Summary
People should avoid taking calcium carbonate in doses larger than half a gram. Why? Because, despite its ability to neutralize stomach acids, it can increase the calcium level in the blood and therefore impair kidney function. Just half a gram of calcium carbonate could stimulate the production of gastrin, which causes acid secretion.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Half a gram of calcium carbonate could cause both acid neutralization and acid secretion.
A
Cessation of gastrin production is a more effective method of controlling excess stomach acid than is direct neutralization of stomach acid.
We don’t know whether stopping gastrin production is a more effective way to control excess stomach acid. We only know that gastrin is a cause of acid secretion.
B
People who avoid taking more than half a gram of calcium carbonate are less likely than average to suffer from impaired kidney function.
We don’t know the average likelihood of suffering from impaired kidney function.
C
Doses of calcium carbonate smaller than half a gram can reduce stomach acid more effectively than much larger doses do.
We don’t know whether smaller does of calcium carbonate are more effective than larger doses for reducing stomach acid.
D
Half a gram of calcium carbonate can causally contribute to both the secretion and the neutralization of stomach acids.
We know that calcium carbonate has the capacity to neutralize stomach acid, but we also know that half a gram of calcium carbonate has the potential to cause acid secretion through the production of gastrin.
E
Impaired kidney function may increase the level of calcium in the blood.
We don’t know whether impaired kidney function increases the level of calcium in the blood. Rather, we know that increased levels of calcium in the blood could cause impaired kidney function.
Summarize Argument
The author claims that any differences in the lens resolutions of modern cameras are “irrelevant” for practical purposes. This is supported by the statement that all modern lenses have a high enough resolution that photographic film cannot capture all the detail projected by the lens. This means that a higher-resolution lens will not lead to more detailed images on the film.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s belief that differences in the lens resolution of modern cameras are “irrelevant for practical photography.”
A
Camera manufacturers ought to concentrate on building other desirable qualities into their cameras’ lenses, rather than concentrating only on the lenses’ resolution.
The argument does not include any recommendations or statements about what anyone “ought” to do.
B
Apart from differences in resolution, there is no practical difference among modern cameras in the quality of the images that they produce.
The author never says this. The argument focuses only on lens resolution, and doesn’t offer any information about the other differences that might exist between cameras.
C
Advertised differences among cameras in the resolution of their lenses have no practical bearing on the cameras’ relative quality as photographic tools.
This accurately describes the argument’s conclusion. The author’s claim about the effects of lens resolution on the images captured on film supports the statement that lens resolution, which advertisers focus on, makes no practical difference.
D
In concentrating their advertising on the issue of image quality, manufacturers are making a mistake about the interests of potential purchasers of cameras.
The argument does not make any value judgments or claim that advertisers are mistaken in any way. It also doesn’t contain any information about consumers’ interests.
E
Differences among photographic films in the amount of detail they reproduce have a more significant effect on the quality of the developed image than do differences in the resolution of camera lenses.
The author never tells us anything about photographic film, other than its relationship with lens resolution. We don’t know anything about how film impacts image quality, and certainly can’t say if it’s more or less important than the lens.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that some people have unusual distinctions between their five senses. Why? Because some people reacting to a stimulus in one sense claim to have an experience in a different sense, contrary to the way senses are traditionally understood.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the people studied are telling the truth about their sense experiences and have the capability to accurately represent them. He further assumes their sense experiences are unusual in the sense that most people are not synesthesiacs.
A
Synesthesiacs demonstrate a general, systematic impairment in their ability to use and understand words.
This suggests some people studied failed to report their experiences accurately. If synesthesiacs struggle to use words, they may have normal sense experiences but simply describe them in an unusual way.
B
Recent evidence strongly suggests that there are other senses besides sight, touch, smell, hearing, and taste.
The author does not assume there are only five senses. The existence of other senses does not explain why some people apparently confound stimuli between the five traditional senses.
C
The particular ways in which sensory experiences overlap in synesthesiacs follow a definite pattern.
This is not grounds for denying that those experiences are unusual. The group of all synesthesiacs can have sense experiences that are internally consistent but still very different from those of the general population.
D
The synesthetic phenomenon has been described in the legends of various cultures.
This does not imply that synesthesiacs are misrepresenting their experiences or that their experiences are typical. It’s possible synesthetic experiences are unusual in those cultures as well.
E
Synesthesiacs can be temporarily rid of their synesthetic experiences by the use of drugs.
This suggests a remedy for those experiences—it doesn’t imply they don’t exist. Synesthetic experiences are not made typical simply because using drugs can make them go away temporarily.
Pilot: You neglect to mention that 17 of those 20 collisions occurred within the past 2 years, and that the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. As the number of collisions between birds and airplanes increases, so does the likelihood that at least one such collision will result in passenger injuries.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to the conservationist’s claim that the wildlife refuge poses no safety risk, the pilot counters by pointing out 17 of the 20 collisions that occurred in the 10 years since the refuge was established happened within the last 2 years. Moreover, the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. The more collisions between birds and airplanes, the greater likelihood at least one collision will result in passenger injuries.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The pilot counters the position held by the conservationist. She does this by showing that the conservationist’s statements about the number of collisions between birds and planes is misleading. 20 total collisions spread out over 10 years implies a lower risk compared to 17 collisions in only 2 years. Therefore, it can’t be true that the refuge poses absolutely no safety risk.
A
attempting to show that the conservationist’s description of the facts is misleading
The pilot shows the conservationist’s description is misleading by pointing out the distribution of collisions over the 10 year period. 20 collisions spread out over 10 years illustrates a different picture compared to 17 collisions in just 2 years.
B
questioning the conservationist’s motives for reaching a certain conclusion
The pilot does not address the conservationist’s motives. The pilot addresses the conservationist’s argument directly.
C
asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time
The pilot does not state a general principle about dangerous situations becoming more dangerous over time. The pilot addresses only one specific dangerous situation: the collisions between planes and birds from the wildlife refuge.
D
discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist’s argument is based
The conservationist does not state a moral principle as the basis of his argument.
E
disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist
The pilot does not deny the accuracy of the conservationist’s evidence. Rather, the pilot shows that the evidence as described by the conservationist is misleading.