Summary
The more cholesterol in our blood, the higher the risk of death from a heart attack. This is important, because heart disease kills more North Americans every year than any other single cause. Smoking, drinking, and exercise, including potentially other factors, can influence cholesterol levels in blood.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
We can reduce our chances of dying from heart attack by changing smoking, drinking, and exercise habits.
A
If a person has low blood cholesterol, then that person’s risk of fatal heart disease is low.
We know the lower the blood cholesterol, the lower the risk of fatal heart disease. But this doesn’t reveal anything about the absolute risk level. We don’t know that “low” blood cholesterol implies “low” risk. The risk could still be high, just not as high as it would be if the blood cholesterol were higher.
B
Smoking in moderation can entail as great a risk of fatal heart disease as does heavy smoking.
The stimulus doesn’t compare the impact of moderate smoking to heaving smoking.
C
A high-cholesterol diet is the principal cause of death in North America.
We know heart disease kills more North Americans than any other single cause. But we don’t know that this heart disease is primarily caused by a high-cholesterol diet.
D
The only way that smoking increases one’s risk of fatal heart disease is by influencing the levels of cholesterol in the blood.
We don’t know whether there are other ways that smoking can increase risk of fatal heart disease. Maybe smoking can increase such risk through other ways besides cholesterol.
E
The risk of fatal heart disease can be altered by certain changes in lifestyle.
We know smoking, drinking, and exercise can influence blood cholesterol, which is associated with one’s risk of fatal heart disease. This strongly supports the claim that certain changes in lifestyle (related to smoking, drinking, and exercise) can change our risk of fatal heart disease (through changing our blood cholesterol).
This is a pretty tough question.
I'll try to explain why (A) is correct with an analogy because I don't want to spoon feed you the answer. You should work through it.
Here's the analogous passage:
(P1) If it's sunny, we go camping. S-->C
(P2) If we go camping, we make a bonfire. C-->B
(P3) We did not make a bonfire. /B
We can conclude a couple of things.
(C1) If we didn't make a bonfire, then it wasn't sunny. /B-->/S
Note that this conclusion is made using P1 and P2 ONLY. We did NOT use P3.
Using P3, we get to draw the conclusion (C2) it wasn't sunny. /S
The contradiction of C1 is different from the contradiction of C2.
Contradicting C1, we get /B and S.
But, let's say we drew the conclusion C2. Now we have two true statements in our hands. P3 and C2. /B and /S. Contradicting that, we get /B-->S.
That's what (A) says.
Summary
If economy is weak, then prices stay constant.
If economy is weak, unemployment also rises.
If unemployment rises, investment must be decreasing.
Investment is not decreasing.
If economy is weak, unemployment also rises.
If unemployment rises, investment must be decreasing.
Investment is not decreasing.
Notable Valid Inferences
Since investment is not decreasing, we know unemployment is not rising. And if unemployment is not rising, that means the economy is not weak.
Note that we cannot infer whether prices are staying constant.
Note that we cannot infer whether prices are staying constant.
A
Either the economy is weak or investment is decreasing.
Must be false. One starting fact is that investment is not decreasing. And since investment is not decreasing, that implies unemployment is not rising, which in turn implies the economy is not weak. So the economy is not weak, and investment is not decreasing.
B
If unemployment rises, then prices remain constant.
Could be true. We don’t know whether unemployment rising implies that prices remain constant. Both are things that are implied by a weak economy. But there may or may not be a relationship between the two directly.
C
The economy is weak only if investment decreases.
Must be true. If economy is weak, that requires unemployment rising, which requires investment decreasing.
D
Either the economy is weak or prices are remaining constant.
Could be true. Although we can infer that the economy is not weak, it’s possible for prices to be constant. A weak economy implies that prices are constant, but it’s possible that a non-weak economy can also exist with constant prices.
E
Either unemployment is rising or the economy is not weak.
Must be true. We know that investment is not decreasing, which implies unemployment is not rising, which in turn implies the economy is not weak. So, the “economy is not weak” part of (E) must be true. When one part of an “or” statement is true, the “or” statement itself is true.
This is a pretty tough question.
I'll try to explain why (A) is correct with an analogy because I don't want to spoon feed you the answer. You should work through it.
Here's the analogous passage:
(P1) If it's sunny, we go camping. S-->C
(P2) If we go camping, we make a bonfire. C-->B
(P3) We did not make a bonfire. /B
We can conclude a couple of things.
(C1) If we didn't make a bonfire, then it wasn't sunny. /B-->/S
Note that this conclusion is made using P1 and P2 ONLY. We did NOT use P3.
Using P3, we get to draw the conclusion (C2) it wasn't sunny. /S
The contradiction of C1 is different from the contradiction of C2.
Contradicting C1, we get /B and S.
But, let's say we drew the conclusion C2. Now we have two true statements in our hands. P3 and C2. /B and /S. Contradicting that, we get /B-->S.
That's what (A) says.
Summary
The Earth’s large moon is necessary to keep the Earth’s axis tilt angle stable. This stability is necessary for the Earth to support life. Mars lacks a large moon and does not have a stable axis tilt angle. Mars cannot support life.
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
Without the Earth’s moon, the Earth would not be able to support life. Mars lacks a necessary condition for life—a stable axis tilt angle. This ensures Mars cannot support life.
A
If Mars had a sufficiently large nearby moon, Mars would be able to support life.
This could be false. A large moon may stabilize Mars’s axis tilt angle, fulfilling a necessary condition for life on Mars. However, this does not mean Mars fulfills any other conditions for supporting life. A stable axis tilt angle is necessary for life—not sufficient.
B
If Earth’s Moon were to leave Earth’s orbit, Earth’s climate would be unable to support life.
This must be true. As shown below, when we take the contrapositive of the conditional claims in the stimulus, we see that the absence of the Moon would mean the Earth would be unable to support life. In other words, the Moon is necessary for Earth’s ability to support life.
C
Any planet with a stable, moderate axis tilt can support life.
This could be false. A stable axis tilt angle is a necessary condition for a planet’s ability to support life—not a sufficient one.
D
Gravitational influences other than moons have little or no effect on the magnitude of the tilt angle of either Earth’s or Mars’s axis.
This could be false. While the stimulus focuses on moons and their impact on the planets’ axis tilt angles, it does not suggest that moons are the only important factor affecting the planets’ axis tilt angles.
E
No planet that has more than one moon can support life.
This could be false. We know Mars has very small moons and cannot support life. Given the information in the stimulus, however, it could be true that a planet has multiple moons with at least one large enough to keep the planet’s axis tilt angle stable.
Clinic administrator: But the successful development of new technologies will allow early diagnosis of many neurological disorders. In most cases, patients who are treated in the early stages of neurological disorders suffer far less than do patients who are not treated until their neurological disorders reach advanced stages.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to the hospital auditor’s claim that the Rodriguez family terms are being violated, the clinic administrator concludes in most cases patients treated in early stages suffer less compared to patients in advanced stages. As evidence, the clinic administrator points out that new technologies allow early diagnosis of many neurological disorders.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The clinic administrator counters the position held by the hospital auditor. She does this by interpreting what it would mean to minimize patient’s suffering. To her, minimizing patient’s suffering includes the development of new technologies that allow early diagnosis. Therefore, the clinic administrator implies that the Rodriguez family terms are not being violated.
A
demonstrating that the hospital auditor’s conclusion, though broadly correct, stands in need of a minor qualification
The clinic administrator does not agree with the hospital auditor’s conclusion. She is countering this conclusion by broadly interpreting what it means to minimize patient’s suffering.
B
showing that the hospital auditor’s argument fails to separate what is the case from what ought to be the case
The clinic administrator does not make a value statement about what ought to be done. Her argument is presented in a matter-of-fact way.
C
reminding the hospital auditor that, in the case at issue, being told what to do is tantamount to being told how to do it
The clinic administrator does not state that being told what to do is the equivalent of being told how to do it. Neither the clinic administrator or the hospital auditor explicitly mention how to minimize patient’s suffering.
D
arguing that, in assessing the severity of a violation, the reasoning motivating the violation needs to be considered
The clinic administrator does not agree that a violation has occurred. She thinks a violation has not occurred due to her interpretation of what it means to minimize patient’s suffering.
E
reinterpreting a key phrase in the hospital auditor’s argument so as to undermine an assumption underlying that argument
The key phrase being reinterpreted is what it means to minimize patient’s suffering. The hospital auditor assumes that new diagnostic technologies cannot minimize this suffering.
Summary
If any work of art exploits some of the musical characteristics of language, then it is a poem. A novel does not usually exploit the musical characteristics of language, but it may be a work of art. A symphony rarely involves language, but it may exploit the musical characteristics of sounds. A limerick is not art, but it may exploit some musical characteristics of language.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If a novel is a work of art and exploits some of the musical characteristics of language, then it is a poem.
A
If a creation is neither a poem, nor a novel, nor a symphony, then it is not a work of art.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if a work of art must either be a poem, novel, or a symphony.
B
An example of so-called blank verse, which does not rhyme, is not really a poem.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what types of works, if any, are not poems. We only know from the stimulus a sufficient condition for a work being a poem.
C
If a novel exploits meter and rhyme while standing as a work of art, then it is both a novel and a poem.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that a work of art that exploits at least some of the musical characteristics of language are poems. Meter and rhyme are musical characteristics of language.
D
Limericks constitute a nonartistic type of poetry.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what conditions are sufficient for a work to be a nonartistic type of poetry.
E
If a symphony does not exploit the musical characteristics of sound, then it is not a work of art.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know that if a symphony is a work of art, that it must exploit the musical characteristics of sound. We only know that symphonies rarely involve language and sometimes exploit the musical characteristics of sound.