Most plants have developed chemical defenses against parasites. The average plant contains about 40 natural pesticides—chemical compounds toxic to bacteria, fungi, and other parasites. Humans ingest these natural pesticides without harm every day. Therefore, the additional threat posed by synthetic pesticides sprayed on crop plants by humans is minimal.

Summarize Argument
The author argues that using synthetic pesticides on crops causes minimal harm to humans. As support, the author says that the average plant contains around 40 natural pesticides, and humans consume these natural pesticides safely.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that, because consuming natural pesticides in naturally occurring quantities is not harmful, consuming synthetic pesticides won’t be harmful. It could be that either the quantity or process of using synthetic pesticides is harmful for humans in a way that the natural pesticides are not.

A
Humans have been consuming natural plant pesticides for millennia and have had time to adapt to them.
This weakens the argument because it introduces a significant difference between natural and synthetic pesticides. Humans haven’t had millennia to adapt to synthetic pesticides, so these synthetic pesticides could be harmful even though we regularly eat natural pesticides.
B
The concentrations of natural pesticides in plants are typically much lower than the concentrations of synthetic pesticides in sprayed crop plants.
(B) weakens the argument because it introduces a difference in the way that natural and synthetic pesticides are used. It could be that pesticides become dangerous at a certain concentration, so the higher concentration of pesticides from synthetic pesticide use could cause harm.
C
Natural plant pesticides are typically less potent than synthetic pesticides, whose toxicity is highly concentrated.
(C) introduces another point of distinction between natural and synthetic pesticides––if the toxicity in synthetic pesticides is highly concentrated, then it makes sense that the synthetic pesticides could be harmful while natural pesticides aren’t harmful.
D
Natural plant pesticides generally serve only as defenses against specific parasites, whereas synthetic pesticides are often harmful to a wide variety of organisms.
This is another difference between natural and synthetic pesticides––natural pesticides are targeted against specific parasites, so they wouldn’t damage humans. If synthetic pesticides are more broadly harmful, they could be harmful to humans.
E
The synthetic pesticides sprayed on crop plants by humans usually have chemical structures similar to those of the natural pesticides produced by the plants.
The argument based on assumed similarities between natural and synthetic pesticides, so to weaken the argument, we need to demonstrate some distinction between the two types of pesticides that could mean that natural pesticides are safe, while synthetic pesticides aren’t.

8 comments

Before their larvae hatch, each parental pair of Nicrophorus beetles buries the carcass of a small vertebrate nearby. For several days after the larvae hatch, both beetles feed their voracious larvae from the carcass, which is entirely consumed within a week. Since both parents help with feeding, larvae should benefit from both parents’ presence; however, removing one parent before the hatching results in larvae that grow both larger and heavier than they otherwise would be.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why do the larva grow larger and heavier when one parent is present, even though both parents help with feeding by bringing a food source to the larva before they hatch?

Objective

The correct answer should help explain why having one parent present present is better for the larva’s growth than having two parents. Perhaps, for example, having two parents takes away from the amount of food available to the larva, or causes some kind of biological reaction in the larva that inhibits their growth. Or perhaps there’s something about having one parent present that leads larva to eat more.

A
Two beetles can find and bury a larger carcass than can a single beetle.

This makes the discrepancy harder to explain, because it’s something positive about having two parents present compared to only one.

B
Both parents use the carcass as their own food supply for as long as they stay with the larvae.

If both parents use the carcass for their own food, that leave less food available for the larva when both parents are present compared to when only one is present. That could explain why the larva grow larger with only one present.

C
Beetle parents usually take turns feeding their larvae, so that there is always one provider available and one at rest.

This doesn’t tell us why having both parents present would lead to less food for the larva. If anything, it suggests having both present would help the larva feed, which makes the discrepancy harder to explain.

D
After a week, the larvae are capable of finding other sources of food and feeding themselves.

But why would having two parents around be worse for larva growth than having only one present? This doesn’t differentiate between having both parents around compared to only one.

E
Two parents can defend the carcass from attack by other insects better than a single parent can.

This is a reason to think larva should have more food available when both parents are present than when only one is present. This makes the discrepancy harder to explain.


1 comment

For many centuries it was believed that only classical Euclidean geometry could provide a correct way of mathematically representing the universe. Nevertheless, scientists have come to believe that a representation of the universe employing non-Euclidean geometry is much more useful in developing certain areas of scientific theory. In fact, such a representation underlies the cosmological theory that is now most widely accepted by scientists as accurate.

Summary
Traditionally people believed only classical Euclidean geometry could correctly represent the universe mathematically. However, scientists now believe that non-Euclidean geometrical representations of the universe are much more useful. In fact, non-Euclidean representations underly the cosmological theory most widely accepted by scientists.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Modern scientists do not believe that classical Euclidean geometry is the only method for representing the universe mathematically.

A
Scientists who use Euclidean geometry are likely to believe that progress in mathematical theory results in progress in natural science.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus anything about the beliefs of scientists who subscribe to Euclidean theory. We only know that nowadays most scientists subscribe to a non-Euclidean theory.
B
Scientists generally do not now believe that classical Euclidean geometry is uniquely capable of giving a correct mathematical representation of the universe.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that modern scientists believe that non-Euclidean representations are more useful than classical Euclidean theory.
C
Non-Euclidean geometry is a more complete way of representing the universe than is Euclidean geometry.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus which theory more completely represents the universe. We only know that the non-Euclidean theory is more useful for developing certain areas of scientific theory.
D
An accurate scientific theory cannot be developed without the discovery of a uniquely correct way of mathematically representing the universe.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not conclude that the non-Euclidean theory is uniquely correct. We only know that most scientists have found it more useful than classical Euclidean theory.
E
The usefulness of a mathematical theory is now considered by scientists to be more important than its mathematical correctness.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what qualities scientists think are more important in any theory.

15 comments

The tidal range at a particular location is the difference in height between high tide and low tide. Tidal studies have shown that one of the greatest tidal ranges in the world is found in the Bay of Fundy and reaches more than seventeen meters. Since the only forces involved in inducing the tides are the sun’s and moon’s gravity, the magnitudes of tidal ranges also must be explained entirely by gravitational forces.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author puts forward a theory that tidal ranges — the difference between a tide’s highest and lowest points — must be explained by gravitational forces since those kinds of forces are the tides’ only cause.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument fails to consider that while an event may have just one cause, it can still be affected by other forces. There could be many factors such as geography, weather, etc. that all impact how high or low a tide rises or falls. Even though these factors don’t directly cause the tides to occur, they can certainly exert some kind of influence on their ranges.

A
It gives only one example of a tidal range.
This isn’t a flaw. The Bay of Fundy is given as one example of a tidal range, but the argument’s logic would be the same whether it gave more examples or no examples at all.
B
It fails to consider that the size of a tidal range could be affected by the conditions in which gravitational forces act.
This describes how other factors could affect tidal ranges without being the cause of the tides themselves. For example, a rainstorm might cause the water level to be higher even though rain isn’t what causes the tide itself.
C
It does not consider the possibility that low tides are measured in a different way than are high tides.
This is irrelevant. There’s no reason to think that they’d be measured differently. Even if they were, the argument’s logic would be the same.
D
It presumes, without providing warrant, that most activity within the world’s oceans is a result of an interplay of gravitational forces.
The argument simply doesn’t do this. The argument says that gravity causes tides, but never mentions any other activities in the ocean.
E
It does not differentiate between the tidal effect of the sun and the tidal effect of the moon.
This is an irrelevant distinction. The argument claims that only gravitational force affects tidal ranges. This point could still stand whether that force came from the sun or the moon.

21 comments

Cardiologist: Coronary bypass surgery is commonly performed on patients suffering from coronary artery disease when certain other therapies would be as effective. Besides being relatively inexpensive, these other therapies pose less risk to the patient since they are less intrusive. Bypass surgery is especially debatable for single-vessel disease.

Summary

Coronary bypass surgery is performed on patients with coronary artery disease when other treatments would be as effective. The other therapies are less expensive and pose less risk to the patient. These concerns are especially high for single-vessel disease.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

It is likely that therapies other than coronary bypass surgery would be as effective for conditions like single-vessel disease while posing less risk and cost to the patient.

A
Bypass surgery is riskier than all alternative therapies.

This is unsupported because the author only states that there are some therapies with less risk than coronary bypass surgery, not that all therapies are less risky. There could be other therapies with much greater risk that are not discussed.

B
Needless bypass surgery is more common today than previously.

This is unsupported because the author provides no information about the frequency of different surgeries over time.

C
Bypass surgery should be performed when more than one vessel is diseased.

This is unsupported because although the author said bypass surgery is especially debatable for single-vessel disease, the author leaves open the possibility that bypass surgery is also too risky for diseases of multiple vessels.

D
Bypass surgery is an especially expensive therapy when used to treat single-vessel disease.

This is unsupported because while we know that bypass surgery is especially debatable for single-vessel disease, we don’t know if this is due to cost or risk.

E
Sometimes there are equally effective alternatives to bypass surgery that involve less risk.

This is strongly supported because the stimulus indicates that other therapies are as effective as bypass surgeries and that these therapies involve lower risk.


1 comment