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!
Summary
When polar ice gaps grow, greater concentrations of a heavy oxygen form are left in the ocean, which gets absorbed by marine life. When polar ice caps shrink, lower concentrations of this heavy oxygen are left in the ocean. So, we can predict whether ice caps were growing or shrinking by examining the concentrations of heavy oxygen in sea life during a time period. During one 30,000 year period, concentrations of heavy oxygen increased during the first 20,000 years, then decreased in the remaining 10,000 years.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Polar ice caps were growing during the first 20,000 years of that period, then shrinking during the last 10,000 years.
A
Average global temperatures 10,000 years after the beginning of the period approximately equaled average global temperatures 20,000 years later.
Unsupported, because the stimulus doesn’t give us evidence concerning average global temperature. Even if you think ice caps are evidence of global temperature, the stimulus would suggest global temperatures shrank over the first 20,000 years, because the ice caps were growing.
B
Polar ice caps at the beginning of the period were larger than they were at the end of the period.
Unsupported, because we don’t know the rate of growth or shrinkage. Ice caps grew for 20k years, then shrank for 10k years. But they could have grown much more than they shrank. This would mean the ice caps were larger at the end of the period.
C
The beginning of the period coincided with the onset of an ice age that lasted approximately 20,000 years.
Unsupported, because we don’t have reason to think that the period began at the “onset” of an ice age. An ice age could have been in effect for much longer, and the 30k period just begins in the final 20k years of an ongoing ice age.
D
The polar ice caps grew for about 20,000 years after the period began, then began to shrink.
Strongly supported, because concentrations of heavy oxygen grew for 20k years, then decreased for 10k years. This is evidence the ice caps grew during the first 20k years, then shrank in the next 10k years.
E
An ice age was drawing to an end during the first 20,000 years of the period.
Unsupported, because an ice age might have started at the beginning of the period and ended in 20k years. There’s no evidence that the 30k period began just as an existing ice age was ending.
Summary
Primatologist Suzuki found that monkeys often roam out of their mountain habitat to feed in apple orchards. After studying this behavior for a decade, Suzuki began feeding the monkeys in the mountains with soybeans, after which the monkeys no longer ate from the orchards. When Suzuki started, 23 monkeys lived in the region, which has grown to 270 today.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Feeding monkeys in their natural habitat led them to stop leaving their habitat for other sources of food.
A
Snow monkeys do not feed outside of their mountain habitat when food is readily available within it.
This is strongly supported because although the snow monkeys left their habitat to get apples at one point, they stopped doing this when Suzuki fed them soybeans in their natural habitat.
B
For snow monkeys, soybeans provide more complete nutrition than other beans.
This is unsupported because we don’t have any way of comparing soybeans to a different type of bean.
C
In feeding soybeans to the monkeys, Suzuki did not intend to provoke the phenomenal population growth that resulted.
This is unsupported because we don’t know what Suzuki’s intentions were when beginning this experiment.
D
Snow monkeys eat apples only if there is no other fruit to eat.
This is unsupported because we don’t know whether or not the monkeys would choose an apple or another fruit if they had equal access to both.
E
Feeding soybeans to snow monkeys has proved to be an environmentally unsound policy.
This is unsupported because we don’t know if the impact on the environment was negative due to feeding the monkeys soybeans.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that nothing can have greater value than one’s own freedom
The author doesn’t presume this. She argues that one’s freedom is always worth the risk of losing one’s life, but she never says that nothing is more valuable than freedom. The author may believe that many things are more valuable than freedom.
B
fails to consider that it is not always possible to rebel physically against an encroachment on one’s freedom
The author doesn’t state or imply that she thinks it’s always possible to rebel physically against an encroachment on one’s freedom, and her stance on this issue is irrelevant to the soundness of her conclusion.
C
generalizes inappropriately from a single extreme case to a universal claim
This is the flaw that the author commits. Using a single, extreme example of someone locked in a cement room, the author then makes a universal claim that one’s freedom is always more valuable than the risk of losing one’s life. The example doesn’t necessarily justify the claim.
D
fails to establish that the freedom of others is worth taking risks for
The author’s argument isn’t concerned with the freedom of others. The author’s argument is only concerned with one’s own freedom and life.
E
overlooks the possibility that some people do not have the courage to take risks for freedom
We don’t know if the author overlooks this. However, even if she does, it has no bearing on whether her conclusion, that one’s freedom is always more valuable than the risk of losing one’s life, is valid.