Scientist: Venus contains a hot molten core, like that of Earth. Also like Earth, Venus must expel the excess heat the core generates. On Earth, this occurs entirely through active volcanos and fissures created when tectonic plates separate. Yet Venus has neither active volcanos nor fissures caused by the movement of tectonic plates.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

How does Venus expel the excess heat that its core generates, even though it doesn’t expel that heat through active volcanos or fissures caused by the movement of tectonic plates?

Objective

The correct answer should provide a way for Venus to expel excess heat from its core through means besides active volcanos or fissures caused by the movement of tectonic plates.

A
Rock on the surface of Venus remains solid at much higher temperatures than does rock on Earth.

The temperature at which Venus’s rocks remain solid doesn’t have a clear relationship to the ability to expel excess heat from the core.

B
The surface of Venus is relatively thin, allowing internally produced heat to radiate into space.

This describes a way Venus might expel excess heat. The heat might be expelled through the thin surface into space.

C
The interior of Venus undergoes greater fluctuations in temperature than does that of Earth.

Varying temperatures doesn’t change the fact that Venus still needs to expel excess heat. This doesn’t provide a theory about how Venus expels such heat.

D
Though Venus lacks active volcanoes and heat-diffusing fissures, it has surface movement somewhat like that of Earth.

Having surface movement doesn’t clearly relate to expelling excess heat. Does surface movement by itself help expel heat? We don’t know.

E
The atmosphere of Venus is significantly hotter than that of Earth.

The temperature of the outside atmosphere doesn’t suggest a method that allows Venus to expel heat from its core. The outside air might be hotter, but how did it become hotter? From the core’s heat? How did that heat get expelled? We don’t know.


4 comments

Columnist: The managers of some companies routinely donate a certain percentage of their companies’ profits each year to charity. Although this practice may seem totally justified and even admirable, it is not. After all, corporate profits are not the property of the managers, but of the companies’ owners. The legendary Robin Hood may have stolen from the rich to give to the poor, but he was nevertheless stealing.

Summarize Argument

The columnist concludes that company managers’ decision to donate company profits to charity is not justified or admirable. She supports this by drawing an analogy between the managers and Robin Hood. Just as Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, the managers, who are not the owners of company profits, are stealing from company owners to give to charity.

Notable Assumptions

For her analogy to support her conclusion, the columnist must assume that company managers donating profits to charities are similar in all relevant ways to Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor. In other words, she must believe there are no relevant differences or dissimilarities between the two scenarios.

A
The profits that a company makes in a given year are, in part, returned to the owners of the company.

The fact that part of the profits are returned to company owners doesn’t weaken the conclusion that donating some of the profits to charity is not justified. (A) also doesn’t provide a relevant difference between the managers’ donations and Robin Hood’s stealing.

B
Managers who routinely donate a certain percentage of corporate profits to charity do so with the owners’ tacit consent.

This points out a relevant difference between managers’ donations and Robin Hood’s theft. To draw an analogy between the two, the columnist must assume the owners don’t consent to the donations, just as the rich don’t consent to Robin Hood’s theft. (B) attacks that assumption.

C
Company managers often donate part of their own income to charities or other philanthropic organizations.

The author assumes that managers are stealing when they donate company profits that they don’t own. Whether managers also donate from their own income is irrelevant, since it wouldn’t amount to stealing and doesn’t highlight a relevant difference between managers and Robin Hood.

D
Any charity that accepts corporate donations needs to be able to account for how that money is spent.

The argument is about what company managers do in regard to charitable donations, rather than about what the charities themselves should or shouldn’t do. Thus, (D) doesn’t weaken the columnist’s conclusion or provide a relevant difference between the managers and Robin Hood.

E
Charities often solicit contributions from companies as well as private individuals.

Like (D), this misses the point of the columnist’s argument and fails to provide a relevant difference between managers and Robin Hood. The actions of charities are irrelevant to the conclusion that company managers’ donations amount to stealing.


2 comments

A film makes a profit if the number of people who see it is sufficient to generate revenues from ticket sales greater than the amount spent to make it. Hence, the primary goal of movie executives is to maximize the number of people who see a film. However, it is not the primary goal of television executives to maximize the number of viewers for their shows.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why is maximizing the number of viewers for a TV show not the primary goal for TV executives, even though maximizing viewers is the primary goal for movie executives? Films make a profit if the number of viewers is enough to generate ticket sales greater than the amount spent to make the film. So, we might expect the same to be true for TV shows.

Objective
The correct answer should help differentiate TV shows from films in a way that would suggest maximizing viewers isn’t as important for a TV shows as it is for a film.

A
More people are willing to see a film more than once than are willing to watch a television show more than once.
The willingness of a viewer to watch the same film or the same TV show doesn’t relate to the motivation of TV executives or the connection between viewership and profits for TV shows.
B
There is no analog in television to the large profits that owners of movie theaters make by selling refreshments to their customers.
This answer concerns profits of movie theater owners. But that doesn’t explain why TV show executives don’t have maximizing viewership as the primary goal. Wouldn’t we still expect higher viewership to lead to more profits?
C
The average cost of producing an hour of film is much greater than the average cost of producing an hour of television.
So, films are more expensive to produce than TV shows per hour. Wouldn’t we still expect TV show execs to want more profits and for more viewership to serve that purpose? They might not need to make as much as films do to make a profit, but we’d still expect them to want viewers.
D
Television shows make their profits from sponsors, who are chiefly concerned with the purchasing power of the people who watch a television show.
This tells us something that differentiates TV shows from movies in a way that could affect TV executives’ goal. Since TV profits come from sponsors (rather than from ticket sales), TV executives might prioritize reaching rich viewers rather than the number of viewers.
E
Over half of the most popular television shows are shows that viewers do not have to pay to watch.
This still leaves a significant portion of TV shows that could require payment to watch. We’d still expect TV executives to want to maximize viewership of these shows. Why don’t they? This answer doesn’t provide a potential explanation.

16 comments

Scientists conjecture that certain microbes consume organic molecules in exposed shale and similar sediments. In so doing, the microbes remove oxygen from the atmosphere and generate carbon dioxide, a gas that, evidence indicates, promotes global warming. They also conjecture that these microbes reproduce more quickly at higher temperatures.

Summary
Scientists think that certain microbes consume organic molecules in exposed shale and similar sediments. As they do this, the microbes take oxygen from the atmosphere and create carbon dioxide, which promotes global warming. Scientists also think that these microbes reproduce more quickly in warmer temperatures.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
If temperatures increase, certain microbes will also increase.
If temperatures increase, more organic molecules in exposed shale and similar sediments will be consumed by these microbes.
If temperatures increase, more carbon dioxide will be produced by certain microbes.
If temperatures increase, these microbes will worsen global warming.

A
The microbes’ activity will soon diminish as the organic molecules in exposed sediments are depleted.
Unsupported. The stimulus does not tell us the quantity of the organic molecules in the exposed sediments or how “soon” they might be depleted. We thus cannot conclude how soon the microbes’ activity might diminish or if it will diminish at all.
B
Every organism that generates carbon dioxide reproduces more quickly at high temperatures.
Unsupported. The stimulus only discusses the certain microbes that consume organic molecules in exposed shale and similar sediments. The scientists believe that these microbes reproduce more quickly at higher temperatures, but they do not speak to any other organisms.
C
If global warming occurs, it will be exacerbated by the activity of the microbes.
Strongly supported. If global warming occurs (and thus temperatures increase), the microbes will reproduce more quickly, consume more exposed molecules, produce more carbon dioxide, and exacerbate global warming.
D
The microbes do not remove any element other than oxygen from the atmosphere.
Unsupported. The stimulus only mentions that the microbes remove oxygen from the atmosphere; we do not know whether or not the microbes remove other elements as well.
E
A significant portion of the carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere was produced by the microbes.
Unsupported. We know that the microbes contribute carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but we do not know how much they contribute or how that amount compares with the entire amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

8 comments

People who are allergic to cats are actually allergic to certain proteins found in the animals’ skin secretions and saliva; which particular proteins are responsible, however, varies from allergy sufferer to allergy sufferer. Since all cats shed skin and spread saliva around their environment, there is no such thing as a cat incapable of provoking allergic reactions, although it is common for a given cat to cause an allergic reaction in some—but not all—people who are allergic to cats.

Summary
People with cat allergies are allergic to certain proteins in a cat’s skin secretions and saliva. It depends on the allergy sufferer which proteins are responsible for an allergic reaction. There is no such thing as a cat incapable of provoking allergic reactions, because all cats shed skin and spread saliva around the environment. However, it is common for a single cat to cause an allergic reaction in some people and not all people allergic to cats.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Different cats have different proteins in their skin secretions and saliva.

A
Any particular individual will be allergic to some breeds of cat but not to others.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to people with cat allergies. We cannot say that all individuals have cat allergies based on the stimulus.
B
No cat is capable of causing an allergic reaction in all types of allergy sufferers.
This answer is unsupported. We only know from the stimulus that it is common for a single cat to cause allergic reactions in some people but not others. There could be a cat in existence that can cause a reaction in all cat allergy sufferers.
C
Not all cats are identical with respect to the proteins contained in their skin secretions and saliva.
This answer is strongly supported. If it’s common for some cats to cause allergic reactions in some people but not all people, then cats must differ in their allergy-causing proteins.
D
The allergic reactions of some people who are allergic to cats are more intense than the allergic reactions of other allergy sufferers.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus how intense an allergic reaction from a cat could be.
E
There is no way to predict whether a given cat will produce an allergic reaction in a particular allergy sufferer.
This answer is unsupported. If we know what proteins a particular person is allergic to and what proteins a particular cat secretes, it could be possible to predict an allergic reaction.

46 comments

Cartographer: Maps are like language: they can be manipulated in order to mislead. That most people are not generally misled by words, however, should not lead us to think that most people are not susceptible to being misled by maps. Most people are taught to be cautious interpreters of language, but education in the sophisticated use of maps is almost nonexistent.

Summarize Argument
The cartographer concludes that we shouldn’t think people aren’t misled by maps, even though they’re rarely misled by words. People are taught to be cautious about language, but there’s virtually no education about maps.

Identify Argument Part
The referenced text supports the conclusion. It’s part of a distinction that shows why conclusions about how people process language can’t be applied to how people process maps.

A
It is offered as an analogical case that helps to clarify the meaning of the argument’s conclusion.
The cartographer is arguing that a conclusion can’t be drawn from the analogy between maps and language. The referenced text doesn’t clarify the meaning of the argument’s conclusion—it helps spell out why maps and language are dissimilar cases.
B
It is a conclusion drawn from the claim that education in the sophisticated use of maps is almost nonexistent.
The referenced text isn’t a conclusion. There’s no support for the claim that people are taught to be cautious interpreters of language.
C
It is part of a distinction drawn in order to support the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text distinguishes how people are educated in language from how people are educated in maps. In turn, this distinction supports the conclusion that we shouldn’t assume people won’t be misled by maps simply because they’re not misled by language.
D
It is offered as support for the contention that maps have certain relevant similarities to language.
We don’t have relevant similarities here. Instead, we have relevant dissimilarities in how people are educated. The referenced text helps demonstrate those.
E
It is the conclusion drawn in the argument.
There’s no support for the referenced text, so it can’t be a conclusion. Instead, it’s support for the linguist’s main conclusion—we shouldn’t believe most people aren’t susceptible to being misled by maps.

12 comments