Summary
If monster is horrific, it’s threatening.
If monster is physically dangerous, it’s threatening.
If monster inspires revulsion, it’s horrific.
If monster is physically dangerous, it’s threatening.
If monster inspires revulsion, it’s horrific.
Notable Valid Inferences
If a monster inspires revulsion, then it’s threatening.
A
Any horror-story monster that is threatening is also horrific.
Could be false. We know that all monsters that are horrific are threatening. This doesn’t mean every monster that’s threatening is horrific. There can be threatening monsters that aren’t horrific (maybe they’re threatening for some other reason).
B
A monster that is psychologically dangerous, but that does not inspire revulsion, is not horrific.
Could be false. We know that monsters that inspire revulsion are horrific. That doesn’t imply monsters that don’t inspire revulsion are not horrific. They can still be horrific for other reasons besides revulsion.
C
If a monster triggers infantile fears but is not physically dangerous, then it is not horrific.
Could be false. We know that physically dangerous monsters are threatening. We also know that horrific monsters are threatening. This doesn’t imply that monsters that aren’t physically dangerous aren’t horrific. A monster can be horrific without being physically dangerous.
D
If a monster is both horrific and psychologically threatening, then it does not inspire revulsion.
Could be false. We know that monsters that inspire revulsion are horrific. This doesn’t imply that monsters that are horrific don’t inspire revulsion. It’s possible every monster that’s horrific and threatening inspires revulsion.
E
All monsters that are not physically dangerous, but that are psychologically dangerous and inspire revulsion, are threatening.
Must be true. The stimulus tells us that all monsters that inspire revulsion are horrific, and all monsters that are horrific are threatening. So, all monsters that inspire revulsion are threatening.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that one’s general disposition (mood) is a result of the activity of the frontal lobe. This is based on a study that showed participants who suffered from clinical despression showed less left frontal lobe activity than right frontal lobe activity. Participants who were good-natured exhibited greater left frontal lobe activity.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the correlation observed in the study is explained by lobe activity causing one’s mood. This overlooks the possibility that one’s mood causes different lobe activity and the possibility that one’s mood and one’s lobe activity are both a result of something else.
A
Many drugs prescribed to combat clinical depression act by causing increased left lobe activity.
If drugs act to address depression by causing increased left lobe activity, that suggests lobe activity does have a causal impact on one’s mood. This strengthens the argument, so it’s correct, since this is an EXCEPT question.
B
Excessive sleep, a typical consequence of clinical depression, is known to suppress left lobe activity.
This suggests the causal relationship might be reversed. Depression might lead to more sleep, which leads to less left lobe activity.
C
Frontal lobe activity is not subject to variation the way general disposition is.
If lobe activity does affect mood, we’d expect changes in lobe activity to change mood. This provides evidence that varying lobe activity doesn’t affect mood.
D
Earlier studies indicated that frontal lobe activity and emotive states are both caused by activity in the brain’s limbic system.
This suggests the correlation between lobe activity and mood are both a result of something else. So, the existence of the correlation doesn’t have to imply that lobe activity causes changes in mood.
E
Social interaction of the kind not engaged in by most clinically depressed people is known to stimulate left lobe activity.
This suggests the causal relationship might be reversed. Depressed people might not engage in as much social interaction, which could result in less left lobe activity than that experienced by good-natured people.
Jolene: I disagree. Although some shrimp farms have proved unsustainable and have been quickly abandoned, properly built shrimp farms take a long time to construct and are costly to operate. Most owners try to make sure that their farms are productive for many years.
Speaker 1 Summary
Alex claims that shrimp farming results in environmental damage because investors make quick profits and then abandon the farms.
Speaker 2 Summary
Jolene disagrees with Alex's reasoning, arguing that although some farms have been unsustainable and abandoned, properly built shrimp farms are expensive, take a long time to construct, and are intended to be productive for many years.
Objective
Disagree: Alex and Jolene disagree over whether Shrimp farming often results in quick profits and quickly abandoning the farms.
A
most owners of shrimp farms eventually abandon their farms
Alex would likely agree. He believes investors make quick profits and leave. Jolene does not have an opinion on this. Although she says most owners “try to make sure” their farms are productive for many years, there is not enough information to know her opinion of this statement.
B
shrimp farming often yields a quick, easy profit
Alex agrees with this when he argues that investors make quick profits before abandoning the farms. Jolene disagrees when she acknowledges that properly built shrimp farms are costly and take a long time to operate. She specifies that “most owners” try to be productive.
C
shrimp farming hardly ever damages the environment
Alex clearly disagrees with this, and it is too strong for Jolene to have an opinion on. Jolene never specifies whether she thinks shrimp farming “hardly” damages the environment.
D
abandonment of a shrimp farm results in damage to the environment
Alex likely agrees with this statement. However, Jolene does not mention the negative impact of abandoning shrimp farms. If anything, she may agree (but that would not make this answer right)
E
some shrimp farmers are environmentally irresponsible
Alex would likely agree with this. Jolene does not mention anything about the environment and whether shrimp farmers are irresponsible.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did early humans spend almost no time grooming each other, even though we know they lived in large groups, and the general rule among primates is that the larger the group, the more time spent grooming?
Objective
The correct answer will show why early humans were an exception to the general rule about the relationship between group size and grooming. The correct answer might have something to do with the purpose of grooming, which the stimulus says was to maintain social cohesion among primate group members.
A
Early humans were much more likely to groom themselves than are the members of other primate species.
We’re trying to explain why humans spent almost no time grooming each other. Grooming one’s self is a different kind of grooming, and there’s no indication self-grooming serves the purpose of social cohesion.
B
Early humans developed languages, which provided a more effective way of maintaining social cohesion than social grooming.
This shows early humans had a replacement for social grooming. Because they had languages, they didn’t need to groom as much for the purpose of social cohesion.
C
Early humans were not as extensively covered with hair as are other primates, and consequently they had less need for social grooming.
The main purpose of social grooming was social cohesion. So, even if humans didn’t need to clean each other as much due to having less hair, we’d still expect significant social grooming for the purpose of social cohesion.
D
While early humans probably lived in large groups, there is strong evidence that they hunted in small groups.
This still tells us early humans lived in large groups. So, we’d still expect a lot of social grooming for the purpose of social cohesion.
E
Many types of primates other than humans have fairly large neocortex regions and display frequent social grooming.
If other primates, like humans have large neocortex regions, and engage in lots of social grooming, we’d expect humans to do the same.