Summary
Addictive drugs are physically harmful.
Athletes are never justified in using addictive drugs.
Some people claim that, because nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, athletes should not be permitted to take large amounts of such drugs before competing.
There are lots of unnatural things used in sports—running shoes, boxing gloves—and these things are not prohibited.
We don’t currently do enough to address the serious problems in modern sports that cause unnecessary deaths and injuries.
Athletes are never justified in using addictive drugs.
Some people claim that, because nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, athletes should not be permitted to take large amounts of such drugs before competing.
There are lots of unnatural things used in sports—running shoes, boxing gloves—and these things are not prohibited.
We don’t currently do enough to address the serious problems in modern sports that cause unnecessary deaths and injuries.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
There are more serious problems in modern sports than nonaddictive drugs.
The use of nonaddictive drugs does not typically result in unnecessary deaths and injuries in modern sports.
A thing should not be banned from sports solely because that thing is unnatural.
The use of nonaddictive drugs does not typically result in unnecessary deaths and injuries in modern sports.
A thing should not be banned from sports solely because that thing is unnatural.
A
The fact that something is unnatural is not a sufficient reason for banning it.
Very strongly supported. The author both concedes that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural and affirms that they should not be banned. Together, these statements allow us to infer that a thing’s unnaturalness is not sufficient reason to ban it from sports.
B
There is nothing unnatural about the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes.
Anti-supported. The author cedes that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, although she does not believe that this is sufficient reason to prohibit their use.
C
The use of addictive drugs by athletes should be prohibited because addictive drugs are unnatural.
Anti-supported. The author does not believe that anything should be prohibited solely because it is unnatural. She believes that addictive drugs should be banned, but because they’re physically harmful, not because they’re unnatural.
D
Some of the unnecessary deaths and injuries in modern sports are caused by the use of addictive drugs by athletes.
Unsupported. While we do know that addictive drugs are physically harmful, we can’t infer that they cause unnecessary deaths and injuries. The physical harm they inflict could take another form, like illness.
E
The use of addictive drugs by athletes is a less serious problem than are unnecessary injuries.
Unsupported. We don’t know how addictive drug use stacks up against unnecessary deaths and injuries—the drugs could cause these things, for all we know! We know that the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes is less serious than unnecessary injuries, but that isn’t what (E) says.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that the florist must have made a mistake in sending roses to Drew. This is based on the following line of reasoning. First, if the flowers Drew received were sent by someone who knew Drew well, that person would have known Drew prefers violets to roses. But, he received roses. And, if the flowers Drew received were sent by someone who didn’t know Drew well, that person would have sent a card with the flowers. But he didn’t get a card.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a person who knows that Drew prefers violets over roses would send violets instead of roses. This assumption is why the author thinks that if the delivery was from someone who knew Drew well, there was a mistake. But, it’s possible someone might have known Drew’s preference, but decided not to send flowers that aligned with his preference.
A
Most people send roses when they send flowers.
What most people do doesn’t affect the reasoning, which is based on specific aspects of this flower delivery to Drew. Someone who knew Drew would know Drew prefers violets. What matters is what people would do knowing that preference. What people would do in other circumstances doesn't matter.
B
Some people send flowers for a reason other than the desire to please.
This questions the assumption that someone who knew Drew prefers violets to roses would have sent violets. It’s possible someone who knew Drew well sent him roses, despite knowing his preference. This is how it’s possible the florist didn’t make a mistake.
C
Someone who does not know Drew well would be unlikely to send Drew flowers.
This answer, if it does anything, would only suggest the flowers weren't sent by someone who didn't know Drew well. The author wasn't suggesting that the delivery had to come from such person, so (C) is consistent with the author's reasoning.
D
The florist has never delivered the wrong flowers to Drew before.
This doesn’t affect the reasoning of the argument, which was based on specific aspects of the flower delivery to Drew. The argument wasn’t citing to the florist’s past mistakes or general tendencies; an answer about the florist’s past doesn’t engage with the author’s reasoning.
E
Some people who know Drew well have sent Drew cards along with flowers.
The fact some people who know him well have sent him cards before, if it does anything, could only suggest another reason to think there was a mistake. Someone who knew him well could have sent a card, but he didn't get a card.
Summary
For ten months, the total monthly sales of new cars within Calistan remained constant. During this period the monthly sales of new cars manufactured by Marvel Automobile Company doubled, and its share of the new car market increased. Emission standards were imposed on new cars at the end of the ten month period. For three months following this imposition, Marvel Automobile Company’s share of the market declined even though its monthly sales remained constant at the level reached in the last month of the ten-month period.
Notable Valid Inferences
Total monthly sales of new cars manufactured by companies other than Marvel Automobile Company decreased following Calistan’s new emission standards.
A
The total monthly sales within Calistan of new cars by companies other than Marvel Automobile Company decreased over the three months following the imposition of the emission standards.
Must be false. We know that Marvel’s sales remained constant while their market share decreased following the emission standards. If sales from other companies decreased during this time, there’s no way that Marvel’s market share could have decreased.
B
Over the three months before the imposition of the emission standards, the combined market share of companies other than Marvel Automobile Company selling new cars in Calistan decreased.
Could be true. We know that Marvel’s market share doubled during the ten-month period before the emission standards were imposed. It is possible that during this time other company’s market share decreased.
C
If the emission standards had not been imposed, Marvel Automobile Company would have lost an even larger share of the number of new cars sold in Calistan than, in fact, it did.
Could be true. We only know what happened following Calistan’s imposition of emission standards. We cannot be certain about would occur without these emission standards.
D
A decrease in the total monthly sales of new cars within Calistan will occur if the emission standards remain in effect.
Could be true. We know that marvel’s monthly sales of new cars remained constant following the emission standards. It is possible that total monthly sales of the entire new car market will decrease if other company’s monthly sales decrease.
E
Since the imposition of the emission standards, Marvel Automobile Company’s average profit on each new car sold within Calistan has increased.
Could be true. We know that Marvel’s monthly sales remained constant following the emission standards. It is possible that they are selling new cars at an increased price to maintain their monthly sales numbers.
Summary
Reproduction for all species of higher animals requires the production of eggs, but not necessarily sperm. There are some species whose members are all female; the eggs produced by a rare famale-only salamander species hatch without fertilization. This has the drawback that all offspring have genetic codes nearly identical to that of the single parent, causing the species to be less adaptive than species with both male and female members.
Notable Valid Inferences
Some species of higher animals do not produce eggs.
A
There are some species of salamanders that have both male and female members.
Could be true. We know that a rare female-only species of salamander exists, but there could also be other species of salamander with both male and female members.
B
There are some species of higher animals none of whose members produce eggs.
Must be false. The first sentence tells us that reproduction for all higher animals requires the production of eggs.
C
There is a significant number of female-only species of higher animals.
Could be true. We know that a rare female-only species of salamander exists. It could be the case that there are many other female-only species.
D
Some species of higher animals containing both female and male members are not very adaptive.
Could be true. We know that female-only species are less adaptive than species with both male and female members, but this does not preclude the possibility of a species with both males and females that is also not very adaptive.
E
Some offspring of species of higher animals containing both female and male members have genetic codes more similar to one parent than to the other parent.
Could be true. We know that for female-only species offspring have genetic codes identical to the single parent. It is possible that some offspring of species with both males and females have genetic codes more similar to one parent.
Summarize Argument
TV executives argue that advertising will be no harder to sell next fall than last fall. This is because, despite the increase in price per advertisement, advertisers will still profit from TV advertising.
Notable Assumptions
The TV executives assume that the cost of running advertisements won’t also increase. Assuming advertisers are operating on the margins, even a minor uptick in expenses combined with the 10-15% increase would make advertising unprofitable. Alternately, the TV executives may assume that the 10-15% increase is counterbalanced by something else (i.e. increasing viewership).
A
Most costs of production and distribution of products typically advertised on television are expected to rise 3 to 7 percent in the next year.
This weakens the TV executives’ argument. Everything’s getting more expensive, so advertising might be one place to cut costs.
B
The system for rating the size of the audience watching any given television advertisement will change next fall.
No matter how the audience is “rated,” the audience will nevertheless be comprised of the same number of people. We care to know if that audience is growing, but this doesn’t tell us anything about that.
C
Next fall advertising time on television will no longer be available in blocks smaller than 30 seconds.
This says that in all likelihood, some advertisers must commit to longer advertisements than they’ve previously ran. This would make advertising more difficult to sell, thus weakening the TV executives’ argument.
D
The amount of television advertising time purchased by providers of services is increasing, while the amount of such time purchased by providers of products is decreasing.
We don’t care who buys the advertising.
E
A recent survey has shown that the average number of hours people spend watching television is increasing at the rate of 2 percent every two months.
Viewership is increasing. By the end of the year, viewership will be 12% higher than the start of the year. That mostly or totally offsets the advertising price increase for advertisers on a per-viewer basis.
TV talk show host: Well, if there is such a decline, it’s not because of TV talk shows: we simply show people what they want to see. What can be wrong with letting the viewers decide? Furthermore, if restrictions were put on my show, that would amount to censorship, which is wrong.
Speaker 1 Summary
The moralist concludes that TV talk shows are contributing to moral decline. This is because the shows portray the least moral people, which makes viewers think being immoral is normal and that there’s something wrong with being morally upstanding.
Speaker 2 Summary
The host’s implicit conclusion is that there’s nothing wrong with what her TV talk show is doing. She asserts that any moral decline, if it exists, isn’t caused by TV talk shows. She also asserts that there’s nothing wrong with letting viewers decide what they want see. Additionally, she claims that any restrictions on her show would be censorship, and therefore wrong.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether TV shows are a cause of moral decline. The moralist thinks they are, and the host thinks they’re not.
A
TV talk shows should be censored
The moralist doesn’t express an opinion. Although the moralist thinks TV talk shows cause moral decline, that doesn’t mean the moralist thinks anything should be done about it. We just don’t know his opinion.
B
people’s moral standards have changed
The host doesn’t express an opinion. She says that if there’s a moral decline, TV talk shows aren’t a cause of it. She doesn’t say whether there actually is a moral decline or moral change.
C
TV talk shows influence people’s conception of what is the norm
Not a point of disagreement. The host doesn’t comment on whether TV talk shows influence the viewers. Although she does say that shows simply portray what people want to see, that doesn’t mean the host thinks the shows have no impact on viewers’ conception of what’s normal.
D
TV talk shows, by presenting immoral guests, are causing a moral decline
This is a point of disagreement. The moralist thinks TV talk shows do cause a moral decline by presenting immoral guests. The host does not think TV talk shows cause a moral decline.
E
it is wrong not to let the viewers decide what they want to see
The moralist expresses no opinion. Although she states that TV talk shows are causing a moral decline, that doesn’t tell us what she thinks about restricting what viewers can watch. Maybe she’s opposed to putting restrictions on shows, just like the host is.
Summarize Argument
The doctor thinks that the mere claim that some treatment is better than no treatment is not enough of a reason to support using a certain therapy to treat an illness. To support this, the doctor tells us that the therapy is expensive and complicated. This introduces additional factors that might make the therapy not worth it, even if the alternative is no treatment at all.
Identify Conclusion
The doctor’s conclusion is that using the therapy “cannot be adequately supported” just because it represents some treatment rather than no treatment at all.
A
The therapy is more effective than no treatment at all for the illness.
This is not stated in the argument. The doctor never actually mentions whether the therapy is effective or not, and nothing in the argument would support an inference that it’s effective.
B
The therapy is more effective than other forms of treatment for the illness.
This is not stated in the argument. Like (C), the doctor does not discuss any other possible treatments, so cannot compare them to the therapy that is discussed.
C
The therapy is more expensive and complicated than other forms of treatment for the illness.
This is not stated in the argument. Like (B), the doctor does not discuss any other possible treatments, so cannot compare them to the therapy that is discussed.
D
The therapy should not be used to treat the illness unless it is either effective or inexpensive.
This is not stated in the argument. The doctor doesn’t make any recommendations about when the therapy “should” or “should not” be used, just says that a certain claim isn’t sufficient to justify its use.
E
The therapy’s possible effectiveness in treating the illness is not sufficient justification for using it.
This is a good paraphrase of the conclusion. The doctor’s entire goal is to support this claim, that just because the therapy is some treatment rather than no treatment, that isn’t enough to justify its use.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the new agriculture bill will probably not pass. This is because the leaders of all major parties have said that they oppose it.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if a bill is not supported by the leaders of all major parties, it is unlikely to pass.
A
Most bills that have not been supported by even one leader of a major party have not been passed into law.
The strengthens the link between the premise and the conclusion. If most bills that haven’t been supported by any leaders of a major party haven’t been passed, that suggests the new agriculture bill, which also isn’t supported by leaders of major parties, will also fail to pass.
B
Most bills that have not been passed into law were not supported by even one member of a major party.
We want to know that most bills that haven’t been supported by a major leader haven’t passed. But learning that most bills that haven’t passed haven’t been supported doesn’t help get from the premise to the conclusion. This is close to a reverse of the relationship we want.
C
If the leaders of all major parties endorse the new agriculture bill, it will pass into law.
We want to know what happens when none of the leaders of major parties support the bill. Learning what happens when all of them do support the bill doesn’t help get from the premise to the conclusion.
D
Most bills that have been passed into law were not unanimously supported by the leaders of all major parties.
We want to know that most bills that haven’t been supported by a major leader haven’t passed. But learning about most bills that have been passed doesn’t help connect the premise to the conclusion.
E
Most bills that have been passed into law were supported by at least one leader of a major party.
We want to know that most bills that haven’t been supported by a major leader haven’t passed. Learning about most bills that have been passed does not connect the premise to the conclusion. There’s no contrapositive of a “most” statement.