Summarize Argument
The nutritionist claims that home juicers are not worth the expense. Why? Because they don’t provide tremendous health benefits, given there’s no evidence that juice separated from the pulp has different health properties from juice attached to the original fruit or vegetable.
Notable Assumptions
The nutritionist assumes that people praise the health benefits of home juicers because they think the homemade juice is healthier than whole fruits and vegetables, and that people have no other reason for buying them.
A
Most people find it much easier to consume a given quantity of nutrients in liquid form than to eat solid foods containing the same quantity of the same nutrients.
This challenges the nutritionist’s assumption that home juicers could only have health benefits if the juice they produce is unusually healthy. Rather, the juicers are beneficial because they process nutrients into a form that’s easier for people to consume.
B
Drinking juice from home juicers is less healthy than is eating fruits and vegetables because such juice does not contain the fiber that is eaten if one consumes the entire fruit or vegetable.
This strengthens the nutritionist’s argument. It implies homemade juices are actually less healthy than whole fruits and vegetables, supporting her claim that the juicers make food no healthier.
C
To most people who would be tempted to buy a home juicer, $300 would not be a major expense.
This does not imply the juicer is a worthwhile purchase. If it brings no benefit to the consumer, it will be a waste of money no matter how minor the cost.
D
The nutritionist was a member of a panel that extensively evaluated early prototypes of home juicers.
This doesn’t imply the nutritionist is being insincere and it doesn’t affect her argument. She advises against buying the juicers by arguing they bring no health benefit—her purpose for making the argument is irrelevant.
E
Vitamin pills that supposedly contain nutrients available elsewhere only in fruits and vegetables often contain a form of those compounds that cannot be as easily metabolized as the varieties found in fruits and vegetables.
This puts fruits, vegetables, and their juices in the same category. It compares them to vitamin pills, making no distinction between the health benefits of fruits and vegetables and the health benefits of their juices.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author thinks it’s likely that stress causes both acne and chocolate-eating, rather than chocolate consumption causing acne. To support this, they offer two pieces of evidence. First, stress hormones can cause acne. Second, chocolate enjoyers eat more chocolate when stressed.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that “it is likely that common wisdom has mistaken an effect for a cause.” In other words, eating chocolate is probably an effect of stress (which also causes acne), rather than causing acne itself.
A
People are mistaken who insist that whenever they eat large amounts of chocolate they invariably suffer from an outbreak of acne.
The author doesn't say that people are mistaken about experiencing acne outbreaks during high-chocolate periods, and doesn't deny that chocolate consumption and acne can correlate. This simply isn’t a claim the author makes.
B
The more chocolate a person eats, the more likely that person is to experience the hormonal changes associated with stress.
The argument is not designed to prove that there is a correlation between stress and eating chocolate. Rather, this is used as a premise to support the conclusion that stress leads to both chocolate-eating and acne, rather than chocolate causing acne.
C
Eating large amounts of chocolate is more likely to cause stress than it is to cause outbreaks of acne.
This is not stated in the argument; the author isn’t saying that eating chocolate causes anything. Instead, the claim is that eating chocolate can be a result of stress.
D
It is less likely that eating large amounts of chocolate causes acne than that both the chocolate eating and the acne are caused by stress.
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. The evidence given in the argument is meant to support the claim that stress causes both acne and chocolate-eating, as a rebuttal to the “common wisdom” of chocolate causing acne.
E
The more stress a person experiences, the more likely that person is to crave chocolate.
This isn’t quite what the argument says about stress and chocolate consumption, but even if it were, that relationship is used as support for the overall conclusion. It is not supported by anything else, so it is not the conclusion.
Company policy: An employee of our company must be impartial, particularly when dealing with family members. This obligation extends to all aspects of the job, including hiring and firing practices and the quality of service the employee provides customers.
Summary
Employees must be unbiased in all aspects of their job, especially when dealing with family.
Notable Valid Inferences
Employees must not be biased when performing their jobs. This means not offering family members special treatment (whether preferential or unfavorable) simply due to their familial relationship.
A
refusing to hire any of one’s five siblings, even though they are each more qualified than any other applicant
This violates the company’s policies. Employees cannot be biased when performing their duties. This includes overlooking the best candidate for a role simply because they are family.
B
receiving over a hundred complaints about the service one’s office provides and sending a complimentary product to all those who complain, including one’s mother
This does not violate the policy, which implies all complainants should be treated equally—including an employee’s mother.
C
never firing a family member, even though three of one’s siblings work under one’s supervision and authority
This does not violate the policy. There is no information to suggest there is reason for the family members to be fired in the first place.
D
repeatedly refusing to advance an employee, claiming that he has sometimes skipped work and that his work has been sloppy, even though no such instances have occurred for over two years
This does not violate the policy, as there is no information to suggest this action is the result of bias. The company may require that performance from 2+ years ago be considered when deciding promotions.
E
promoting a family member over another employee in the company
This does not violate the policy, as there is no information to suggest this action is the result of bias. It may be that the family member is the most qualified employee for the promotion.