Summarize Argument
A society would never willingly accept the government electronically recording all transactions because people do not trust governments with too much power, and such a system would give the government too much power.
Identify Conclusion
A society would never willingly accept the government electronically recording all transactions.
A
A society would never willingly accept a system in which, in lieu of paper money, the government keeps track of every transaction electronically.
This reflects the main conclusion that society wouldn’t accept replacing paper money with a system where the government records transactions electronically. The answer summarizes this by stating that society would reject such a system. (Note that “in lieu of” means “instead of.”)
B
It is reasonable for people to distrust a government that has too much power.
This restates a premise. The columnist argues that people "are rightly distrustful of governments with too much power" to support the conclusion that society wouldn't accept a potential new economic system. Since it supports another claim, it can't be the main conclusion.
C
New technology may soon make it possible for an economy to operate without paper money.
This summarizes the context of the stimulus. It proposes a potential new economic system—one in which paper money is no longer needed—which sets the stage for the columnist to explain why society would not accept this system: it gives the government too much power.
D
People are right to be unwilling to give the government the power it would need to operate an economy without paper money.
The stimulus doesn’t make this claim. The columnist notes that people are “rightly distrustful of governments with too much power” but doesn’t conclude that people would be right to distrust this new economic system. The columnist simply concludes that people wouldn’t accept it.
E
Even though it may be technologically feasible, no government will be able to operate an economy without the use of paper money.
This misstates the conclusion. The columnist concludes that society wouldn't willingly accept a system where the government records all transactions, not that it would be impossible for a government to use it. A government could perhaps impose such a system despite resistance.
Carrie: Our motivations for our actions are not subject to our conscious control. Therefore, the only thing that can be required for an action to be morally good is that it fulfill a moral obligation.
Speaker 1 Summary
Daniel concludes that fulfilling a moral obligation isn’t sufficient to make an action morally good. This is because one requirement to be morally good is that the action is performed with the right motivations.
Speaker 2 Summary
Carrie concludes that the only thing that is required for an action to be morally good is fulfilling a moral obligation. This is because we can’t consciously control our motivations.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether being performed with the right motivations is required for an action to be good. Daniel thinks the right motivations are required. Carrie thinks the right motivations are not a requirement. They also disagree about whether fulfilling a moral obligation is sufficient to for an action to be good.
A
No one can be morally required to do something that is impossible to do.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody refers to the possibility or impossibility of performing an action.
B
Some actions that are performed with the right motivations are not morally good.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. For Daniel, the right motivations are necessary for being good, but that doesn’t imply an opinion about whether there exist actions that fulfill that necessary condition but are not good.
C
All actions that fulfill moral obligations are performed in order to fulfill moral obligations.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Although Daniel refers to the right motivations, he does not specify the particular motivation of wanting to fulfill a moral obligation. We do not know what constitutes a right motivation.
D
An action performed with the wrong motivations cannot be morally good.
This is a point of disagreement. Daniel thinks the right motivations are required to be good. Carrie thinks the right motivations are not required. So, Carrie believes an action performed with the wrong motivations can be good, as long as it fulfills a moral obligation.
E
If a person’s motivations for acting are based on a sense of duty, then that person’s action is morally good.
Neither expresses an opinion. Daniel believes the right motivations are necessary to be good, but that doesn’t imply a belief about whether they are sufficient to be good. He also doesn’t say whether being motivated by duty constitutes a right motivation.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the bridge renovation wasted taxpayers’ money. This is based on the fact that a commission reported that the Souther Tier Project was wasteful, and the bridge renovation was a part of that project.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that what applies to the whole (Souther Tier Project) must apply to a part(the bridge renovation). This overlooks the possibility that the bridge renovation might not have been a waste, even if the overall project was a waste. Perhaps the project was wasteful because of a different component besides the bridge renovation.
A
infers that a part has a certain quality merely on the grounds that the whole to which it belongs has that quality
The argument concudes that a part (bridge renovation) has a certain quality (waste of money) merely on the grounds that the whole to which it belongs (Southern Tier Project) has that quality.
B
draws a general conclusion about government waste on the basis of a single instance of such waste
The conclusion is not about government waste in general. It’s about the bridge renovation and whether that specific thing was wasteful.
C
attacks the mayor’s character rather than assessing the strength of the evidence supporting the mayor’s claim
The argument does not attack the character of the mayor. The evidence concerns the Southern Tier Project being a waste of money, and the fact that the bridge renovation was part of the project.
D
puts forward evidence that presupposes an important part of the claim that the argument attempts to support
(D) describes circular reasoning. No part of the evidence assumes the truth of that conclusion. The conclusion is that the bridge renovation was a waste of money; the evidence does not presuppose that this is true.
E
rejects a position on the grounds that the motives of the person who has advanced the position were not disinterested
The author does not comment on the motives of the mayor.
Summary
Simultaneous use of adjacent runways at the airport is not allowed when visibility is poor because the runways are too close together. The airport allows 30 planes per hour to land when weather is poor. 60 planes can land per hour in good weather. Airline schedules assume good weather, so bad weather creates delays.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
One cause of delays would go away if the adjacent runways were not too close together or if the weather were always good. Airline schedules assume that 30 planes per hour can land at the airport.
A
In poor weather, only half as many planes are allowed to land each hour on any one runway at the airport as are allowed to land on it in good weather.
This is unsupported because each individual runway may support the same number of airplanes regardless of the weather. When weather is bad, however, only one runway can be used at a time.
B
When the weather at the airport is good it is likely that there are planes landing on two adjacent runways at any given time.
This is unsupported because although both adjacent runways can be used at the same time when weather is good, we don’t know that planes are likely landing at any given time. We only know that both lanes are open, not that they are likely to have planes at any moment.
C
If any two of the airport’s runways are used simultaneously, serious delays result.
This is unsupported because serious delays are a product of one of the adjacent runways being closed off when weather is bad, not because two runways are being used.
D
Airlines using the airport base their schedules on the assumption that more than 30 planes an hour will be allowed to land at the airport.
This is strongly supported because we know that airlines base their assumption on good weather, and in good weather, more than 30 planes are allowed to land per hour.
E
In good weather, there are few if any seriously delayed flights at the airport.
This is unsupported because we only know that bad weather is one of the causes of delays. There may be several other causes of delays even when the weather is good that we aren’t aware of from the stimulus.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did early humans spend almost no time grooming each other, even though we know they lived in large groups, and the general rule among primates is that the larger the group, the more time spent grooming?
Objective
The correct answer will show why early humans were an exception to the general rule about the relationship between group size and grooming. The correct answer might have something to do with the purpose of grooming, which the stimulus says was to maintain social cohesion among primate group members.
A
Early humans were much more likely to groom themselves than are the members of other primate species.
We’re trying to explain why humans spent almost no time grooming each other. Grooming one’s self is a different kind of grooming, and there’s no indication self-grooming serves the purpose of social cohesion.
B
Early humans developed languages, which provided a more effective way of maintaining social cohesion than social grooming.
This shows early humans had a replacement for social grooming. Because they had languages, they didn’t need to groom as much for the purpose of social cohesion.
C
Early humans were not as extensively covered with hair as are other primates, and consequently they had less need for social grooming.
The main purpose of social grooming was social cohesion. So, even if humans didn’t need to clean each other as much due to having less hair, we’d still expect significant social grooming for the purpose of social cohesion.
D
While early humans probably lived in large groups, there is strong evidence that they hunted in small groups.
This still tells us early humans lived in large groups. So, we’d still expect a lot of social grooming for the purpose of social cohesion.
E
Many types of primates other than humans have fairly large neocortex regions and display frequent social grooming.
If other primates, like humans have large neocortex regions, and engage in lots of social grooming, we’d expect humans to do the same.