks a distinct benefit: transportation costs will be lower.
E
The government would use the increase in tax revenue to create many more jobs than would be lost in the energy production sector.
While the tax would harm one sector, others would benefit from the tax increase. Thus, the editorialist can’t draw a broad economic conclusion from the tax’s effects on one sector.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The phenomenon is that world rice production decreased and prices increased. Analysts hypothesize that the price increase is due to the fact that most of the world's rice is controlled by governments and distributed for local use, with only a small portion being sold commercially. Because so little rice is sold commercially, minor fluctuations in production can significantly impact market supply.
Notable Assumptions
The analysts assume that because only a small amount of rice is sold commercially, it must be that a decrease in market supply caused the price increase. In other words, the analysts assume that no other factor could have caused the price increase.
A
Rice-importing countries reduce purchases of rice when the price increases dramatically.
This doesn’t affect the analysts’ explanation. (A) discusses how rice-importing countries react to price increases, but not the cause of the price increase, which is what the analysts’ explanation is about.
B
In times of decreased rice production, governments store more of the rice they control and reduce their local distribution of rice.
This doesn’t affect the analysts’ explanation. Governments choosing to store and reduce their distribution of rice should not impact market dynamics (i.e., price increases) because the rice they control was never part of the market anyway.
C
In times of decreased rice production, governments export some of the rice originally intended for local distribution to countries with free grain markets.
This weakens the analysts’ explanation. It challenges the assumption that the price increase is due to limited market supply by introducing the idea that, in periods of low production, world market supply is supplemented by governments who usually distribute their supply locally.
D
Governments that distribute the rice crop for local consumption purchase the grain commercially in the event of production shortfalls.
This strengthens the analysts’ explanation. It indicates that when supply is limited, governments who distribute rice locally turn to the world market for additional supply, strengthening the idea that periods of low production can greatly affect the world market supply of rice.
E
During reduced rice harvests, rice-importing countries import other kinds of crops, although this fails to compensate for decreased rice imports.
This does not affect the analysts’ explanation, which discusses how the world market supply of rice affects the price of rice—other kinds of crops are not relevant.