Summarize Argument
The economist concludes that some attempts to increase productivity are not beneficial to the business as a whole. As support for this, the economist says that attempts to increase productivity often result in a decrease in the number of employees. This is harmful both for the employees who lose their jobs, and also for the employees who stick around, because they lose their sense of security in their jobs.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that efforts to increase productivity are not always beneficial for the overall company: “Not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole.”
A
If an action taken to secure the survival of a business fails to enhance the welfare of the business’s employees, that action cannot be good for the business as a whole.
The argument simply concludes that not all efforts to increase productivity have an overall beneficial effect; this conditional relationship in answer choice A is not the main conclusion.
B
Some measures taken by a business to increase productivity fail to be beneficial to the business as a whole.
This is the main conclusion. This is an excellent paraphrase of the sentence identified as the conclusion in the argument. The sentence following this idea in the argument is a premise that provides support for this idea.
C
Only if the employees of a business are also its owners will the interests of the employees and owners coincide, enabling measures that will be beneficial to the business as a whole.
This answer says that the employees also being the owners of a business is a necessary condition for aligning the interests of owners and employees; this conditional relationship is not mentioned or supported in the argument, so this is not the main conclusion.
D
There is no business that does not make efforts to increase its productivity.
This is information given as context for the argument: business→ efforts to increase productivity
/efforts to increase productivity→/business
/efforts to increase productivity→/business
E
Decreasing the number of employees in a business undermines the sense of security of retained employees.
This information is offered as support for the main conclusion, so this is a premise of the argument.
Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so, since such advertisements encourage people to engage in an unhealthy practice. But cigarette advertisements should remain legal since advertisements for fatty foods are legal, even though those advertisements also encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
How can governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised be justified in these attempts, even though cigarette advertisements should remain legal?
Objective
The correct answer should show how governments might be justified in trying to stop cigarette advertisements even if these advertisements should still be legal. Perhaps there’s a method to prevent cigarette advertisements that doesn’t involve trying to ban them or make them illegal.
A
Any advertisement that encourages people to engage in an unhealthy practice should be made illegal, even though the legality of some such advertisements is currently uncontroversial.
One part of the discrepancy is the fact that the advertisements should be legal. (A) contradicts this fact by saying these advertisements shouldn’t be legal. Denying one of the facts doesn’t help resolve the discrepancy.
B
The advertisement of fattening foods, unlike that of cigarettes, should not be prevented, because fattening foods, unlike cigarettes, are not addictive.
What the government should do with fattening foods doesn’t impact what the government should do with cigarettes.
C
Most advertisements should be legal, although advertisers are always morally responsible for ensuring that their advertisements do not encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices.
But how can the government still be justified in attempting to prevent cigarette advertisements from being shown? This answer doesn’t provide a potential answer.
D
Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes by means of financial disincentives rather than by legal prohibition.
Even though cigarette advertisements should be legal, the government can be justified in preventing cigarette advertisements through financial disincentives. For example, maybe taxing the ads could get cigarette companies to refrain from showing ads.
E
Governments should place restrictions on cigarette advertisements so as to keep them from encouraging people to engage in unhealthy practices, but should not try to prevent such advertisements.
Part of the discrepancy is that the government is justified in trying to prevent cigarette advertisements. (E) contradicts this part of the discrepancy by saying the government should not try to prevent the ads. Contradicting one part of the discrepancy doesn’t help explain it.
Summary
Failure to rotate crops depletes the soil’s nutrients gradually unless other preventative measures are taken. If the soil’s nutrients are completely depleted, then additional crops can be grown only if fertilizer is applied to the soil. If vegetables are grown in soil that has had fertilizer rather than being grown in non-fertilized soil, they are more vulnerable to pests. Consequently, these vegetables must be treated with larger amounts of pesticides. The more pesticides used on vegetables, the greater the health risks to humans from eating those vegetables.
Notable Valid Inferences
The vegetables were grown in soil not completely depleted of nutrients.
A
The soil in which the vegetables were grown may have been completely depleted of nutrients because of an earlier failure to rotate crops.
Must be false. As shown in our diagram, soil that is completely depleted and growing crops requires the use of fertilizer.
B
It is not possible that the vegetables were grown in soil in which crops had been rotated.
Could be false. We have no information in the question stem that would trigger the first set of conditionals in our diagram. We are only given the condition that fertilizer has never been used, which triggers our second set of conditionals.
C
The vegetables were grown in soil that had not been completely depleted of nutrients but not necessarily soil in which crops had been rotated.
Must be true. As shown below, if fertilizer has never been used it is impossible that the soil is completely depleted of nutrients. 
D
Whatever the health risks to humans from eating the vegetables, these risks would not be attributable to the use of pesticides on them.
Could be false. We only know that the vegetables were grown in soil that has never had fertilizer applied. We do not know whether pesticides were also used.
E
The health risks to humans from eating the vegetables were no less than the health risks to humans from eating the same kinds of vegetables treated with pesticides.
Could be false. We only know that the more pesticides used on crops, the greater the health risks to humans. We do not know whether pesticides were used on the vegetables, we only know that they were grown in soil that has never had fertilizer.
Chang: I do not dispute your evidence, but I take issue with your conclusion. Many of the researchers you refer to have found evidence that a set of several genes is involved and that complex interactions among these genes produce a predisposition to manic-depression.
Summarize Argument
Wirth concludes that no one is genetically predisposed to manic-depression. He supports this by saying that all attempts to identify a “manic-depression gene” have failed, and most researchers now agree that no such gene exists.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Chang points out that Wirth’s argument is flawed because his evidence doesn’t support his conclusion. Just because there’s no “manic-depression gene” doesn’t mean that people can’t be genetically predisposed to manic-depression. Wirth assumes there’s only one possible cause of genetic predisposition, but other factors, like multiple genes interacting, could also be involved.
A
It presupposes only one possibility where more than one exists.
Wirth presupposes that there’s only one possible cause of genetic predisposition— a “manic-depression gene.” But Chang points out that other factors, like multiple genes interacting, could cause someone to be genetically predisposed to manic-depression instead.
B
It depends on separate pieces of evidence that contradict each other.
Wirth’s pieces of evidence— efforts that have failed to find a “manic-depression gene” and researchers who agree that no such gene exists— do not contradict each other. Also, Chang doesn’t criticize Wirth on this front; instead, he explicitly accepts Wirth’s evidence.
C
It relies on the opinion of experts in an area outside the experts’ field of expertise.
Presumably the researchers that Wirth cites aren’t experts in some field other than genetics. But even if they were, Chang doesn’t criticize Wirth’s evidence at all; he accepts it.
D
It disallows in principle any evidence that would disconfirm its conclusion.
Chang presents evidence that disconfirms Wirth’s conclusion, but Wirth never claims to disallow such evidence on principle. And even if he did, that doesn’t describe Chang’s criticism of Wirth’s argument.
E
It treats something that is merely unlikely as though it were impossible.
Wirth does treat the existence of a “manic-depression gene” as impossible, but so does Chang and so do the researchers. In other words, it’s not “merely unlikely” that a “manic-depression gene” exists, it actually is impossible. Also, Chang doesn’t criticize him on this front.
Arjun: I disagree! For example, unauthorized use of medical records systems in hospitals could damage data systems on which human lives depend, and therefore computer crimes also cause physical harm to people.
Speaker 1 Summary
Yolanda concludes that joyriding is more dangerous than accessing computers without authorization and manipulating the computer’s data or programs. This is because joyriding physically endangers people, whereas the computer crime only harms property.
Speaker 2 Summary
Arjun concludes that joyriding is not more dangerous than the computer crime. This is because unauthorized use of medical records systems might can causes physical harm to people by potentially damaging hospital data systems.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree on whether joyriding more dangerous than the computer crime. Yolanda thinks it is. Arjun thinks it’s not.
A
whether joyriding physically endangers human lives
Arjun doesn’t express an opinion. Arjun doesn’t say anything about joyriding or whether it endangers people physically.
B
whether the unauthorized manipulation of computer data involves damage to private property
Arjun doesn’t express an opinion or agrees. He points out that access to records systems could damage data systems. If data systems are property, then Arjun agrees that the computer crime can damage property. If data systems are not property, then he says nothing about property.
C
whether damage to physical property is more criminal than damage to intellectual property
Neither speaker has an opinion. The dispute is about which crime is more dangerous. Nobody connects the level of danger to what should be more or less criminal.
D
whether the unauthorized use of computers is as dangerous to people as is joyriding
This is a point of disagreement. Yolanda thinks the unauthorized use of computers is not as dangerous to people as is joyriding. Arjun thinks it is, because of the potential of computer access to damage hospital records, which in turn can damage people.
E
whether treating private property recklessly is ever a dangerous crime
Yolanda doesn’t express an opinion. She believes a crime that hurts only intellectual property isn’t as dangerous as joyriding. But she’s open to the computer crime being dangerous; just not as dangerous. And, she doesn’t say anything about crimes involving physical property.