Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The journalist hypothesizes that something present in decaffeinated coffee, but not regular coffee, damages connective tissue. This is based on a study showing people who drink three cups of decaffeinated coffee per day are twice as likely to develop arthritis as those who drink three cups of regular coffee per day.
Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the journalist assumes that decaffeinated coffee causes higher rates of arthritis. This means the journalist doesn’t believe that some third factor is responsible for people drinking decaffeinated coffee and for those same people having higher rates of arthritis. The author also assumes that arthritis is caused by connective tissue degeneration.
A
whether people who exercise regularly are more likely to drink decaffeinated beverages than those who do not
We have no idea what the relationship between arthritis and exercise is. Thus, knowing the answer to this provides us with no useful information.
B
whether people who drink decaffeinated coffee tend to drink coffee less often than those who drink regular coffee
The study compared people who drank three cups of coffee, be that decaffeinated coffee or regular coffee. We don’t care if decaf drinkers generally drink more coffee.
C
whether the degeneration of connective tissue is slowed by consumption of caffeine and other stimulants
If caffeine does slow connective tissue degeneration, then it might not be that decaffeinated coffee is causing arthritis—caffeinated coffee is actually staving arthritis off. If this were true, the author’s argument would be weakened. If not, it remains intact.
D
whether most coffee drinkers drink more than three cups of coffee per day
We don’t care how many cups of coffee people actually drink. The journalist is comparing between groups of people who drank three cups per day in the study, and hypothesizing based on the difference between the two groups.
E
whether people who have arthritis are less likely than the general population to drink coffee of any kind
Irrelevant. The journalist draws a causal connection between decaffeinated coffee and connective tissue degeneration. People who don’t drink coffee have no effect on an argument comparing between two types of coffee.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
Taxing junk food would benefit public health. Eating too much junk food causes many common and severe health problems. If junk food were more expensive than healthy food, people would be more motivated to eat healthier, which would reduce these problems.
Identify Conclusion
Taxing junk food would benefit public health.
A
Taxing junk food would benefit public health.
This states the main conclusion. The doctor argues that taxing junk food would improve public health. The rest of the passage explains why taxing junk food would have this effect. Since unhealthy eating causes many health problems, taxing junk food would help reduce these issues.
B
In many countries, the excessive proportion of junk food in people’s diets contributes to many common and serious health problems.
This is a premise. The doctor claims that in many countries, including the doctor's, overeating junk food causes serious health problems. This supports the argument that making junk food more expensive would improve public health by reducing overeating and these related problems.
C
If junk food were much more expensive than healthful food, people would be encouraged to make dietary changes that would reduce many common and serious health problems.
This is a premise. The doctor claims that if junk food were more expensive, people would eat healthier food, reducing health problems. This claim supports the doctor's main conclusion that taxing junk food would improve public health.
D
Taxing junk food would encourage people to reduce the proportion of junk food in their diets.
This is a premise. The claim that taxing junk food would make people eat less of it and more healthy food supports the doctor's argument that taxing junk food would improve public health by reducing the risk of health problems linked to eating too much junk food.
E
Junk food should be taxed if doing so would benefit public health.
The doctor doesn’t make this claim. The doctor concludes that taxing junk food will have at least one positive effect—it will benefit public health—but doesn’t recommend that junk food should be taxed based on this effect. Other considerations may weigh against taxing junk food.
Summary
Large deposits of a rare mineral, nahcolite, formed in salty lakes over 50 million years ago during a time in history called the Eocene epoch. Experiments revealed that, in salty water, nahcolite can form only when the atmosphere contains at least 1,125 parts per million of carbon dioxide.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The atmosphere contained at least 1,125 parts per million of carbon dioxide sometime during the Eocene epoch.
A
For most of the time since the Eocene epoch, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been lower than it was during most of the Eocene epoch.
This comparative statement is not supported anywhere. The stimulus does not say anything about the relative levels of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Eocene epoch. It only implies that at some point in the epoch, the levels were high enough to form nahcolite.
B
Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere fluctuated greatly during the Eocene epoch.
There is no evidence to suggest that these levels fluctuated. For all we know, they could still be the same today. All we know is that the levels were enough to form nahcolite.
C
Lakes were more likely to be salty during periods when the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at least 1,125 parts per million.
There is no support in the stimulus for whether a lake was more likely to be salty.
D
The atmosphere contained at least 1,125 parts per million of carbon dioxide during at least some part of the Eocene epoch.
The stimulus says that this mineral was formed during the Eocene epoch and that it could only have formed when the atmosphere contained at least 1,1125 parts per million of carbon. This is not only supported, but it must be true.
E
No significant deposits of nahcolite have formed at any time since the Eocene epoch.
This requires an assumption that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed since the Eocene epoch. There is no support for this in the stimulus.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there’s something deeply wrong with the educational system. This is based on the fact that 60% of high school students pick a modern poet when asked to identify a poet contemporaneous with Shakespeare. That response by students might show that high school students don’t know the meaning of “contemporaneous,” or that students don’t know other poets of Shakespeare’s ear. Either of these interpretations signifies that there’s something wrong with the education system.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is used as support for the author’s conclusion that there’s something wrong with the educational system.
A
as evidence that the educational system is producing students who are ignorant of the history of poetry
This misdescribes the author’s conclusion. She didn’t try to establish that students are ignorant of the history of poetry. She acknowledged that students might just be unaware of the meaning of “contemporaneous.”
B
as evidence of the ambiguity of some questions
This misdescribes the author’s conclusion. She didn’t try to establish that some questions are ambiguous.
C
to illustrate that research results are difficult to interpret
This misdescribes the author’s conclusion. She didn’t try to establish that research results are difficult to interpret. She acknowledged multiple interpretations of the students’ response, but argued that either interpretation shows something wrong with the educational system.
D
as evidence that the ambiguity of data should not prevent us from drawing conclusions from them
This misdescribes the author’s conclusion. She didn’t try to establish that ambiguous data shouldn’t prevent us from drawing conclusion. Rather, she interpreted the students’ response as showing something is wrong with the educational system.
E
as evidence that something is deeply wrong with the educational system
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. It was used to support the conclusion that something id wrong with the educational system.
Summary
Apologizing requires only apologizing to a person one has wronged and only for having wronged that person. Sincerely apologizing requires acknowledging one has acted wrongfully and intending not to repeat the act. Accepting an apology sincerely requires acknowledging a wrongful act and vowing not to hold a grudge against the wrongdoer.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A sincerely offered and a sincerely accepted apology both require acknowledging a wrongful act.
A
If one apologizes and subsequently repeats the wrongful act for which one has apologized, then one has not apologized sincerely.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what conditions are triggered whenever a person repeats a wrongful act.
B
One cannot sincerely accept an apology that was not sincerely offered.
This answer is unsupported. Sincerely offering and sincerely accepting an apology are independent from each other in the stimulus.
C
If one commits a wrongful act, then one should sincerely apologize for that act.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what conditions are triggered whenever a person commits a wrongful act.
D
An apology that cannot be sincerely accepted cannot be sincerely offered.
This answer is unsupported. Sincerely offering and sincerely accepting an apology are independent from each other in the stimulus.
E
An apology cannot be both sincerely offered and sincerely accepted unless each person acknowledges that a wrongful act has occurred.
This answer is strongly supported. Acknowledging a wrongful act has occurred is a necessary condition for both sincerely offering and sincerely accepting an apology.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the kitchen implements were dropped into the well no earlier than 375 A.D. He supports this by saying that some of the coins found beneath the implements dated to 375 A.D.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the kitchen implements were dropped into the well after the coins, simply because they were found on top of the coins. He assumes that the coins could not have fallen through the kitchen implements and that the well's contents have not been disturbed or displaced over time in a way that would make it difficult to reliably date the implements based on the coins.
A
The coins used in the Roman Empire often remained in circulation for many decades.
Irrelevant. Regardless of how long the coins were in circulation, they still dated to 375 A.D., which means that they couldn’t have been dropped into the well earlier than 375.
B
The coins were found in a dense cluster that could not have been formed by coins slipping through an accumulation of larger objects.
If the coins couldn't have fallen through the kitchen implements, it's much more likely that they were dropped into the well before the implements. If they were, the implements couldn't have been dropped in before 375 A.D.
C
The coins had far more value than the kitchen implements did.
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether the coins or the implements were more valuable. The argument is only trying to determine when they were dropped into the well.
D
The items in the well were probably thrown there when people evacuated the area and would have been retrieved if the people had returned.
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter why the items were dropped into the well; the author is only addressing when they were dropped into the well.
E
Items of jewelry found beneath the coins were probably made around 300 A.D.
Irrelevant. The fact that the jewelry was made around 300 A.D. tells us nothing about when it was dropped into the well. Even if it was dropped in then, it would just mean it was dropped before the coins, which makes sense since it's older.