Summary
In a recent election, the political candidate, Alder, won in a landslide over Burke. While voters knew that Burke had more effective strategies for dealing with most of the country’s problems and had a long record of successful public service, Burke’s environmental interests aligned with the country’s most dangerous polluter. On the other hand, Adler proposed strict environmental regulations.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The difference between Adler and Bruke’s environmental policy played a significant factor in the election.
A
Throughout their respective political careers, Adler has been more committed to taking measures to protect the country’s environment than Burke has been.
There is no support to compare Adler and Burke’s political careers. It could be that Burke recently changed his mind about the environment.
B
Voters realized that their country’s natural resources are rapidly being depleted.
The stimulus does not say *why* voters favored the environment over other issues. You have to assume that this is the reason.
C
The concern of the country’s voters for the environment played an important role in Adler’s election.
While Burke had better solutions for dealing with most of the country’s issues, he overwhelmingly lost. The main point of comparison between the candidates is their environmental policy. It is thus reasonable that the environment was a major factor in Adler’s election.
D
Offering effective strategies for dealing with a country’s problems is more important in winning an election than having a long record of successful government service.
There is no support to compare these two things. Burke had more effective strategies for most of the country’s issues *and* a long record of government service, yet still lost.
E
In every respect other than environmental policy, Burke would have served the country better than Adler will.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that Burke had more effective strategies for *most* of the country’s issues. There is no support that he would have served the country *better* in all other aspects.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that poor nutrition causes violent behavior in young offenders. This is based on two studies: one showed that violent inmates tend to choose low-nutrient foods, and the second showed that when given a high-nutrient diet, violent inmates’ behavior improved. This informs the author’s sub-conclusion that the studies show a connection between violence and poor nutrition.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes causation from correlation. Specifically, the author assumes that poor nutrition causes violent behavior, as opposed to some other factor the researchers did not account for.
A
Some of the violent inmates who took part in the experiment had committed a large number of violent crimes.
This does not affect the argument. The amount of violent crime each violent inmate committed does not change anything for the argument—they all had, at some point, committed a violent crime that led to their incarceration.
B
Dietary changes are easier and cheaper to implement than any other type of reform program in institutions for young offenders.
This does not affect the argument, which is not about whether dietary changes should be implemented in these institutions but about how poor nutrition causes violent behavior.
C
Many young offenders have reported that they had consumed a low-nutrient food sometime in the days before they committed a violent crime.
This does not affect the argument, which is not about whether a single low-nutrient food can influence behavior, but about whether a diet lacking nutrition can influence behavior. There is no reason to believe eating a low-nutrient food led the offender to commit the crime.
D
A further study investigated young offenders who chose a high-nutrient diet on their own and found that many of them were nonviolent.
(D) does not tell us enough for it to have an impact. For example, the word “many” tells us little about how many of the inmates were nonviolent. We also don’t know about the sample—maybe only 5 out of hundreds of inmates chose the healthy diet, and 3 of them were nonviolent.
E
The violent inmates in the institution who were not placed on a high-nutrient diet did not show an improvement in behavior.
This strengthens the argument. It supports the author’s assumption that poor nutrition causes violent behavior, as opposed to some other factor the researchers did not account for—it shows that removing the high-nutrient diet also removes the improvement.
Terry: People cannot increase their spending if they have no jobs and no money for anything other than basic necessities, so price collapses cannot lead to economic improvement.
Summarize Argument
Robin argues that once prices collapse in a faltering economy, the economy will begin to improve as people take advantage of low prices and spending increases. Terry argues that price collapse does not lead to economic improvement because people can’t increase spending without jobs and money.
Notable Assumptions
Terry assumes that in an economy so poor that prices collapse, people do not have the jobs and/or money to take advantage of the lower prices and increase spending at a macro level.
A
Companies hire more workers after the economy starts to improve again, and many newly hired workers then make long-deferred purchases.
This does not affect Terry’s argument, which focuses not on what happens after the economy begins to improve, but on how the economy improves in the first place.
B
Even when economic conditions are worsening, consumers realize that the economy will eventually improve.
This does not affect Terry’s argument. Individuals may realize the economy will eventually improve and still have no jobs or money to take advantage of lower prices.
C
Even people who do not lose their jobs spend less in bad economic times and thus have savings available to spend when prices collapse.
This weakens Terry’s argument. It attacks his assumption that, in a faltering economy, there aren’t people with the resources to take advantage of lower prices and stimulate the economy enough for improvement. (C) says some people do have money to stimulate the economy.
D
People who have lost their jobs must continue to buy some basic goods such as food, even during bad economic times.
This does not affect Terry’s argument, which specifically notes that people have no money for anything other than basic necessities.
E
The prices of some consumer goods remain stable, even during a general price collapse.
This does not affect Terry’s argument, which relies on the idea that regardless of whether prices are consistent or lower, people cannot afford to increase their spending in a faltering economy.
A
the relationship between being a criminal and being a rabbit is not of the same kind as that between being suspected and being gray
Like (B), the analogy rests on the relationship between being a gray rabbit and a rabbit, as analogized to the relationship between being a suspected criminal and a criminal. The relationships between being a criminal and a rabbit or being suspected and being gray are irrelevant.
B
the relationship between being suspected and being a rabbit is not of the same kind as that between being gray and being a criminal
Like (A), the analogy rests on the relationship between being a gray rabbit and a rabbit, as analogized to the relationship between being a suspected criminal and a criminal. The relationships described in (B) are irrelevant.
C
the relationship between being a gray rabbit and being a rabbit is not of the same kind as that between being a suspected criminal and being a criminal
All gray rabbits are rabbits, but not all suspected criminals are criminals. So the author’s argument relies on analogizing between two kinds of relationships that are not relevantly similar. One is a subset vs. superset relationship and the other is not.
D
not all rabbits are gray
This is true, but it doesn’t describe the flaw in the author’s argument. She claims that all gray rabbits are rabbits; this allows for the fact that some rabbits are not gray.
E
not all criminals are suspected
This is true, but it doesn’t describe the flaw in the author’s argument. She claims that all suspected criminals are criminals; this allows for the fact that some criminals are not suspected.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did people in Groups 1 and 2 have the same amount of plaque buildup after a year while people in Group 3 had less?
Objective
The correct answer choice must provide a similarity between people in Group 1 and Group 2 that helps explain why they had the same level of plaque buildup, a difference between people in Group 3 and those in Groups 1 and 2 that helps explain why people in Group 3 had less plaque buildup, or both.
A
The buildup of plaque on teeth, which brushing twice a day helps to prevent, is accelerated by the growth of bacteria on toothbrushes that remained unsterilized for more than a month.
People in Group 2 sterilized their toothbrushes monthly but had the same level of plaque buildup as those in Group 1. Also, people in Groups 2 and 3 used sterilized toothbrushes to begin each month, but they had differing buildup levels. (A) explains none of these things.
B
The stiffness of the bristles on new toothbrushes, which the mechanical action of brushing destroys after several months, inhibits the buildup of plaque.
This gives us a key difference between the experience of people in Group 3 from the experience of people in Groups 1 and 2. Only those in Group 3 used a new toothbrush each month, so (B) helps explain why people in Group 3 had less plaque buildup than those in Groups 1 and 2.
C
The people who did the study measured the amount of plaque buildup by a new method not usually employed by dentists.
This new method was used to measure the plaque buildup of all people in each Group, so it doesn’t help explain our phenomena.
D
Before they joined the study, some of the people in Group 3 had been in the habit of brushing their teeth only once a day.
What people were doing before the study is irrelevant. We want to know why people in Groups 1 and 2 saw the same level of plaque buildup during the study, people in Group 3 saw less buildup than those in Groups 1 or 2, or both.
E
The people in Group 2 and Group 3 brushed their teeth as vigorously as did the people in Group 1.
(E) gives us a similarity between all 3 groups. It explains nothing about why Groups 1 and 2 saw the same amount of plaque buildup even though they took different approaches to teeth cleaning nor why people in Group 3 saw different levels of buildup than those in Groups 1 and 2.
Yvette: An art form without dedicated young artists will decay and die. If tourists were forbidden to buy thangkas, young artists would cease making thangkas and concentrate instead on an art form tourists can buy.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Yvette implicitly concludes that, in order to prevent the thangka art form from dying out, Nepal should not prohibit thangka sales to tourists. This is based on the claims that young artists will only focus on art forms whose products can be sold to tourists, and that focused young artists are needed to prevent an art form from dying. This implies that banning thangka sales to tourists would contribute to the death of thangka art.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Yvette counters Xavier’s proposal by pointing out an unconsidered consequence of his proposal, which would actually undermine his intended goal.
A
denying the existence of the problem that Xavier’s proposal is designed to ameliorate
Yvette never denies that the dying out of thangka painting would be a problem. She merely argues that Xavier’s proposal would contribute to that problem.
B
challenging the integrity of Xavier’s sources of information
Yvette doesn’t challenge any of the information Xavier brings forward, nor its sources. She only introduces new information to undermine Xavier’s proposal.
C
arguing that Xavier’s proposal, if implemented, would result in the very consequences it is meant to prevent
Yvette argues that Xavier’s proposal to prohibit thangka sales to tourists would result in thangka’s death as an art form—the very consequence that Xavier seeks to prevent.
D
using an analogy to draw a conclusion that is inconsistent with the conclusion drawn by Xavier
Yvette doesn’t draw any analogies. She directly discusses the same subject and situation that Xavier does.
E
showing that the evidence presented by Xavier has no bearing on the point at issue
Yvette doesn’t claim that Xavier’s evidence is irrelevant, only that Xavier misses an important consideration and draws the wrong conclusion from the evidence.