Summary
Some research shows that increased consumption of fruits and veggies reduces susceptibility to stroke later in life. Researchers think this is because fruits and veggies have a lot of folic acid. Low levels of folic acid are correlated with high levels of homocysteine, which causes blocked arteries.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
High levels of folic acid are correlated with low levels of homocysteine, low arterial blockage, and less likelihood of stroke. (The stimulus told us what low levels of folic acid are correlated with as part of an explanation of a potential causal connection between high folic acid and less susceptibility to stroke.)
A
An increased risk of stroke is correlated with low levels of homocysteine.
Antisupported. Low folic acid is correlated with high homocysteine, which blocks arteries. Since researchers suspect that fruits and veggies may lower risk of stroke through folic acid, this means high folic acid should be associated with low homocysteine and low risk of stroke.
B
A decreased risk of stroke is correlated with increased levels of folic acid.
Strongly supported. Researchers think fruits and veggies lower risk of stroke through folic acid. This suggests high folic acid is associated with low homocysteine and lower risk of stroke.
C
An increased propensity for blocked arteries is correlated with decreased levels of homocysteine.
Antisupported. Low folic acid is correlated with high homocysteine, which blocks arteries. This suggests high folic acid is correlated with lower levels of homocysteine and less likelihood of blocked arteries.
D
A decreased propensity for blocked arteries is correlated with low levels of folic acid.
Antisupported. Low folic acid is correlated with high homocysteine, which blocks arteries.
E
Stroke is prevented by ingestion of folic acid in quantities sufficient to prevent a decline in the levels of homocysteine.
Antisupported. High homocysteine is associated with greater arterial blockage. So, lower homocysteine is likely better for reducing stroke than is higher homocysteine. To prevent strokes, we want a decline in homocysteine.
Summary
Many mystery stories include a genius detective, a “dull” companion, and some clues. The detective uses the clues to solve the mystery, while the companion misinterprets the clues and comes to the wrong solution. In this type of mystery story, the use of the companion character allows readers to solve the mystery, but also diverts them from the true solution.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The stimulus lets us conclude that:
Some clues in mystery stories can suggest both accurate and inaccurate solutions to the mystery.
Some mystery stories give the reader enough clues to solve the mystery.
Some mystery authors make decisions about what kinds of characters to include as a strategy to allow the reader to participate in solving the mystery.
Some clues in mystery stories can suggest both accurate and inaccurate solutions to the mystery.
Some mystery stories give the reader enough clues to solve the mystery.
Some mystery authors make decisions about what kinds of characters to include as a strategy to allow the reader to participate in solving the mystery.
A
Most mystery stories feature a brilliant detective who solves the mystery presented in the story.
This is not supported. The stimulus says that mystery stories “often” feature such a detective, but that’s not enough to be certain that “most” mystery stories use this technique.
B
Mystery readers often solve the mystery in a story simply by spotting the mistakes in the reasoning of the detective’s dull companion in that story.
This is not supported. The facts above don’t explain how readers go about solving the mystery in a story. All we know is that it’s sometimes possible for them to do so, which does not support concluding that they use this particular strategy.
C
Some mystery stories give readers enough clues to infer the correct solution to the mystery.
This is strongly supported. The stimulus says that some mystery stories give readers a chance to solve the mystery by including a dull companion. So, the stories must contain enough clues for the reader to infer the solution, or else they wouldn’t actually have a chance.
D
The actions of the brilliant detective in a mystery story rarely divert readers from the actions of the detective’s dull companion.
This is not supported. We don’t know from the stimulus how much attention readers typically give to either the detective or the companion in mystery stories, so we can’t say if one does or doesn’t divert from the other.
E
The detective’s dull companion in a mystery story generally uncovers the misleading clues that divert readers from the mystery’s correct solution.
This is not supported. The stimulus doesn’t indicate where the clues in mystery novels usually come from, or who uncovers them. We don’t know if it’s the companion, the detective, or someone else.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that car insurance premiums should increase as one drives more frequently. As support, she says that the chance of being involved in an accident increases in proportion to the number of times they drive.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that people who drive more frequently drive with a comparable amount of skill or safety to those who drive less frequently.
A
People who drive infrequently are more likely to be involved in accidents that occur on small roads than in highway accidents.
The location of accidents (whether they occur on small roads or on highways) is not relevant to the argument. The argument does not distinguish between different types of accidents; the argument is about accidents generally.
B
People who drive infrequently are less likely to follow rules for safe driving than are people who drive frequently.
(B) tells us that those who drive infrequently drive less safely than those who drive frequently. This means that the claim that those who drive more frequently should have higher premiums has less support.
C
People who drive infrequently are less likely to violate local speed limits than are people who drive frequently.
This gives us a reason to believe that people who drive infrequently may be safer drivers than those who drive frequently. This does not weaken the argument (and may marginally strengthen it).
D
People who drive frequently are more likely to make long-distance trips in the course of a year than are people who drive infrequently.
We have no information that compares the safety of longer trips with that of shorter trips, so this is outside the scope of the argument.
E
People who drive frequently are more likely to become distracted while driving than are people who drive infrequently.
Distracted driving poses a risk, so (E) gives a reason why frequent drivers may drive less safely than infrequent drivers, so this marginally strengthens the argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a person’s insurance premiums should increase as they drive more frequently. As support for this conclusion, the author cites the positive correlation between time spent driving and chance of being involved in an accident.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is the conclusion of the argument: that insurance premiums should increase as driving frequency increases.
A
a premise of the argument
The claim in the question stem does not provide support for any other part of the argument, so it is not a premise.
B
the conclusion of the argument
The claim in the question stem is the conclusion. It gets support from the final sentence in the stimulus, which is the premise; the two sentences that come before the claim in the question stem provide context.
C
evidence offered in support of one of the premises
The claim in the question stem is the conclusion; it is not offered in support of any other part of the argument.
D
an assertion phrased to preclude an anticipated objection
The claim in the question stem does not anticipate a potential objection.
E
a clarification of a key term in the argument
The claim in the question stem is a conclusion, not a clarification that supports another part of the argument.
Essayist: Only happiness is intrinsically valuable; other things are valuable only insofar as they contribute to happiness. Some philosophers argue that the fact that we do not approve of a bad person’s being happy shows that we value happiness only when it is deserved. This supposedly shows that we find something besides happiness to be intrinsically valuable. But the happiness people deserve is determined by the amount of happiness they bring to others. Therefore, _______.
Summary
Only happiness is intrinsically valuable. Other things are valuable only if they contribute to happiness. Some philosophers say the fact that we don’t approve of a bad person being happy shows we only value happiness when it is deserved. They say this shows something other than happiness can have intrinsic value. But however much happiness people deserve is determined by how much they bring happiness to others.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The fact that we don’t approve of a bad person being happy is a product of the fact that happiness has intrinsic value.
A
the notion that people can be deserving of happiness is ultimately incoherent
This is unsupported because the author does not contest the idea that people can be deserving of happiness. The author is instead examining why we say some people don’t deserve happiness.
B
people do not actually value happiness as much as they think they do
This is unsupported because the author provides no means of addressing how much people value happiness or how much they think they value happiness.
C
the judgment that a person deserves to be happy is itself to be understood in terms of happiness
This is strongly supported because the author implies that whether someone deserves happiness is a product of how much happiness they bring to others.
D
the only way to be assured of happiness is to bring happiness to those who have done something to deserve it
This is unsupported because the author doesn’t tell us what happens if we bring happiness to someone who deserves it, nor does the author tell us how to guarantee our happiness.
E
a truly bad person cannot actually be very happy
This is unsupported because while the author implies that a bad person may not be bringing happiness to others, this wouldn’t necessarily prevent that person from experiencing happiness.