Planting peach trees on their farm makes more sense for the Johnsons than planting apricot trees. Although fresh, locally grown apricots are very popular in this area, the same is true of peaches. However, individual peach trees cost much less to purchase and plant than do apricot trees, and peach trees also begin bearing fruit at a much younger age.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that the Johnsons should plant peach trees rather than apricot trees. She supports this by saying that, while both are popular, peach trees are less expensive than apricot trees and they start producing fruit at a much younger age.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that planting cheaper trees will increase the Johnsons’ profit without considering other factors, like the cost of maintenance or the price of peaches versus apricots.

She also assumes that, because peach trees produce fruit at a younger age, they will produce more fruit over time. She doesn’t consider whether peach trees stop producing fruit at a young age, or whether they simply produce far less fruit overall.

She also assumes that these are the most important factors in the Johnsons’ decision, overlooking any other factors that might make apricots a better option.

A
Fresh, locally grown apricots sell at a much higher price than do fresh, locally grown peaches.

This weakens the argument by showing that one of the author's assumptions is false. She assumes that cheaper trees will lead to more income for the farm, but (A) points out that apricots, which sell for a higher price, could actually generate more income than peaches long term.

B
Apricot trees tend to stop being productive at a younger age than do peach trees.

This strengthens the argument. If apricots stop being productive at a younger age, it might make more sense for the Johnsons to plant peaches instead.

C
It costs as much to water and fertilize peach trees as it does to water and fertilize apricot trees.

Like (B), this slightly strengthens the argument. If water and fertilizer costs are the same but peach trees are less expensive to buy and plant, it might make more sense for the Johnsons to plant peaches instead of apricots.

D
The market for fresh, locally grown apricots has grown in recent years as awareness of the health benefits of eating fresh fruit has increased.

(D) wants us to assume that the market for apricots has grown more than the market for peaches, but we don’t know this. Since “awareness of the health benefits of eating fresh fruit has increased,” it’s very possible that the market for peaches has grown just as much or more.

E
Peach production has decreased dramatically over the last several years.

This doesn’t address the author’s argument or assumptions. If peach production has decreased, should they plant peaches to fill this gap in production? Or should they avoid planting them due to other factors affecting production? We simply don’t know.


27 comments

For years, a rare variety of camel was endangered because much of its habitat was used as a weapons testing range. After the testing range closed, however, the population of these camels began falling even more quickly.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the population of camels fall more quickly after a weapons testing range in its habitat was closed, even though the presence of the range endangered the camels?

Objective
The correct answer should suggest a potential difference between conditions after the range was closed and before it was closed, and this difference would lead to a greater threat to camels after the range was closed.

A
The weapons tests had kept wildlife poachers out of the testing range.
This suggests that the threat of wildlife poaching (which would tend to kill camels) was greater after the range was closed. This increased threat could have outweighed whatever benefits the camels saw from a reduction in weapons testing at the range.
B
Weapons testing in the range did more harm to the camels in the first years of the testing than in later years.
Even if the range was less harmful later, we’d still expect the closing of the range to completely remove any harm from weapons testing. So, we still wouldn’t expect the camel population to decrease more quickly after the closing.
C
Because of unexploded bombs, the land within the testing range was still somewhat dangerous after the range closed down.
We want to explain why the camel population began to fall more quickly after closing. We’re not just trying to explain why the benefits to the camels weren’t as great as anticipated. This doesn’t tell me why things got worse for the camels after closing.
D
The camels had to overcome two different outbreaks of disease during the time the testing range was in operation.
This doesn’t suggest any difference between before and after the closing. Even if you read this as suggesting camels didn’t face as many disease outbreaks after the closing, that would make it more difficult to explain the faster drop in camel population after closing.
E
The weapons tests were most harmful to the camels in years when food was scarce.
This doesn’t suggest any difference between before and after closing. We’d still expect overall harm to camels to go down after closing.

13 comments

A person reading a new book for pleasure is like a tourist traveling to a new place. The reader reads, just as the tourist travels, to enlarge understanding rather than simply to acquire information. Thus, it is better to read fewer books and spend more time on each rather than to quickly read as many as one can, just as it is better to travel to fewer places and spend more time in each rather than to spend a small amount of time in many different places.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it’s better to read fewer books and spend more time on each, rather than reading as many as possible. As support, she draws an analogy, saying that it’s better to travel to fewer places and spend more time in each, rather than spending a little time in many places. She notes that reading, like traveling, is about deepening understanding, instead of just gaining new information.

Notable Assumptions
In order to draw an analogy between reading and traveling, the author assumes that there are no relevant differences between the two. She also assumes that spending more time in one place leads to a better understanding of that place than spending less time there does.

A
Tourists typically learn something about the places they visit even when they are there only to relax.
Irrelevant. This fails to address whether tourists deepen their understanding of a place when they spend more time there. The author focuses on how long tourists are in a place, not why they are there.
B
Tourists gain much more understanding of a place once they have spent several days at that place than they do in their first few days there.
If tourists gain more understanding of a place once they’ve spent several days there and reading is like traveling, this suggests that readers gain more understanding by spending more time reading each book.
C
Many people report that they can learn far more about a place by visiting it than they can by reading about it.
Irrelevant. This fails to address whether tourists deepen their understanding of a place when they spend more time there. The author uses reading and traveling as two different but analogous activities, both of which deepen understanding. Like (D), (C) mixes them together.
D
Tourists who have read about a place beforehand tend to stay longer in that place.
Irrelevant. This fails to address whether tourists deepen their understanding of a place when they spend more time there. The author uses reading and traveling as two different but analogous activities, both of which deepen understanding. Like (C), (D) mixes them together.
E
Some tourists are unconcerned about gaining information about a place other than what is necessary for their immediate enjoyment.
Irrelevant. This fails to address whether tourists deepen their understanding of a place when they spend more time there. Also, the author already said that people travel “to enlarge understanding rather than simply to acquire information.”

4 comments

One way to furnish a living room is with modular furniture. Instead of buying a standard sofa, for example, one can buy a left end, a right end, and a middle piece that can be combined to create an L-shaped sofa. Modular furniture, however, is far more expensive than standard furniture. On average, a three-piece modular sofa costs almost twice as much as a standard sofa of comparable size and quality.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why is modular furniture more expensive than standard furniture, even if it’s of comparable size and quality?

Objective
This is an EXCEPT question. Four wrong answers will differentiate modular furniture from standard furniture in a way that could lead modular furniture to be more expensive.

A
Modular furniture, unlike standard furniture, is not mass-produced.
This is a difference between modular and standard furniture that could lead to modular furniture being more expensive. Something mass-produced might cost less to make, which means lower prices for consumers.
B
The consumer demand for sofas sometimes increases more quickly than the supply.
This doesn’t differentiate modular furniture from standard furniture. We still don’t have any reason to think modular furniture would be more expensive.
C
The most fashionable designers tend to use modular furniture designs.
This suggests a difference between modular furniture and standard furniture. Perhaps modular furniture might be more expensive because it is more fashionable or associated with more fashionable designers.
D
Because modular furniture pieces are custom ordered, they are never put on sale.
This is a difference between modular furniture and standard furniture that could explain why modular furniture is more expensive. All else equal, something on sale is likely to be less expensive than something not on sale.
E
Modular sofas, on average, have a greater area of upholstered surfaces than do standard sofas.
This is a difference between modular furniture and standard furniture that could explain why modulfar furniture is more expensive. More upholstered surfaces might increase production costs, which could lead to higher prices for consumers.

23 comments

The hormone testosterone protects brain cells from injury and reduces levels of the protein beta-amyloid in the brain. Beta-amyloid causally contributes to Alzheimer’s disease, and people whose brain cells are susceptible to injury are probably more susceptible to Alzheimer’s disease. So there is reason to think that _______.

Summary
Testosterone protects brain cells from injury. Testosterone reduces levels of beta-amyloid, a protein, in the brain. Beta-amyloid has a causal relationship with Alzheimer’s disease. People whose brain cells are more susceptible to injury are probably more likely to get Alzheimer’s.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Testosterone protects against Alzheimer’s by reducing the likelihood of brain cell injury. A decline in testosterone increases the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

A
anyone whose brain cells are susceptible to injury will eventually develop Alzheimer’s disease
This is unsupported because we don’t know that being susceptible to brain cell injury is a sufficient condition for Alzheimer’s disease. We only know that people susceptible to brain cell injury are probably more susceptible to Alzheimer’s disease.
B
whether a person develops Alzheimer’s disease is dependent entirely on the level of beta-amyloid in his or her brain
This is unsupported because the stimulus leaves open the possibility that other factors besides beta-amyloid influence Alzheimer’s development.
C
Alzheimer’s disease leads to a reduction in testosterone level
This is unsupported because the causation may be the other way around. Reductions in testosterone may lead to Alzheimer’s disease.
D
only people with Alzheimer’s disease are at risk for injury to brain cells
This is unsupported because people susceptible to brain cell injury may have low testosterone with no Alzheimer’s disease.
E
a decline in testosterone level puts one at increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease
This is strongly supported because a decline in testosterone leads to increased susceptibility to brain injury, which probably makes someone more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease.

2 comments