Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that one’s general disposition (mood) is a result of the activity of the frontal lobe. This is based on a study that showed participants who suffered from clinical despression showed less left frontal lobe activity than right frontal lobe activity. Participants who were good-natured exhibited greater left frontal lobe activity.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the correlation observed in the study is explained by lobe activity causing one’s mood. This overlooks the possibility that one’s mood causes different lobe activity and the possibility that one’s mood and one’s lobe activity are both a result of something else.
A
Many drugs prescribed to combat clinical depression act by causing increased left lobe activity.
If drugs act to address depression by causing increased left lobe activity, that suggests lobe activity does have a causal impact on one’s mood. This strengthens the argument, so it’s correct, since this is an EXCEPT question.
B
Excessive sleep, a typical consequence of clinical depression, is known to suppress left lobe activity.
This suggests the causal relationship might be reversed. Depression might lead to more sleep, which leads to less left lobe activity.
C
Frontal lobe activity is not subject to variation the way general disposition is.
If lobe activity does affect mood, we’d expect changes in lobe activity to change mood. This provides evidence that varying lobe activity doesn’t affect mood.
D
Earlier studies indicated that frontal lobe activity and emotive states are both caused by activity in the brain’s limbic system.
This suggests the correlation between lobe activity and mood are both a result of something else. So, the existence of the correlation doesn’t have to imply that lobe activity causes changes in mood.
E
Social interaction of the kind not engaged in by most clinically depressed people is known to stimulate left lobe activity.
This suggests the causal relationship might be reversed. Depressed people might not engage in as much social interaction, which could result in less left lobe activity than that experienced by good-natured people.
Summary
Some planning committee members have sig. financial interests in the decisions. (The members who represent the construction industry have sig. financial interests in the decisions.)
Anyone on the planning committee does not live in the suburbs.
Some planning committee members work in the suburbs.
Anyone on the planning committee does not live in the suburbs.
Some planning committee members work in the suburbs.
Notable Valid Inferences
Some people with significant financial interests do not live in the suburbs.
Some people who represent the construction industry do not live in the suburbs.
(If you know All A is B, and Some A is C, you can conclude Some B is C.)
Some people who represent the construction industry do not live in the suburbs.
(If you know All A is B, and Some A is C, you can conclude Some B is C.)
A
No persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee’s decisions are not in the construction industry.
Could be false. We don’t know that everyone with sig. financial interests is in the construction industry. We only know that the PC members who represent the construction industry have sig. financial interests. Could be many people with sig. fin. int. outside of construction.
B
No person who has a significant financial interest in the planning committee’s decisions lives in the suburbs.
Could be false. This goes too far. We don’t know there are “no” people who have sig. financial interests who live in the suburbs. We know there are SOME who have sig. financial interests who don’t live in the suburbs.
C
Some persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee’s decisions work in the suburbs.
Could be false. Although we know some PC members have significant financial interests, and some PC members work in the suburbs, these members don’t have to overlap. No inference from 2 “some” statements.
D
Some planning committee members who represent the construction industry do not work in the suburbs.
Could be false. We don’t know anything about anyone who does NOT work in the suburbs. We only know that some PC members work in the suburbs.
E
Some persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee’s decisions do not live in the suburbs.
Must be true. All PC members do not live in the suburbs. Some PC members have sig. financial interests. So, some people who don’t live in the suburbs have sig. financial interests. (And you can reverse this — some people with sig. financial interests don’t live in the suburbs.)
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Springhill discourages water conservation. This is because households in Springhill pay a low monthly flat rate for their water.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the threshold is high enough that most households don’t end up paying the substantial per-liter rate once the threshold is exceeded.
A
The Springhill authorities do a poor job of enforcing its water emergency laws and many people break the laws without incurring a penalty.
We’re looking to strengthen the premise about the water usage threshold. We don’t care about enforcing water emergency laws.
B
The town council of Springhill recently refused to raise the threshold.
We have no idea how high the threshold was to begin with. Refusing to raise the threshold in fact suggests that the town council is concerned with conserving water.
C
The threshold is kept at a high enough level to exceed the water requirements of most households in Springhill.
Most households never hit the threshold, which means they never pay the per-liter fee. Thus, Springhill isn’t encouraging people to cut back on their water usage.
D
The threshold is not as high in Springhill as it is in neighboring towns.
This doesn’t give us enough information. The threshold may still be high enough that most people never pay the per-liter fee.
E
The threshold remains at the predetermined level specified by law until a change is approved by the Springhill town council.
This simply tells us how the threshold is set. We need to know if it’s set high enough that most households never pay the per-liter rate.
Accountant: If you look at individual restaurants, however, you find that the number of meals sold actually decreased substantially at every one of our restaurants that was in operation both last year and the year before. The desirability of our meals to consumers has clearly decreased, given that this group of restaurants—the only ones for which we have sales figures that permit a comparison between last year and the year before—demonstrates a trend toward fewer sales.
Summarize Argument
The account concludes that the desirability of the company’s meals has decreased. Her evidence is that a certain group of restaurants—those that permit a year-by-year comparison—shows that fewer overall meals are selling.
Notable Assumptions
The accountant assumes that a decrease in sales means that the company’s meals must be less desirable than before. This means that she believes desirability is the only factor that contributes to sales. The accountant also assumes that what’s true of the restaurants in question—those that permit a year-by-year comparison—is generally true of the company’s restaurants.
A
The company’s restaurants last year dropped from their menus most of the new dishes that had been introduced the year before.
We don’t know whether these new dishes were desirable or not. Even if we did know, it wouldn’t weaken the accountant’s argument.
B
Prior to last year there was an overall downward trend in the company’s sales.
We need to know about what happened last year. The years before don’t matter to the accountant’s argument.
C
Those of the company’s restaurants that did increase their sales last year did not offer large discounts on prices to attract customers.
Even if price discounts were attracting customers, there could be some other factor aside from desirability causing the increase in sales. We need to attack the connecting between desirability and declining sales.
D
Sales of the company’s most expensive meal contributed little to the overall two-year sales increase.
We’re not interested in specific meals. We need to know if the restaurants in question are representative of the company’s restaurants in general, and if we can draw a conclusion about desirability from those restaurants.
E
Most of the company’s restaurants that were in operation throughout both last year and the year before are located in areas where residents experienced a severe overall decline in income last year.
The restaurants in question aren’t necessarily a representative example of the company’s restaurants at large. These restaurants are in areas that experienced an economic downtown, which suggests the issue was personal finance rather than desirability.
Smoker: But it is equally well established that regularly eating high-fat, high-cholesterol foods causes as many serious health problems as does smoking, yet it would be manifestly unreasonable to force those who purchase such foods to bear the burden of financing this campaign.
Speaker 1 Summary
The politician argues that a new health-awareness campaign should be funded by taxing cigarettes. As support, the politician says that smoking causes many health problems, and that it is reasonable to cover the campaign’s cost by taxing people whose habits cause health problems. Thus, it is reasonable to tax smokers.
Speaker 2 Summary
The smoker supports the unstated conclusion that it is not reasonable for smokers to bear the costs of this campaign. The smoker uses an analogy as support: consuming high-fat, high-cholesterol foods causes comparable health issues to smoking, but it is unreasonable to charge those consumers for the campaign’s costs. This implies that it is also unreasonable to charge smokers.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree on whether or not funding the campaign by taxing smokers is reasonable.
A
whether the politician’s proposal for financing the health-awareness campaign is an unreasonable one
The politician agrees with this point but the smoker disagrees, making it the point at issue. The politician argues that the proposal to tax smokers is reasonable, while the smoker’s argument supports the implicit conclusion that taxing smokers is unreasonable.
B
whether smokers are more aware of the harmful effects of their habit than are people who regularly eat high-fat, high-cholesterol foods
Neither speaker discusses people’s awareness of the health impacts of either of these habits. The focus is on the effects of these habits, not people’s perception of those effects.
C
whether the effects of smoking constitute a greater health hazard than do the effects of regularly eating high-fat, high-cholesterol foods
The smoker disagrees with this, instead claiming that the two habits cause roughly equal health problems. On the other hand, the politician never offers an opinion about the health impacts of eating certain foods. We can’t know if the speakers disagree about this.
D
whether it is unreasonable to require people who do not benefit from certain governmental programs to share the costs of those programs
Neither speaker brings up who benefits from governmental programs, nor does either one suggest distributing the costs based on who benefits.
E
whether the proposed increase on cigarette taxes is an efficient means of financing the health-awareness campaign
Neither speaker actually indicates how efficient the increased cigarette tax would be as a method of funding the campaign. Each speaker is just focused on whether the proposal is reasonable or not.