Summarize Argument
An Economist believes that to sustain the country’s economy, they should pass laws making it more difficult for investors to remove their capital. This is because the economy depends on overseas capital and they cannot afford any reduction in that investment.
Notable Assumptions
The Economist assumes that these laws would not reduce the net amount of investment from overseas investors.
A
To sustain its economy, the country needs to diversify its investments more evenly across the country’s industries.
While diversifying investments could help sustain the economy, this does not weaken the Economist’s argument. This is irrelevant to the argument’s premises and conclusion.
B
Laws that would make it more difficult for overseas investors to remove their capital would strongly discourage them from investing any additional capital.
This challenges the Economist’s assumption that the overall amount of investment in the country would *not* decrease if such laws were enacted. This suggests that the law would cause further investment to ultimately decrease
C
The historical periods during which the country’s economy had the highest rate of growth were those periods during which the amount of capital invested by overseas investors was highest.
If anything, this reinforces the idea that overseas investment is beneficial to the economy.
D
In countries other than the economist’s, passage of laws that made it very difficult for overseas investors to remove their capital have not entirely prevented the removal of capital invested by overseas investors.
While this questions the efficacy of the laws, it does not address whether they will sustain the economy or harm future investment. That is the crux of the argument.
E
Two years ago, the country enacted laws that place some restrictions on the removal of capital by overseas investors.
This does not challenge the economist’s reasoning. The economist just wants *stronger* laws.
The sculptor Barajas died before she could even begin sculpting the statue called Sonora. However, because Sonora was sculpted by Barajas’s assistants, working from three sketches Barajas drew in preparing to create the statue herself, the statue probably looks very much like it would have looked if she had lived to complete it.
Summarize Argument
The author argues that the statue “Sonora” looks very much like what it would have had its original sculptor, Barajas, lived to complete it. This is because Sonora was scrupled by Barajas assistants, who worked from three of Barajas’ sketches.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that Barajas would not have majorly deviated from her sketches if she made Sonora.
A
Ordinarily, Barajas’s ideas for her statues were revised substantially throughout a series of dozens of preliminary sketches.
This directly calls out a major assumption in the argument: that Barajas did not regularly deviate from her sketches. This majorly weakens the main conclusion of the argument.
B
One of the assistants who worked closely with Barajas in planning Sonora did not participate in sculpting it.
This does not impact the argument’s reasoning. The three assistants who made the statue could have also worked closely with Barajas
C
Sonora is composed partly of materials that Barajas did not frequently use in the statues that she completed during her lifetime.
It is unclear whether these materials would impact the statue's appearance. Thus, it is too weak to cast doubt on the conclusion
D
Barajas always worked from sketches when she sculpted a statue.
This does not say whether the sketches were indicative of the final version of the statue. This is too nonspecific to support
E
Barajas never took as long to complete a statue as the assistants did to sculpt Sonora.
The time it takes to create the statue does not impact how it looks, which is what the reasoning and main conclusion are focused on.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did cleaned wounds treated with honey heal faster than both cleaned wounds treated with antibiotics and wounds that were only cleaned, even though honey has lots of bacteria, which slows healing?
Objective
The correct answer should tell us something that suggests the net effect of honey on healing time results in faster healing than cleaning wounds with antibiotics and cleaning wounds without additional substances. For example, there could be something in honey that kills enough bacteria to offset the additional bacteria in honey such that honey-treated wounds end up with less bacteria than antibiotics-treated wounds.
A
Wounds that have simply been cleaned with soap and water and not otherwise treated heal faster than wounds that have been cleaned and then treated with antibiotic ointment.
This doesn’t explain why the honey-treated wounds healed faster. And, we have no reason to think the cleaned wounds were cleaned with soap and water (as opposed to just water, or something else).
B
The bacteria found in honey are present in much lower concentrations than the concentrations of bacteria typically present in infected wounds, and applying antibiotic ointment to a wound rarely if ever kills all of the bacteria infecting the wound.
Even if the honey-bacteria has a lower concentration than wound-bacteria, the honey-treated wound would still have both the honey-bacteria and the regular wound-bacteria. So we’d still expect it to have more bacteria than an antibiotic-treated wound.
C
Honey has properties that inhibit the growth of bacteria in wounds, including the bacteria the honey contains, and antibiotic ointments damage sensitive wound tissue, which slows healing.
So, honey stops bacteria growth, including its own bacteria. And, on top of that, antibiotics do something that slows healing. This provides a potential explanation for why honey-treated wounds healed the fastest.
D
The high concentration of sugar in honey inhibits the growth of bacteria in wounds, including the bacteria contained in the honey itself.
(D) only explains why honey is better than cleaning alone. It doesn’t explain why honey-treated wounds healed faster than the antibiotic-treated wounds. After all, we’d expect antibiotics to kill bacteria, too.
E
The antibiotic ointment used in the study damages sensitive tissue in wounds, which slows healing, but honey does not have this effect if the wound has been cleaned.
So, honey has one advantage over antibiotic ointment. You know what else it has? Tons of bacteria. This doesn’t help explain why honey-treated wounds, in light of that bacteria, healed faster than antibiotic-treated wounds.
Summary
If an action has the potential to produce serious harm to one’s society, then one should not take that action.
Many people copy the public actions of celebrities and those who are widely respected.
Some celebrities do not vote.
Serious harm comes to societies in which many people don’t vote.
Notable Valid Inferences
Celebrities shouldn’t publicly refrain from voting.
Widely respected people shouldn’t refrain from voting.
A
A society should require all celebrities to vote.
Could be false. The stimulus discusses what actions individuals should not take; the stimulus does not discuss what society should require.
B
One should vote only if one expects that doing so will cause many other people to do likewise.
Could be false. (B) gives a necessary condition for when you should vote. The stimulus doesn’t allow us to infer any necessary conditions for voting.
C
Celebrities who do not vote should not be widely respected.
Could be false. The stimulus doesn’t give any indication on who should or should not be widely respected.
D
People should not emulate celebrities who are not widely respected.
Could be false. The stimulus doesn’t indicate who people should nor should not emulate. Additionally, we only know that people who are widely respected are widely emulated. We don’t know anything about people who aren’t widely respected.
E
Widely respected people should not publicly refrain from voting.
Must be true. If an action could cause serious harm to society, then one shouldn’t take that action. Widely respected people’s public actions are widely emulated, and society is harmed when many people don’t vote, so widely respected people shouldn’t publicly refrain from voting.