Amar: Frankness is not intimacy. Intimacy requires a real social bond, and social bonds cannot be formed without direct personal contact.
Speaker 1 Summary
Pat argues towards the unstated conclusion that e-mail promotes intimacy with strangers. How so? E-mail allows anonymity. Anonymity removes barriers to self-revelation, and removing those barriers promotes intimacy. Chaining that together, we can infer that e-mail promotes intimacy.
Speaker 2 Summary
Amar claims that e-mail does not promote intimacy (although this conclusion is also unstated). In support, Amar says that a real social bond is necessary for intimacy, and in turn, direct personal contact is necessary for real social bonds. Since e-mail doesn’t include direct personal contact, we can infer that e-mail cannot foster intimacy.
Objective
We want to find a point of disagreement. Pat and Amar disagree about whether e-mail can lead to intimacy with strangers.
A
barriers to self-revelation hinder the initial growth of intimacy
Neither speaker makes this claim. Pat is the only speaker who talks about barriers to self-revelation, but it’s just to say that removing those barriers speeds up intimacy. Amar never discusses these barriers at all.
B
E-mail can increase intimacy between friends
Neither speaker talks about the effect of e-mail on intimacy between established friends. The conversation is just about whether e-mail can build intimacy between strangers.
C
intimacy between those who communicate with each other solely by e-mail is possible
Pat agrees with this, but Amar disagrees: this is the point of disagreement. Pat’s argument supports the conclusion that e-mail promotes intimacy between strangers, but Amar’s implied conclusion is that email cannot create intimacy due to a lack of direct personal contact.
D
real social bonds always lead to intimacy
Neither speaker makes this claim. Amar is the only speaker who talks about real social bonds, but the claim Amar makes is that real social bonds are necessary for intimacy, not that they’re sufficient.
E
the use of e-mail removes barriers to self-revelation
Pat agrees with this, but Amar doesn’t state an opinion. Amar doesn’t discuss barriers to self-revelation at all, so cannot be said to agree or disagree with this claim.
Summary
The criminologist predicts that criminal organizations will try to further their involvement with certain types of tech. She supports this with two claims: Most criminal organizations want to generate profit, and these technologies will generate profit.
Missing Connection
The support establishes something that these organizations want (profit), and one sufficient path to obtain it (tech). But we can’t assume that a path will be taken just because it is guarantees a goal. We need to know that this ambition is a sufficient condition for the criminologist’s prediction.
A
If an organization tries to become increasingly involved in areas that promise to generate enormous profits, then the main purpose of that organization is to generate profits.
This is switching sufficient and necessary. This answer choice can only support a conclusion about purpose, but we need a conclusion about increasing involvement.
B
At least some criminal organizations are or will at some point become aware that the ongoing revolutions in biotechnology and information technology promise to generate enormous profits.
Awareness does not guarantee action. This would be a correct answer for a Necessary Assumption question.
C
Criminal organizations are already heavily involved in every activity that promises to generate enormous profits.
The conclusion is about increasing efforts. An increase is relative, and we don’t know their starting level of involvement. Regardless of initial involvement, they might not increase their involvement. But we need an airtight conclusion that they will increase involvement.
D
Any organization whose main purpose is to generate profits will try to become increasingly involved in any technological revolution that promises to generate enormous profits.
We know that most criminal organizations would have this purpose. So we can conclude that they will try to increase their involvement.
E
Most criminal organizations are willing to become involved in legal activities if those activities are sufficiently profitable.
Willingness does not guarantee action. We need to know that these organizations will try to increase their involvement, not just that they are willing to. Additionally, (E) is assuming that these technologies are considered legal activities.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
While some administrators believe that computers will enable schools to teach far more courses with fewer teachers, this belief is mistaken. Computerized instruction actually requires more time from teachers. This indicates that reducing the amount of teachers would also reduce the number of courses offered.
Identify Argument Part
This is a claim that the argument sets out to refute.
A
It is presented as a possible explanation for an observation that follows it.
The purpose of this claim is not to explain the following sentence. The claim is mentioned because the rest of the argument is designed to refute this statement.
B
It is a statement of the problem the argument sets out to solve.
The argument does not seek to “solve” this problem; it is focused on correcting a misconception. This statement is a belief that the argument disputes.
C
It is a statement that the argument is designed to refute.
The argument’s purpose is to refute this claim. The author directly challenges this belief by claiming that computerizing education would have the opposite effect.
D
It is a statement offered in support of the argument’s main conclusion.
This statement does not support the main conclusion. The main conclusion is directly opposed to this belief.
E
It is the argument’s main conclusion.
This is not the main conclusion because it is not supported by any premises. The main conclusion directly contradicts this statement.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that foraging causes increased brain size in bees. This is based on the fact that older bees tend to have larger brains than do younger bees, and older bees are more likely to forage than are younger bees. In addition, foraging requires greater cognitive ability than what younger bees do.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the correlation between foraging and larger brains is not explained by something else besides foraging causing larger brains. This overlooks the possibility that bees’ brains naturally get larger as they get older, and since older bees are the ones that forage, we see a correlation between foraging and larger brains.
A
Bees that have foraged for a long time do not have significantly larger brains than do bees that have foraged for a shorter time.
The author never suggested that the length of time one forages will cause significant differences in brain size. The hypothesis is simply that engaging in foraging increases brain size. The effects might occur immediately rather than over time; the author never says otherwise.
B
The brains of older bees that stop foraging to take on other responsibilities do not become smaller after they stop foraging.
The author never suggested that the causal impact of foraging on brain size is only temporary. The hypothesis is that foraging increases brain size; that increased brain size might remain even if foraging stops.
C
Those bees that travel a long distance to find food do not have significantly larger brains than do bees that locate food nearer the hive.
The author never suggested that foraging distance will impact brain size. The hypothesis is simply that foraging increases brain size; the kind of foraging or the distances traveled might not matter.
D
In some species of bees, the brains of older bees are only marginally larger than those of younger bees.
This still indicates that the brains of older bees are larger than the brains of younger bees. The author never suggested that foraging had to create a significant difference in brain size.
E
The brains of older bees that never learn to forage are the same size as those of their foraging counterparts of the same age.
This provides evidence that the true cause of larger brains in the older bees is not foraging, but might be age. If foraging were the cause, we’d expect foragers to have larger brains than non-foragers. But (E) shows this isn’t the case.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Dictation software, which allows computers to transcribe spoken sentences, is advertised as a labor-saving invention, but it fails to live up to this promise. The most labor-intensive part of writing is thinking and editing, not typing. Furthermore, the time spent double-checking the dictation software outweighs the time saved by not typing it.
Identify Argument Part
This is the main conclusion of the argument
A
It is the argument’s main conclusion but not its only conclusion.
Although this is the main conclusion, there are no other conclusions in this argument. All of the premises support this statement.
B
It is the argument’s only conclusion.
This is the main (and only) conclusion. All of the premises support the conclusion that dictation software does not save time when working.
C
It is an intermediate conclusion that is offered as direct support for the argument’s main conclusion.
This is the only conclusion in the argument. It is also not an intermediate conclusion because it does not give support to another conclusion (because it is the only one)
D
It is a premise offered in support of the argument’s conclusion.
This is not a premise; it does not support any conclusion. This statement only receives support, making it the argument’s main conclusion.
E
It is a premise offered as direct support for an intermediate conclusion of the argument.
This is not a premise; this is the argument's main (and only) conclusion. It does not give any support, so it cannot be a premise.