Advances in photocopying technology allow criminals with no printing expertise to counterfeit paper currency. One standard anticounterfeiting technique, microprinting, prints paper currency with tiny designs that cannot be photocopied distinctly. Although counterfeits of microprinted currency can be detected easily by experts, such counterfeits often circulate widely before being detected. An alternative, though more costly, printing technique would print currency with a special ink. Currency printed with the ink would change color depending on how ordinary light strikes it, whereas photocopied counterfeits of such currency would not. Because this technique would allow anyone to detect photocopied counterfeit currency easily, it should be adopted instead of microprinting, despite the expense.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the “special ink” printing practice should be adopted to fight counterfeit, despite its expense. This is because the standard microprinting practice has serious problems, whereas the “special ink” practice would be more effective.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the practice that reduces counterfeit the most should be adopted, without consideration for the cost associated with that practice. The author also assumes that further technological advances won’t soon allow counterfeiters to evade the “special ink” practice, or even that counterfeiters don’t currently have the ability to do so.

A
The longer the interval between the time a counterfeit bill passes into circulation and the time the counterfeit is detected, the more difficult it is for law enforcement officials to apprehend the counterfeiter.
This seems to support the author’s argument. If current practices don’t identify counterfeit bills quickly enough, those bills proliferate. Hence why we need a practice that catches those bills immediately.
B
Sophisticated counterfeiters could produce currency printed with the special ink but cannot duplicate microprinted currency exactly.
Counterfeiters can perfectly replicate the “special ink” practice, which defeats the purpose of adopting it in the first place.
C
Further advances in photocopying technology will dramatically increase the level of detail that photocopies can reproduce.
If anything, this gives even more reason to switch from the microprinting practice. Photocopying technology will soon render microprinting useless as a defence against counterfeiters.
D
The largest quantities of counterfeit currency now entering circulation are produced by ordinary criminals who engage in counterfeiting only briefly.
Generally, people who create counterfeit bills aren’t committed specialists. This suggests that the “special ink” practice, given its expense, may be effective against counterfeit-makers.
E
It is very difficult to make accurate estimates of what the costs to society would be if large amounts of counterfeit currency circulated widely.
We don’t care about how counterfeit harms society. We need to weaken the idea that the “special ink” practice should be adopted as a defence against counterfeit.

48 comments

Environmental scientist: It is true that over the past ten years, there has been a sixfold increase in government funding for the preservation of wetlands, while the total area of wetlands needing such preservation has increased only twofold (although this area was already large ten years ago). Even when inflation is taken into account, the amount of funding now is at least three times what it was ten years ago. Nevertheless, the current amount of government funding for the preservation of wetlands is inadequate and should be augmented.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Funding for wetland preservation has effectively tripled, while the extent of wetlands needing preservation has only doubled. So why is funding for wetland preservation considered inadequate?

Objective

The correct answer must be a hypothesis that explains why the recent funding increases are still insufficient. It will show that, somehow, the need for preservation remains greater than what the current funding provides for.

A
The governmental agency responsible for administering wetland-preservation funds has been consistently mismanaged and run inefficiently over the past ten years.

This doesn’t explain why the need for preservation outstrips the available funding. Even if (A) is true, we know that this funding has nevertheless increased at a faster rate than the land area in need of preservation. We must explain why more money is still needed.

B
Over the past ten years, the salaries of scientists employed by the government to work on the preservation of wetlands have increased at a rate higher than the inflation rate.

The available funding has also increased at a rate much higher than inflation. For (B) to be an adequate explanation, it would need to suggest that salary growth has outstripped the funding increase and that those salaries are a significant draw on that funding.

C
Research over the past ten years has enabled scientists today to identify wetlands in need of preservation well before the areas are at serious risk of destruction.

This doesn’t explain why the available funding is insufficient. Even if wetlands are more proactively identified for preservation, the fact remains that funding has increased at a faster rate than the land area in need of preservation. Why is that funding still not enough?

D
More people today, scientists and nonscientists alike, are working to preserve all natural resources, including wetlands.

This doesn’t explain why the available funding for wetlands is insufficient. Even if (D) is true, we know that funding for wetlands has effectively tripled. The correct answer must explain why even that amount of money is not enough.

E
Unlike today, funding for the preservation of wetlands was almost nonexistent ten years ago.

If the amount of funding was very small to begin with, then even a tripling of that amount is still a small amount. Meanwhile, the total wetland area in need of preservation was large to begin with and is now twice that size. So, the amount of funding has always been too little.


62 comments

Some plants have extremely sensitive biological thermometers. For example, the leaves of rhododendrons curl when the temperature of the air around them is below 0(C (Celsius). Similarly, mature crocus blossoms open in temperatures above 2(C. So someone who simultaneously observed rhododendrons with uncurled leaves, crocuses with mature but unopened blossoms, and a thermometer showing 1(C could determine that the thermometer’s reading was accurate to within plus or minus 1(C.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that someone observing two separate plant phenomena would be able to determine that a thermometer reading is correct to within plus or minus one degree celsius.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that air temperatures are consistent in the observed area. Since crocuses open above two degrees, the temperature around the crocuses has to be below two degrees for the crocuses. But the rhododendrons would remain uncurled at any temperature above zero degrees, which means the air around them could be well above two degrees.

A
Neither rhododendrons nor crocuses bloom for more than a few weeks each year, and the blossoms of rhododendrons growing in any area do not appear until at least several weeks after crocuses growing in that area have ceased to bloom.
This is saying that our hypothetical is impossible, but that doesn’t matter. We’re concerned about weakening the argument using the hypothetical.
B
Many people find it unpleasant to be outdoors for long periods when the temperature is at or about 1(C.
Again, we’re dealing with a hypothetical. We don’t care whether the hypothetical thermometer-holder likes being out in the cold.
C
The climate and soil conditions that favor the growth of rhododendrons are also favorable to the growth of crocuses.
It doesn’t matter how these plants grew. We care about a specific instance of using the plants’ biological thermometers to test a real thermometer.
D
Air temperature surrounding rhododendrons, which can grow 12 feet tall, is likely to differ from air temperature surrounding crocuses, which are normally only a few inches high, by more than 2(C, even if the two plants are growing side by side.
Since the air temperature surrounding the two plants is likely to differ, we can’t use the plants’ reactions to the temperature to gauge if the thermometer reading is right. The plants might be reacting to different temperatures.
E
Certain types of thermometers that are commonly used to measure outdoor temperatures can be extremely accurate in moderate temperature ranges but much less accurate in warmer or colder temperature ranges.
We don’t know what a “moderate” temperature is. Zero degrees? Twenty degrees? Besides, we’re using the plants’ reactions to the temperature to gauge if the thermometer is accurate. That’s the whole point of the hypothetical.

65 comments