Miranda: The bank should have realized that with all the fast-food places on 10th Street, one lacking indoor seating was likely to fail. So it was irresponsible of them to lend the money for it.
Speaker 1 Summary
Xavier thinks it’s unsurprising that the new fast-food place is kaput. How did he see this coming? Well, there was no indoor seating, and sitting outside breathing exhaust isn’t a popular option.
Speaker 2 Summary
Miranda thinks that it was irresponsible for the bank to lend start-up capital for this new restaurant. Why? Because the bank should also have foreseen the restaurant’s failure, by realizing that the lack of indoor seating was a serious problem.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of agreement. Xavier and Miranda agree the failure of this fast-food restaurant was unsurprising; it was predictable, given the lack of indoor seating, that the new place would likely fail.
A
few people want to sit outside while they eat
Neither Xavier nor Miranda expresses an opinion on this point. Neither one says anything about sitting outside being unpopular in general—even Xavier is only saying that it’s unpopular in the specific context of this one restaurant.
B
banks should not finance restaurants lacking indoor seating
Neither speaker expresses this broad opinion. Xavier never mentions banks, much less what they should or shouldn’t do. Miranda does talk about banks, but doesn’t go as far as saying that banks shouldn’t finance any restaurant without indoor seating, just this one restaurant.
C
if the new fast-food place had indoor seating, it probably would have been successful
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this. Neither Xavier nor Miranda mentions the quality of the food or really anything about the restaurant other than its lack of indoor seating. Maybe there were other reasons it would have failed—we don’t know.
D
a fast-food place on 10th Street is likely to fail if it has any outdoor seating
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. For one, Miranda never discusses outdoor seating as a poor choice. She just believes it was unwise to provide no indoor seating. Maybe a restaurant with both options would have been fine.
E
the new fast-food place on 10th Street was a risky venture
Xavier and Miranda both agree with this. Xavier says that the restaurant’s failure was unsurprising, and Miranda says that the bank should have seen that the restaurant was likely to fail. When failure is likely, that’s equivalent to “risky.”
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Despite TBT being banned, the endangered oyster population hasn’t grown.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why the TBT ban didn’t help the endangered oyster population as expected. That explanation must provide some new problem facing the oyster population after TBT was banned, or some reason that TBT was in some way useful to the oyster population.
A
The increase in water temperature has slowed in the years since the legislation was passed.
The increase in water temperature wasn’t the problem. We need to know why the TBT ban didn’t help the osyters.
B
Native oysters rely on different sources of food than do the barnacles that live on the hulls of boats.
If anything, this eliminates one way the TBT ban could’ve gone wrong—that barnacles competed with oysters for food. It certainly doesn’t explain why the TBT ban was ineffective.
C
TBT also killed imported varieties of oysters that flourish at the expense of native oysters now that the waters are warmer.
TBT eliminated competition that harmed the native oysters. The competition intensified after the TBT ban, hence why the native oyster population hasn’t rebounded.
D
Other chemicals that are used to remove barnacles from the hulls of boats seem to have little effect on the oyster populations.
Like (B), this removes some possible downside of the TBT ban—that the chemicals that replaced TBT were also harmful to the oysters. We need to know why the oyster population didn’t grow after the TBT ban.
E
TBT is more deadly to oysters in colder waters than in warmer waters.
TBT was banned, so it can’t factor into an explanation for why the oyster population hasn’t rebounded.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that appearance alone does not entirely determine whether or not something is considered a work of art. This is supported by the example of Warhol’s Brillo Boxes. This artwork is visually indistinguishable from product packaging, but Brillo Boxes is considered a work of art, while the product packaging would not be considered a work of art.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author supports a conclusion using an example.
A
highlighting the differences between things that are believed to have a certain property and things that actually have that property
The author doesn’t present something that’s believed to be art vs. something that’s actually art. Brillo Boxes are considered art. Product packaging isn’t considered art. Neither actually “is” art — we’re told what people consider or don’t consider to be art.
B
demonstrating that an opposing argument relies on an ambiguity
There is no opposing argument. An argument requires a premise and a conclusion. Although the author counters the view that appearance alone determines whether something’s considered art, that view isn’t an argument.
C
suggesting that two things that are indistinguishable from each other must be the same type of thing
The author doesn’t say that Brillo Boxes and the product packaging are the same type of thing. They are visually indistinguishable, but that doesn’t mean they’re both art or that they’re both not art. The point is whether something’s considered art involves more than appearance.
D
questioning the assumptions underlying a particular theory
If you consider “appearance alone determines whether something’s considered art” to be a theory, (D) is wrong because the author doesn’t question the assumptions underlying this. The author simply shows that it is false by pointing to a counterexample.
E
showing that something that would be impossible if a particular thesis were correct is actually true
Something that would be impossible (only Brillo Boxes is considered art even though identical packaging looks the same) if a particular thesis were correct (appearance alone determines whether something’s considered art) is actually true (only Brillo Boxes is considered art).
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if enough food is to be produced, the practice or organic farming cannot spread any further. This is based on the fact that if all farmers were to practice organic farming, they wouldn’t be able to produce enough food for Earth’s population.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The premise establishes that to make enough food, we can’t have “all farmers” doing organic farming. But the author mistakenly interprets that to mean we can’t have any increase in organic farming. The author overlooks the possibility that having an increase in organic farming can still allow us to feed Earth’s population, as long as that increase doesn’t extend to “all farmers.”
A
It takes for granted that farming with artificial fertilizers is only slightly more damaging to the environment than organic farming is.
The author acknowledges that artificial fertilizer-based farming is “more damaging” than organic farming. There’s no indication the author thinks this damage is only slight as opposed to significant.
B
It overlooks the possibility that even if the practice of organic farming continues to spread, many farmers will choose not to adopt it.
This possibility, if true, shows that it’s possible organic farming can spread without it extending to “all farmers.” And if it doesn’t extend to “all farmers,” then we have no reason to think we’d be in a position where it’s impossible to feed the world.
C
It fails to consider the possibility that, at some points in human history, enough food was produced to feed Earth’s population without the use of artificial fertilizers.
The premise establishes that in order to feed the world, we can’t have “all farmers” doing organic farming. What farming was like in the past and how much food such farming allowed has no bearing on what the premise says is currently required.
D
It overlooks the possibility that a consequence that would surely follow if all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming would still ensue even if not all of them did.
This isn’t a possibility overlooked by the author; it’s closer to something the author assumes. The author thinks that we’ll face inability to feed people if organic farming spreads even a little bit more. Since this possibility doesn’t hurt the argument, it’s not the flaw.
E
It takes for granted that damage to the environment due to the continued use of artificial fertilizers would not be detrimental to human health.
The author’s argument doesn’t assume anything about damage to human health. The issue is whether a further spread of organic farming would lead to inability to produce enough food. How fertilizers affect health doesn’t bear on this issue.