Summarize Argument
The stimulus itself doesn’t provide an argument, but the question stem asks us why current automobile-emission enforcement may not be effective in controlling pollution. In other words, we need to weaken the conclusion that current enforcement is effective. The method of enforcement (i.e. the support for that conclusion) is that pollutant levels in exhaust are measured while a car is idling.
Notable Assumptions
The conclusion we’re weakening assumes that cars emit similar or higher levels of pollutants while they’re idling than while they’re in motion. In other words, it assumes that a test while a car is idling will not find a significantly lower pollutant level than the car emits while being driven.
A
As an emission-control technology approaches its limits, any additional gains in effectiveness become progressively more expensive.
This does not undermine the effectiveness of current enforcement, because the expense of continuing to improve emission-control technology has nothing to do with how reliable emission-control testing is. This is just irrelevant to the conclusion we’re weakening.
B
The testing devices used must be recalibrated frequently to measure pollutant levels with acceptable accuracy.
This does not undermine the effectiveness of current enforcement, because we can’t assume that the testing devices are not frequently recalibrated. It’s equally possible that they are frequently recalibrated, in which case current enforcement seems fine.
C
The adjustments needed to make a car idle cleanly make it likely that the car will emit high levels of pollutants when moving at highway speeds.
This undermines the effectiveness of current enforcement by rebutting the assumption that emissions are similar when idling and when in motion. If passing the test by idling cleanly then leads to higher highway pollution, that’s not an effective enforcement method.
D
Most car owners ask their mechanics to make sure that their cars are in compliance with emission standards.
This does not undermine the effectiveness of current enforcement. All this tells us is that most people want to pass the control test, not whether or not the test actually works. This is irrelevant to whether or not current enforcement is effective.
E
When emission standards are set, no allowances are made for older cars.
This does not undermine the effectiveness of current enforcement. Just knowing that older cars don’t get a free pass doesn’t help us figure out whether current emissions testing is doing its job. This is irrelevant.
Summarize Argument
The essayist says we must make sure that any major change to scientific procedure is worth it—that the benefits outweigh the costs. The essayist then presents support for the idea that we should proceed carefully in the form of specific examples of possible changes to science. At the end, the essayist emphasizes that the changes would come at a high cost, thus underscoring the point that we need to be sure changes are warranted.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the essayist’s call for caution: “we need to determine whether the changes are warranted, taking into account their price.”
A
We should not make changes that will alter the character of science.
The essayist never says we shouldn’t make changes, just that we need to be certain the benefit of any changes makes the cost worth it.
B
If we regulate science more closely, we will change the character of science.
The essayist only mentions changes to regulation; it's unclear if this means closer or just different regulation. Either way, the claim that the character of science will change lends support to the call for caution. If anything, (B) is a premise, not the conclusion.
C
The regulation of science and the conducting of science can be changed.
This is just context that allows us to understand the essayist’s argument. The point of the argument isn’t whether or not science can be changed, but that we should think carefully about making those changes.
D
The imposition of restrictions on the conduct of science would be very costly.
This is a premise. The essayist’s claim that restrictions would be costly supports the idea that we should consider the costs when thinking about whether to impose such restrictions.
E
We need to be aware of the impact of change in science before changes are made.
This captures the essayist’s conclusion. The rest of the argument is designed to support the idea that we should first fully understand if changes would be warranted by understanding their impact, including their benefits and costs.
Summary
Poppy petals attract pollinating insects. When a poppy flower is pollinated, a substance is released that causes the petals to wilt in one to two days. If a flower is not pollinated then if the plant can nourish the petals, they will remain fresh for a week or more and the substance is not released. Cutting an unpollinated poppy flower from the plant causes the same substance to be released that is released by pollination.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Cutting a poppy flower from the plant can cause it to wilt even if it was not pollinated.
A
Pollinating insects are not attracted to wilted poppy flowers.
This is unsupported because the stimulus fails to provide us with any indication of what pollinating insects are drawn to or how the wilting flowers affect pollinators’ behavior.
B
Even if cut poppies are given all necessary nutrients, their petals will tend to wilt within a few days.
This is strongly supported because cutting poppy flowers triggers the release of the substance that causes wilting in pollinated flowers. Since the substance causes wilting in one to two days, we can expect this same outcome.
C
Flowers of all plants release the substance that causes wilting when they are cut, although the amount released may vary.
This is unsupported because the stimulus only discusses poppy plants, so we don’t know if other plants have this same substance.
D
The pollen on pollinated poppy flowers prevents their petals from absorbing the nutrients carried to them by their stems.
This is unsupported because the stimulus states nothing about the relationship between pollination and nutrients. Even though the petals wilt after pollination, they may still receive nutrients.
E
Poppy plants are unable to draw nutrients from soil or water after the substance that causes wilting has been released.
This is unsupported because while we know that poppy seeds wilt after the substance is released, they may still be drawing nutrients from the soil. We don’t know the connection between wilting and nutrients.
(D) points out that there is a distinction between being stupid and being deceitful.
For example, say we know that "X is a banana" and we know that "all bananas are fruits". Does it follow that X is a fruit? Of course it does. Simple logic. But, does it follow that we should know that X is a fruit? Well, that depends on a lot of circumstances. Are we 15 months old? If that's the case, then probably not. Are we 15 years old with normal brain function? If so, then probably yes.
(D) is simply saying that when the witness said that "X is not a fruit" it could be that he's lying or it could be that he's stupid (or that he's a 15 month old baby, but now I'm being redundant).
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: And the best writer?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: In fact everyone she assigned to work on the project was top notch?
Witness: That’s true.
Lawyer: So, you lied to the court when you said, earlier, that Congleton wanted the project to fail?
Summarize Argument
The lawyer’s implicit conclusion is that the witness lied when he said that Congleton wanted the project to fail. This is based on the fact that everyone Congleton assigned to the project was excellent.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that Congleton did not know that the people assigned were excellent.
The author overlooks the possibility that Congleton may have wanted the project to fail despite assigning only excellent people to it.
The author assumes that Congleton had the ability to choose other people for the project.
The author assumes that the witness believed Congleton did not want the project to fail when the witness said that Congleton did want the project to fail.
A
It takes for granted that Congleton was not forced to assign the people she did to the project.
If Congleton had been forced to assign those people to the project, that shows we cannot infer anything about Congleton’s state of mind or purpose from that assignment. So, (A) must be assumed.
B
It takes for granted that the project could fail only if Congleton wanted it to fail.
Whether the project actually can or will fail is irrelevant. The argument concerns only whether Congleton wanted the project to fail and whether her hiring decisions indicate that desire.
C
It ignores the possibility that Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together.
If Congleton knew that the people assigned wouldn’t work well together, that could show how she could have thought her assignments would not produce good results, despite the individual excellence of each employee.
D
It ignores the possibility that the witness failed to infer from known facts what should have been inferred and therefore was not lying.
If this possibility were true, then the witness was not necessarily lying when he said what he said about Congleton. So, this possibility would undermine the argument.
E
It ignores the possibility that Congleton failed to allot enough time or resources to the project team.
If this possibility were true, this shows how she could have thought her assignments would not produce good results, despite the individual excellence of each employee.
(D) points out that there is a distinction between being stupid and being deceitful.
For example, say we know that "X is a banana" and we know that "all bananas are fruits". Does it follow that X is a fruit? Of course it does. Simple logic. But, does it follow that we should know that X is a fruit? Well, that depends on a lot of circumstances. Are we 15 months old? If that's the case, then probably not. Are we 15 years old with normal brain function? If so, then probably yes.
(D) is simply saying that when the witness said that "X is not a fruit" it could be that he's lying or it could be that he's stupid (or that he's a 15 month old baby, but now I'm being redundant).