Summarize Argument
The essayist concludes that Earth is a living organism. As support for this conclusion, the essayist says that it can be said that Earth has a metabolism and can regulate its temperature and humidity. The essayist then anticipates and rejects a counter argument: the essayist concedes that Earth does not breathe, but to show that breathing is not necessary for being considered an organism, cites the example of insects, which are organisms that do not breathe.
Identify Argument Part
The assertion in the question stem is used to reject the counter-argument that the essayist anticipates. The assertion in the question stem demonstrates why it is not relevant to the essayist’s conclusion that the Earth does not literally breathe.
A
a reason for not rejecting Earth’s status as an organism on the basis of its not breathing
The assertion in the question stem demonstrates why it is not a problem for the essayist’s conclusion that Earth does not literally breathe.
B
a reason for rejecting as false the belief that Earth is a living organism
The assertion in the question stem actually provides support for the belief that Earth is a living organism; the assertion in the question stem allows the essayist to reject an anticipated counter-argument.
C
an illustration of the general claim that to be an organism, a creature must have a metabolism
The claim about insects is used to demonstrate that not all organisms breathe; the assertion in the question stem is not provided in relation to the claim that all organisms have a metabolism.
D
an example of a type of organism whose status, like Earth’s, is unclear
Insects are given as an example of a living thing that is clearly an organism, not an organism whose status is unclear.
E
an illustration of a type of organism out of which Earth is composed
The assertion in the question stem is used to show that not all living things must be able to breathe; it is not given as an example of the kinds of organisms that make up Earth.
Summary
A study concludes that the average temperature on Earth has permanently increased. Why? Because for the last five years, the average temperature has been higher than any previous average on record. However, sometimes random fluctuations in temperature can cause periods of up to ten years to have record high average temperatures.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The last five years of record high temperatures do not necessarily indicate that the average temperature on Earth has permanently increased.
A
All large increases in average temperature on record have occurred in ten-year periods.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know for a fact if all large increases have occurred in ten-year periods. The use of “all” is too strong here.
B
Five successive years of increasing annual average temperature does not always signify a permanent increase in temperature.
This answer is strongly supported. If there have sometimes been periods of up to ten years of record high temperatures due to random fluctuations, then five years of record high temperatures doesn’t necessarily mean that the average temperature has permanently increased.
C
Record high temperatures can be expected on Earth for another five years.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus if temperatures will continue to increase. We only know that temperatures have increased over the last five years. We can’t assume that what’s true of the past will also be true of the present.
D
Random fluctuations in Earth’s average temperature typically last less than ten years.
This answer is anti-supported. We are told from the stimulus that random fluctuations in temperature are always occurring. It is possible that this could cause an average temperature to increase for longer than ten years.
E
The average temperature on Earth never increases except in cases of random temperature fluctuation.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if random temperature fluctuations are the only cause of increases in average temperatures. There could be other things in existence that cause the average temperature to increase.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that therapists who treat violent criminals can’t simultaneously honor their client’s right to confidentiality and be concerned about the criminals’ future victims. As support, the author claims that reporting unreported crimes violates the client’s right to confidentiality and breaks their trust, but not reporting these crimes keeps criminals out of prison and able to commit more crimes.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that concern for the client’s rights to confidentiality and concern for the welfare of future crime victims are mutually exclusive. It could be possible that there is a way to both respect client’s right to privacy while also protecting future victims.
A
Most therapists who treat violent criminals are assigned this task by a judicial body.
If (A) is true, the apparent contradiction between right to privacy and protection of victims still exists; (A) does not add information that allows right to privacy to coexist with protection of victims. Further, the argument discusses criminals who are currently out of prison.
B
Criminals are no more likely to receive therapy in prison than they are out of prison.
The argument is concerned with criminals who were out of prison. This comparison with a different group (criminals in prison) is irrelevant to the argument.
C
Victims of future violent crimes also have a right to confidentiality should they need therapy.
The argument is concerned with whether criminals’ rights to confidentiality puts potential future crime victims at risk; future victims’ confidentiality rights wouldn’t come with that same risk, so (C) is irrelevant.
D
The right of victims of violent crimes to compensation is as important as the right of criminals in therapy to confidentiality.
The idea of compensation is irrelevant to the argument; the argument discusses the relationship between confidentiality and safety.
E
A therapist who has gained a violent criminal’s trust can persuade that criminal not to commit repeat offenses.
(E) is correct because it shows how confidentiality for criminals can coexist with safety for potential future victims. Therapists can be concerned with both their clients’ rights to confidentiality and the welfare of future victims.
Summarize Argument
The criminologist concludes that increasing the prison term for robbery won’t discourage people from committing robbery. No support is provided for this claim.
Notable Assumptions
The criminologist assumes that potential robbers are not deterred by stiffer prison terms.
A
Many people who rob are motivated primarily by thrill-seeking and risk-taking.
Stiffer prison terms increase the risk of committing a robbery. This actually leads people to commit more robberies, since robbers are motivated by taking risks.
B
An increase in the prison term for embezzlement did not change the rate at which that crime was committed.
There was no decrease in the embezzlement rate when stiffer penalties were added for embezzlement. If robbery is similar to embezzlement from a criminological standpoint, then robbery rates likely won’t decline when stiffer penalties are added for robbery.
C
Prison terms for robbery have generally decreased in length recently.
We have no idea how decreasing sentences have affected robbery rates. This does nothing for the criminologist’s argument.
D
Most people committing robbery believe that they will not get caught.
Robbers don’t worry about robbery sentences since they don’t think they’ll get caught in the first place. Thus, the prospect of a 5-year sentence has the same effect on them as a 7-year sentence.
E
Most people committing robbery have no idea what the average sentence for robbery is.
Robbers aren’t aware of average sentences. They can’t be deterred by something they don’t know.