Summarize Argument
People’s values can be used to predict their actions. This is because there is a strong correlation between the two variables of value and action. One example of this correlation is that people who value wealth will choose higher paying jobs even if they are in undesirable locations.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is a possible application of the knowledge described: “knowing what people value can help one predict their actions.”
A
Knowing how people behave allows one to infer what they value.
This flips the conclusion. The author is saying values can be used to predict action, not the other way around.
B
People’s claims concerning what they value are symptomatic of their actions.
The author is saying that the two variables are correlated and that values can be used to predict action. This answer choice claims that actions precede values, which doesn’t fit with the stimulus.
C
No two people who value different things act the same way in identical circumstances.
This answer choice goes too far. The stimulus does not indicate that this is impossible, just that values can be helpful in predicting actions.
D
People who value wealth tend to allow their desire for it to outweigh other concerns.
This comes from the example that supports the correlation, which in turn supports the conclusion. It is a somewhat inaccurate rephrasing of a premise.
E
What people value can be a reliable indicator of how they will act.
This accurately rephrases the conclusion. As a reliable indicator, what people value can help predict how people will act.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Elderly people who were born in and reside in a certain community have significantly worse health than elderly people who moved to the community in the last five years.
Objective
Since this is an “Except” question, we’re looking for a hypothesis that doesn’t explain the health differences between the two groups of elderly community residence. The correct answer won’t give any reason why the elderly people who’ve lived in the community their whole lives have worse health, or why the ones who moved in recently are in relatively better health.
A
People who have the means to relocate tend to be in better-than-average health.
The elderly people who’ve moved into the community are well-off, and therefore more likely to be in good health. This explains the difference between the two groups, so it isn’t our answer.
B
Although most people who have moved into the community are young, most people who have lived in the community all their lives are elderly.
We’re comparing two groups of elderly people. We don’t care about young people who’ve moved into the community, so this doesn’t help resolve anything.
C
The quality of health care available to the community is lower than that for the rest of the country.
Elderly people who’ve lived in the community their entire lives suffered worse healthcare than those who haven’t, hence why they’re in worse health.
D
Changes in one’s environment tend to have a beneficial effect on one’s health.
Elderly people who’ve moved to the community benefited from the move. And elderly people who’ve lived in the community their entire lives have never got the benefit of changing their environment.
E
People in good health are more likely to move to new communities than are people in poor health.
The people who moved to the community were already healthy when they got there. This explains why they’re healthier than the existing residents, who we must assume are average in health.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Minimum-wage increases usually result in layoffs, yet the fast-food industry didn’t experience layoffs after a recent minimum-wage increase.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis explaining why the fast-food industry didn’t react as industries generally do to a minimum-wage increase, especially considering that most fast-food industry employees are paid the minimum wage. The explanation must account for the lack of cutbacks.
A
After the recent increase in the minimum wage, decreased job turnover in the fast-food industry allowed employers of fast-food workers to save enough on recruiting costs to cover the cost of the wage increase.
Since fast-food workers got a raise, they didn’t go looking for new jobs. Employers were therefore able to save on recruiting new workers. This saving allowed them to continue operating as usual without cutbacks.
B
If, in any industry, an increase in the minimum wage leads to the elimination of many jobs that pay the minimum wage, then higher-paying supervisory positions will also be eliminated in that industry.
The increase in the minimum wage didn’t lead to the elimination of minimum-wage fast food jobs. Besides, it’s not like the supervisor class decides which jobs are retained or eliminated.
C
With respect to its response to increases in the minimum wage, the fast-food industry does not differ significantly from other industries that employ many workers at the minimum wage.
This directly contradicts the stimulus rather than giving the explanation we need. Companies usually cut back on jobs when the minimum wage raises, but fast-food companies didn’t cut back on jobs. The fast-food industry definitely differed from other industries.
D
A few employees in the fast-food industry were already earning more than the new, higher minimum wage before the new minimum wage was established.
We don’t care about exceptions. Most fast-food employees were at the minimum wage, so we still need to know why they weren’t laid off as expected.
E
Sales of fast food to workers who are paid the minimum wage did not increase following the recent change in the minimum wage.
We’re not talking about workers actually buying fast food. We’re talking about fast-food workers.
Summary
The first word, the last word, and the main words in a title should be capitalized.
Articles in the middle of a title, and prepositions and conjunctions with fewer than five letters in the middle of a title should not be capitalized.
Articles in the middle of a title, and prepositions and conjunctions with fewer than five letters in the middle of a title should not be capitalized.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
If an article should be capitalized, then it’s not in the middle of the title.
If a preposition or conjunction with fewer than five letters should be capitalized, then it’s not in the middle of the title.
If a word in the middle of a title should be capitalized, then it’s not an article or a preposition or conjunction with fewer than five letters.
If a preposition or conjunction with fewer than five letters should be capitalized, then it’s not in the middle of the title.
If a word in the middle of a title should be capitalized, then it’s not an article or a preposition or conjunction with fewer than five letters.
A
If a word that is a preposition or conjunction should be capitalized, then it is the first or last word of the title.
Unsupported. Actually, if a preposition or conjunction should be capitalized, then it’s not in the middle of the title or it’s not shorter than five letters.
B
If a word in the middle of a title should be capitalized, then that word is neither an article nor a conjunction shorter than five letters.
Very strongly supported. Articles and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters in the middle of a title should not be capitalized. So if a word in the middle of a title should be capitalized, it’s not an article and it’s not a conjunction shorter than five letters.
C
All prepositions and conjunctions with fewer than five letters should be uncapitalized in titles.
Unsupported. Prepositions and conjunctions with fewer than five letters in the middle of a title should be uncapitalized. But the first and last words should always be capitalized. So if a short preposition or conjunction is the first or last word, then it should be capitalized.
D
If a word is neither a main word nor a first or last word of a title, then it should not be capitalized.
Unsupported. These words should be capitalized, but that doesn’t mean that all other words should not be capitalized. It’s possible that prepositions and conjunctions with more than five letters should be capitalized, or that other kinds of words like names should be capitalized.
E
Prepositions and conjunctions with five or more letters should be capitalized in any text.
Unsupported. We’re only talking about titles, not about “any text.” Regardless, just because prepositions and conjunctions with fewer than five words should not be capitalized doesn’t necessarily mean that longer prepositions and conjunctions should be.
Luis: The basic goal of government support of scientific research is to generate technological advances that will benefit society as a whole. So only research that is expected to yield practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine ought to be funded.
Speaker 1 Summary
Cynthia believes that the government should help fund basic scientific research projects that aim to further theoretical knowledge of nature. This is because the fundamental goal of science is to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the universe.
Speaker 2 Summary
Luis argues that the government should only fund scientific research that is expected to yield practical applications because the basic goal of government support for scientific research is to generate technological benefits for society.
Objective
Disagree: Cynthia and Luis disagree over what kinds of research the government should fund. Cynthia is much broader, while Luis believes that only research that results in practical applications should be funded.
A
The government should help fund pure theoretical research because such research might have unforeseen practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine.
Cynthia does not give an opinion on funding pure theoretical research, but there is an argument for why she may support this statement. Luis also clearly supports this statement, so this cannot be the right answer.
B
A proposed study of the effects of chemical fertilizers on crops, for the purpose of developing more-resistant and higher-yielding breeds, should not receive government funding.
Cynthia does not take a position against funding practical research, and Luis would disagree with this because he believes the government should fund research with practical applications.
C
Although some research projects in theoretical science yield practical benefits, most do not, and so no research projects in theoretical science should be funded by the government.
Cynthia easily disagrees with this statement because she is in favor of funding for theoretical science. This is too strong for Luis to agree with. Luis is in favor of funding projects that have practical benefits.
D
Research for the sole purpose of developing new technologies ought to be financed exclusively by corporations.
Cynthia does not give an opinion on who should exclusively finance new technologies, and Luis disagrees because he thinks the government should help fund such research
E
Knowledge gained through basic scientific research need not be expected to lead to new and useful technologies in order for the research to merit government funding.
Cynthia agrees with this because she believes that the purpose of science is to learn more about the universe. Luis disagrees because he believes that only projects with practical benefits should be funded.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it probably wouldn’t be prohibitively expensive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels enough to halt global warming. This is because the chemical industry had claimed something similar about CFCs, only to eventually replace them with substitutes at a profit.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that fossil fuel industries would be able replace fossil fuels with substitutes in the same way the chemical industry replaced CFCs with substitutes. And in order for the shift from carbon dioxide-producing fossil fuels not to be “prohibitively expensive,” the author also assumes that the fossil fuel industry is financially similar to the chemical industry in all relevant aspects.
A
In the time since the chemical industry phased out CFCs, the destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs has virtually halted, but the levels of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels have continued to increase.
We already know there’ve been no equivalent changes in the fossil fuel industry. We’re trying to strengthen similarities between the fossil fuel industry and the chemical industry.
B
In some countries, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels has already been reduced without prohibitive expense, but at some cost in convenience to the users of such fuels.
We care about reducing carbon dioxide emissions to levels low enough to halt global warming. We have no idea how much these emissions have been reduced.
C
The use of CFCs never contributed as greatly to the destruction of the ozone layer as the carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels currently contributes to global warming.
We don’t care which is worse for the environment. This just tells us the fossil fuel industry will have to make a huge effort to change.
D
There are ways of reducing carbon dioxide emissions that could halt global warming without hurting profits of fossil-fuel producers significantly more than phasing out CFCs hurt those of the chemical industry.
This tells us that fossil-fuel producers can do what the chemical industry did. Thus, it probably wouldn’t be prohibitively expensive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to levels low enough to halt global warming.
E
If international agreements forced fossil-fuel producers to find ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to halt global warming, the fossil-fuel producers could find substitutes for fossil fuels.
We’re not talking about finding alternatives to fossil fuels. We’re talking about reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.