This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that generic drugs are just cheaper, equally effective versions of brand-name drugs. This is because generic drugs contain the same active ingredients as brand-name drugs but cost less to produce.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes generic drugs have no relevant difference to brand-name drugs. True, the active ingredients are the same, but there could be other differences in composition that alter how effective these drugs are.
A
The ingredients used in the manufacture of brand-name drugs cost no more than the ingredients used to produce their generic counterparts.
We don’t care. We already know generic drugs are cheaper.
B
Generic drugs are no more likely than brand-name drugs to suffer from defects in composition.
While generic drugs are cheaper and as effective based on their active ingredients, are they likely to suffer from some other issue? This says they aren’t, so this rules out a potential problem with generic drugs.
C
Generic drugs are just as likely as brand-name drugs to be readily available in pharmacies.
We don’t care about availability. We care about efficacy and cost.
D
The higher costs of brand-name drugs underwrite drug companies’ heavy investment in research.
This simply explains why brand-name drugs are more expensive. But we already know they’re more expensive.
E
Because of advertising, doctors frequently prescribe brand-name drugs by their brand name, rather than by their chemical name.
Irrelevant. We don’t care what doctors prescribe. We care about cost and efficacy.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that large space program projects should be abandoned in favor of smaller ones. This is because large projects have recently suffered costly setbacks.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that large projects shouldn’t continue to be funded if they suffer costly setbacks. He further assumes that funding for these projects should be reallocated to smaller projects, which presumably are less likely to fail.
A
The cost of starting a space project increases every year.
This seems to weaken the author’s argument. If projects cost more to start every year, then those smaller projects might not actually be much less expensive.
B
It is just as easy to revise, and even scrap, small projects as it is large ones.
Irrelevant. We need to strengthen the claim that large projects should be abandoned if they suffer costly setbacks.
C
Large projects are intrinsically more likely to fail and so are more financially risky than small projects.
Large projects are a big risk. Small projects are a safer bet. Thus, money should be reallocated towards the safer options.
D
Project managers prefer to work on small projects rather than large ones.
We don’t care what project managers prefer. The author doesn’t factor them into funding decisions.
E
Large space projects can explore a few places thoroughly, while small projects can investigate more regions, though less thoroughly.
We don’t know what sort of space exploration we’re trying to do. If we want thorough exploration, then this would be a weakener.
Summarize Argument
The author considers a question of whether artists who receive public subsidies should repay those subsidies and concludes that artists are morally required to do so. As evidence, the author states that returning the money would be a source of support for other artists deserving of public subsidies.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author establishes an artists moral obligation by suggesting other artists would be able to receive the same benefit if the public subsidies were repaid.
A
this person has benefited from other people’s acting in just this way in the past
The author does not suggest an artist’s moral obligation is based on other people’s past actions. The subsidy an artist is initially granted if funded by the public, but this money could have a different source other than another artist’s repayment.
B
acting this way would allow others to obtain a benefit such as the one that this artist has obtained in the past
The author’s support for his conclusion is that, if the subsidy is repaid, other deserving artists would have access to this source of support.
C
this person had in fact, at an earlier time, made a tacit promise to act this way
The author does not mention whether an author made a promise to repay the funds before being granted the subsidy.
D
not acting this way would be a small benefit to the person in the short term but a substantial detriment to the person in the long run
The author does not compare short and long term benefits or detriments.
E
this person, by acting this way, would provide general benefits with a value exceeding the cost to the person of acting this way
The author does not mention what benefits or costs an artist repaying a subsidy would incur.
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!