Summary
The stimulus discusses the scientific process of testing hypotheses against observations and emphasizes that scientists can receive the most recognition from disproving widely accepted ideas. It mentions that it is unsurprising some scientists are skeptical of global warming predictions because challenging conventional wisdom can lead to recognition. However, it is remarkable that, despite many researchers working in climatology, very few find evidence against global warming.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
There is a major incentive to disprove global warming, but scientists have not found the evidence to credibly do so yet.
A
Most scientists who are reluctant to accept the global warming hypothesis are not acting in accordance with the accepted standards of scientific debate.
There is nothing in the stimulus about the “accepted standards of scientific debate.” It is also a very large assumption to speak on the actions of what “most scientists” in a certain subset believe.
B
Most researchers in climatology have substantial motive to find evidence that would discredit the global warming hypothesis.
The stimulus says that “nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom.” The presence of global warming is conventional wisdom in the scientific community, so it is not unreasonable to assume that there is a substantial motive to disprove it.
C
There is evidence that conclusively shows that the global warming hypothesis is true.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that very few scientists have found evidence to show that global warming is unlikely. Nothing says that it is “conclusively true.” Don’t let this answer choice tap into your assumptions!
D
Scientists who are skeptical about global warming have not offered any alternative hypotheses to explain climatological data.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus does not give concrete information on whether scientists have given *any* hypothesis to challenge global warming. The stimulus only says that few have found evidence that it is unlikely.
E
Research in global warming is primarily driven by a desire for recognition in the scientific community.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus implies that it is a factor, but not that it is the *primary* factor.
Summary
Advocates for electric cars claim that such cars will result in a decrease of environmental degradation caused by auto emissions. But the electricity to charge the batteries for such cars will come from nuclear or coal-fired power plants unless we dam more rivers. Each of these three power sources produce significant environmental damage.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Thus, the electric car will have worse environmental effects than the advocates for such cars claim.
A
will have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe
This answer is strongly supported. If any method of charging batteries for electric cars produce significant environmental damage, then the use of such cars will not result in a decrease of environmental degradation.
B
will probably remain less popular than other types of cars
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about the popularity of electric cars from the stimulus. Advocates only hypothesize that such cars would become more widely used.
C
requires that purely technical problems be solved before it can succeed
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus if the source of energy for charging electric car batteries is a purely technical problem.
D
will increase the total level of emissions rather than reduce it
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the total level of emissions will in fact increase. Rather, the author is suggesting that the decrease may not be as significant as what the advocates for electric cars claim.
E
will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus if there will not be a net decrease in environmental degradation. Rather, the author is suggesting that the decrease may not be as significant as what the advocates for electric cars claim.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that video game sales will soon decrease. This is because most video games are sold to people from 13 to 16 years old—an age group set to steadily decline over the next decade.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that people currently aged 13 to 16 won’t continue to buy video games at a substantial level once they leave that age group. The author also assumes that other age groups are unlikely to become more interested in video games. Finally, the author assumes that since most video games are sold to a certain age group, that age group is more interested in video games than other age groups.
A
Most people 17 years old or older have never purchased a video game.
This suggests that video game sales will indeed decrease. We’re looking for the opposite.
B
Video game rentals have declined over the past 3 years.
We don’t care about rentals. We care about sales.
C
New technology will undoubtedly make entirely new entertainment options available over the next 10 years.
The author doesn’t claim video games are popular for lack of other options. We have no idea what effect other options would have.
D
The number of different types of video games available is unlikely to decrease in the near future.
This tells us that nothing else besides demographics is changing. We need to know why that demographic argument (i.e. decline in people ages 13-16) doesn’t entail lower video game sales.
E
Most of the people who have purchased video games over the past 3 years are over the age of 16.
While most video games are sold to people ages 13-16, most people who purchase video games are over the age of 16. This suggests that people continue purchasing video games as they become adults, which may mitigate the demographic argument the author makes.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that scientific experiments should use double-blind techniques. To support this recommendation, the author says that double-blind techniques help prevent misinterpretations that can come from pre-existing expectations or opinions. Further, the author says that scientists should try to avoid misinterpretations. So since double-blind techniques help avoid misinterpretations, scientists should use these techniques.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion of the argument is that scientific experiments should use double-blind techniques: “Double-blind techniques should be used whenever possible in scientific experiments.”
A
Scientists’ objectivity may be impeded by interpreting experimental evidence on the basis of expectations and opinions that they already hold.
This information is offered as a premise. This information supports the recommendation to use double-blind techniques, because those techniques prevent the mis-interpretations that can come from pre-existing expectations and opinions.
B
It is advisable for scientists to use double-blind techniques in as high a proportion of their experiments as they can.
This is the conclusion. The author is recommending the use of double-blind techniques; the rest of the argument serves as support for this idea. This is a paraphrase of the first sentence of the argument, which is the conclusion.
C
Scientists sometimes neglect to adequately consider the risk of misinterpreting evidence on the basis of prior expectations and opinions.
The information in this answer could be understood as a reason that double-blind studies are beneficial, but the idea of scientists neglecting to consider the risk of misinterpretations is not explicitly mentioned in the argument. This is not the conclusion.
D
Whenever possible, scientists should refrain from interpreting evidence on the basis of previously formed expectations and convictions.
This is not a paraphrase of the first line of the argument, so it is not the main conclusion. Further, this idea is offered as support for the main conclusion, so it is a premise
E
Double-blind experimental techniques are often an effective way of ensuring scientific objectivity.
This information is a premise that supports the conclusion. This information is offered as a reason that double-blind techniques should be used: Because these techniques are effective in ensuring objectivity, we should use them.