Rose: Let’s not see the movie Winter Fields. I caught a review of it in the local paper and it was the worst review I’ve read in years.
Chester: I don’t understand why that might make you not want to see the movie. And besides, nothing in that paper is particularly well written.
Summary
Rose: The local paper had one of the worst reviews of Winter Fields I’ve ever read. Therefore, we should not see that movie.
Chester: Nothing in that paper is well written. I don’t understand why that would make you not want to see the movie.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Chester thought Rose was referring to the review itself being poorly written, whereas Rose meant that the review gave the movie a bad rating.
A
see the movie
This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand what Rose meant by “let’s not see the movie.”
B
caught a review
This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand what Rose meant by “caught a review.” Chester understands that Rose read a particular review.
C
local paper
This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand what Rose meant by seeing a review in the local paper.
D
worst review
This answer is strongly supported. Chester thought Rose was referring to the review itself being poorly written, whereas Rose meant that the review gave the movie a bad rating.
E
in years
This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand that the review Rose read was the worst she had read in years.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Chu will probably defeat Lewis in the mayoral race. This is based on the fact that prodevelopment candidates have won the last six mayoral elections, and Chu, unlike Lewis, is a prodevelopment candidate.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the reasons that led to prodevelopment candidates winning in the past continue to apply to the race between Chu and Lewis. The author assumes that people won’t choose to support anti-development candidates in the upcoming election.
A
Lewis has extensive experience in national politics, but not in city politics.
This is a negative aspect of Lewis. This doesn’t help suggest that he will probably win over Chu.
B
Prodevelopment mayoral candidates in Bensburg generally attract more financial backing for their campaigns.
This might help explain why prodevelopment candidates have won. But this doesn’t suggest that the same reason won’t apply to this race.
C
Bensburg is facing serious new problems that most voters attribute to overdevelopment.
This suggests that voters might not be as attracted to prodevelopment candidates during this election as they had been during past election.
D
Lewis once worked as an aide to a prodevelopment mayor of Bensburg.
The premises tell us that Lewis favors placing limits on development. His past experience doesn’t change the fact that he is not a prodevelopment candidate.
E
Chu was not thought of as a prodevelopment politician before this election.
Regardless of what people knew of him before, the premises tell us that Chu is a prodevelopment candidate. (E) isn’t suggesting that voters don’t know Chu is prodevelopment.
Summarize Argument
Mesmosis videos issue an initial command to a subject’s subconscious to experience each subsequent instruction as if it had been repeated 1,000 times. Based on this, as well as the fact that directions to a subconscious must be repeated many times in order to be effective, the author concludes that subsequent instructions from the Mesmosis videos will be experienced as if they had been repeated 1,000 times.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the fact that directions to a subconscious must be repeated many times to be effective. We were not told that the initial instruction to experience subsequent instructions would be repeated many times. So there’s no basis to think that the initial instructions will be effective. That means there’s no basis to think that subsequent instructions will be perceived as if they had been repeated 1,000 times.
A
overlooks a requirement that it states for the effectiveness of directions to the subconscious
The overlooks the requirement that instructions must be repeated many times in order to be effective. If we don’t know the initial instruction is repeated many times, the author’s conclusion doesn’t follow.
B
takes for granted that the effectiveness of a direction to the subconscious is always directly proportional to the number of times the direction is repeated
The author never suggests a proportional relationship between repetition and effectiveness. Repetition is required in order for directions to be a effective, but that doesn’t mean the greater the repetition, the greater the effectiveness.
C
concludes that hypnosis is the most effective technique for altering behavior without considering evidence supporting other techniques
The author does not assume that hypnosis is the most effective technique for altering behavior. He asserts that hypnosis videos can work to change behavior, but never suggests that they are the most effective.
D
draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion
(D) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion asserts that subsequent instructions on Mesmosis videos are extremely effective. This does not restate any supporting claim. There’s no other claim asserting that subsequent instructions are extremely effective.
E
concludes that hypnosis videos will be effective simply because they have never been proven to be ineffective
The argument doesn’t rely on a claim that hypnosis videos have never been proven to be ineffective. The support for the conclusion concerns a description of the initial instruction and what is required for directions to a subconscious to be effective.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
There are higher default rates among mortgage borrowers with the highest credit scores than there are among other mortgage borrowers, even though higher credit scores typically correspond to lower risks of loan default.
Objective
The right answer will explain a key difference between mortgage borrowers with the highest credit scores and other borrowers. That difference must shed light on some factor that explains why the former group tend to have a harder time repaying their loans.
A
Mortgage lenders are much less likely to consider risk factors other than credit score when evaluating borrowers with the highest credit scores.
This is what we’re looking for! Mortgage lenders are much less likely to take the time to comprehensively evaluate borrowers with the highest credit scores, so they end up loaning to riskier people whose red flags would have disqualified them if the lender had looked closer.
B
Credit scores reported to mortgage lenders are based on collections of data that sometimes include errors or omit relevant information.
This doesn’t describe any difference between the highest-credit-score borrowers and the others. Because these inaccuracies presumably occur across the board, “B” doesn’t explain why a correlation that holds for most borrowers falls apart for those with the highest credit scores.
C
A potential borrower’s credit score is based in part on the potential borrower’s past history in paying off debts in full and on time.
Of course this is true! These factors play a huge role in a person’s credit score. But that’s true for every person at every credit score level, so nothing here explains why a correlation that holds for most borrowers falls apart for those with the highest credit scores.
D
For most consumers, a mortgage is a much larger loan than any other loan the consumer obtains.
Of course this is true! Houses are expensive. But this doesn’t point to a difference between highest-credit-score consumers and others, so nothing here explains why a correlation that holds for most borrowers falls apart for those with the highest credit scores.
E
Most potential borrowers have credit scores that are neither very low nor very high.
This seems quite plausible, but it doesn’t help us understand what’s happening for mortgage borrowers with the highest credit scores that’s different from what’s happening for other borrowers.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
The standards committee and the awards committee cannot both have a quorum.
A
If the general assembly does not begin at 6:00 P.M. today, then the awards committee has a quorum.
This could be false. If the general assembly does not begin at 6:00 PM, we know that the standards committee doesn’t have a quorum, but it could be the case that the awards committee doesn’t have a quorum either.
B
If the standards committee does not have a quorum, then the awards committee has a quorum.
This could be false. It is possible for neither committee to have a quorum.
C
If the general assembly begins at 6:00 P.M. today, then the standards committee has a quorum.
This could be false. We know that if the standards committee has a quorum, then the general assembly will begin at 6:00 PM. (C) reverses the sufficient and necessary conditions.
D
If the general assembly does not begin at 7:00 P.M. today, then the standards committee has a quorum.
This could be false. If the general assembly does not begin at 7:00 PM, we know that the awards committee doesn’t have a quorum, but it could be the case that the standards committee doesn’t have a quorum either.
E
If the standards committee has a quorum, then the awards committee does not have a quorum.
This must be true. As shown below, by chaining the conditional claims, we see that if the standards committee has a quorum, then the awards committee does not have a quorum.
