A
Once a developing country has at least one business in a modern industry, further investment in that industry will not contribute to the country’s economic growth.
B
In developing countries, there is greater competition within modern industries than within traditional industries.
C
A developing country can increase its prospects for economic growth by providing added incentive for investment in modern industries that have not yet been pursued there.
D
A developing country will not experience economic growth unless its businesspeople invest in modern industries.
E
Investments in a modern industry in a developing country carry little risk as long as the country has at least one other business in that industry.
A
Before any of the survey questions were asked, the respondents were informed that the survey was sponsored by a group that advocates replacing the existing concert hall.
B
Most of the people who live in the vicinity of the existing concert hall do not want it to be torn down.
C
The city’s construction industry will receive more economic benefit from the construction of a new concert hall than from renovations to the existing concert hall.
D
A well-publicized plan is being considered by the city government that would convert the existing concert hall into a public auditorium and build a new concert hall nearby.
E
Many popular singers and musicians who currently do not hold concerts in the city would begin to hold concerts there if a new concert hall were built.
Student: Before completing my research paper, I want to find the book from which I copied a passage to quote in the paper. Without the book, I will be unable to write an accurate citation, and without an accurate citation, I will be unable to include the quotation. Hence, since the completed paper will be much better with the quotation than without, _______.
Summary
I want to find the book containing a passage I quoted before completing my research paper. Including the quotation requires an accurate citation, and an accurate citation requires the book. The completed paper will be much better with the quote included than without.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
My research paper will be deficient without the book.
A
I will have to include an inaccurate citation
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if we need to include an inaccurate citation. We could, alternatively, find the book.
B
I will be unable to complete my research paper
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if we will in fact be unable to complete the research paper. We only know that the paper will be better with the citation.
C
if I do not find the book, my research paper will suffer
This answer is strongly supported. If the paper would be better with the citation from the book included, then the paper will suffer without finding the book.
D
if I do not find the book, I will include the quotation without an accurate citation
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if we will for a fact include the quotation without an accurate citation.
E
if I do not find the book, I will be unable to complete my research paper
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if we will in fact be unable to complete the research paper. We only know that the paper will be better with the citation.
If you're having trouble deciding between (A) and (E), here's a very subtle hint.
Think about the grammar.
In terms of grammar, (A) is subject dense and (E) is predicate dense. In other words, the subject of (A) is heavily modified whereas the predicate of (E) is heavily modified.
The main subject of (A) is farmers. All farmers? No. It zooms in onto a subset of all farmers called farmers in the region. All of those? No. It further zooms in onto a subset of all farmers in the region who abandon the use of chemical fertilizers. All of those? No. It further zooms into a subset of those called "most". Okay, now that we've finally got the right zoom level, those farmers, what about them? What's the predicate? Well, just that they will periodically grow alfalfa.
Contrast that with (E). The subject is "some farmers in the region". In other words, at least one farmer in the region. What about them? (What's the predicate?) It's complicated. It's a conditional predicate. We're saying for at least one farmer in the region, the follow is true: if they grow green-manure crops, then they abandon the use of chemical fertilizers. In other words - remember your lawgic / translation lessons - their growing green-manure crops depends on their abandoning their use of chemical fertilizers.
Can you negate this statement?
When I say for some people, X is true, the negation of that is for no person is X true. (Review this lesson.) And that means for all persons, X is not true. (No dogs like to eat salmon = all dogs do not like to eat salmon.) So apply that here. For no farmer in the region is growing green-manure crops dependent on their abandoning use of chemical fertilizers. That means for all farmers in the region, not[growing green-manure crops dependent on their abandoning use of chemical fertilizers]. Remember how to negation conditional statements? Negated, the statement is that growing green-manure crops can happen alongside with not abandoning (that means continuing to use) chemical fertilizers. For all farmers in the region, that's true.
A
The tomb in which the object was found did not contain any other objects that might have been weapons.
B
Communal objects were normally passed from one generation to the next in Stone Age Ireland.
C
The object was carved with an artistry that was rare in Stone Age Ireland.
D
The tomb in which the object was found was that of a politically prominent person.
E
A speaking staff with a stone head is thought to symbolize a warrior’s mace.
Why does the author think this?
Because the introduction of chemical fertilizers led farmers in the region to stop the practice of periodically growing a “green-manure” crop for rejuvenating the field. The stopping of this practice led to damage to the soil structure.
The author is assuming that we can’t use both — that in order to get farmers to grow “green-manure” crops again, we have to stop using chemical fertilizers.
A
most, if not all, farmers in the region who abandon the use of chemical fertilizers will periodically grow alfalfa
B
applying chemical fertilizers to green-manure crops, such as alfalfa, has no positive effect on their growth
C
the most important factor influencing the soil quality of a farm field is soil structure
D
chemical fertilizers themselves have a destructive effect on the soil structure of farm fields
E
many, if not all, farmers in the region will not grow green-manure crops unless they abandon the use of chemical fertilizers
If you're having trouble deciding between (A) and (E), here's a very subtle hint.
Think about the grammar.
In terms of grammar, (A) is subject dense and (E) is predicate dense. In other words, the subject of (A) is heavily modified whereas the predicate of (E) is heavily modified.
The main subject of (A) is farmers. All farmers? No. It zooms in onto a subset of all farmers called farmers in the region. All of those? No. It further zooms in onto a subset of all farmers in the region who abandon the use of chemical fertilizers. All of those? No. It further zooms into a subset of those called "most". Okay, now that we've finally got the right zoom level, those farmers, what about them? What's the predicate? Well, just that they will periodically grow alfalfa.
Contrast that with (E). The subject is "some farmers in the region". In other words, at least one farmer in the region. What about them? (What's the predicate?) It's complicated. It's a conditional predicate. We're saying for at least one farmer in the region, the follow is true: if they grow green-manure crops, then they abandon the use of chemical fertilizers. In other words - remember your lawgic / translation lessons - their growing green-manure crops depends on their abandoning their use of chemical fertilizers.
Can you negate this statement?
When I say for some people, X is true, the negation of that is for no person is X true. (Review this lesson.) And that means for all persons, X is not true. (No dogs like to eat salmon = all dogs do not like to eat salmon.) So apply that here. For no farmer in the region is growing green-manure crops dependent on their abandoning use of chemical fertilizers. That means for all farmers in the region, not[growing green-manure crops dependent on their abandoning use of chemical fertilizers]. Remember how to negation conditional statements? Negated, the statement is that growing green-manure crops can happen alongside with not abandoning (that means continuing to use) chemical fertilizers. For all farmers in the region, that's true.