Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the Chefs’ Union has requested raises of a greater dollar amount than the raises requested by the Hotel Managers’ Union. This is because the Chefs’ Union has requested a 10% salary raise, while the Hotel Managers’ Union has requested an 8% salary raise.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that members of the Chefs’ Union currently make either almost as much, as much, or more than members of the Hotel Managers’ Union. Suppose chefs made $90,000 and hotel managers made $100,000. Their requested raises would add $9,000 and $8,000 to their respective salaries.
A
The Chefs’ Union has many more members than does the Hotel Managers’ Union.
We don’t care how many members these unions have. We care about how much their requested raises would add to their salaries.
B
The Chefs’ Union is a more powerful union than is the Hotel Managers’ Union and is therefore more likely to obtain the salary increases it requests.
We don’t care what’s likely to happen. We’re interested in the dollar amount the raises would add.
C
The current salaries of the members of the Chefs’ Union are, on average, higher than the current salaries of the members of the Hotel Managers’ Union.
Members of the Chefs’ Union already make more than members of the Hotel Managers’ Union. If chefs make $110,000 and hotel managers make $100,000, then the requested raises would add $11,000 to chefs’ salaries and $8,000 to hotel managers’ salaries.
D
The average dollar amount of the raises that the members of the Chefs’ Union received last year was equal to the average dollar amount of the raises that the members of the Hotel Managers’ Union received.
We don’t care about last years’ raises.
E
The members of the Chefs’ Union received salary increases of 10 percent in each of the last two years, while the members of the Hotel Managers’ Union received salary increases of only 8 percent in each of the last two years.
We don’t care about last years’ raises, nor the year before that. We only care about the dollar value of the raises requested this year.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that engineers who will work in industry should receive less training in fundamental mathematics. Why? Since new computer programs can solve many mathematical problems, it is less important for engineers to understand mathematics deeply. Time previously spent learning mathematics can be reapportioned to cover other topics.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because the programs provide answers to mathematical problems, little mathematical knowledge is required to operate them. He also assumes that the computer programs in question will be used in industries where engineers work, and that other topics could use more coverage in the engineering curriculum.
A
The effective use of computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering requires an understanding of mathematical principles.
This challenges the assumption that good computer programs can replace sound mathematical reasoning. It implies that engineers with little mathematical knowledge would not be able to use these programs effectively.
B
Many of the computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering are already in routine use.
This is fully compatible with the conclusion. Whether the emergence of these programs occurs in the past or future, the author advocates a change based on the expectation those programs will be in use while current students are practicing engineers.
C
Development of composites and other such new materials has meant that the curriculum for engineers who will work in industry must allow time for teaching the properties of these materials.
This strengthens the argument because it suggests time spent learning mathematical skills could be more productive if spent learning about composites.
D
Most of the computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering can be run on the types of computers available to most engineering firms.
This strengthens the argument because it suggests that most engineers who work in industry will have the capability to run these programs. It eliminates the possibility that the programs will be inaccessible to most practicing engineers.
E
The engineering curriculum already requires that engineering students be familiar with and able to use a variety of computer programs.
Proficiency in those computer programs may not make engineers proficient in the mathematical programs described. It’s not stated whether the programs engineers are already familiar with require a strong mathematical foundation.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the country’s water supply wouldn’t be threatened peat harvesting. This is because Ireland, where peat has been harvested for centuries, doesn’t have a contaminated water supply.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that her country is in virtually every important respect similar to Ireland. If this wasn’t true, then the author couldn’t draw conclusions about how harvesting peat would affect the water supply. She also assumes that peat is safe to harvest so long as it doesn’t contaminate the water supply.
A
Over hundreds of years, the ecological balance of all areas changes slowly but significantly, sometimes to the advantage of certain flora and fauna.
This tells us virtually nothing. We know peat has been safely harvested in Ireland for hundreds of years, and we don’t care what flora and fauna have benefitted in the meantime.
B
The original ecology of the peat-harvesting areas of Ireland was virtually identical to that of the undisturbed wetlands of this country.
Ireland and the wetland areas of the author’s country are virtually identical from an ecological standpoint. Thus, peat harvesting should have the same effect in this country as it did in Ireland.
C
The activities of other industries in coming years are likely to have adverse effects on the water supply of this country.
We don’t care about other industries. We care about peat.
D
The peat resources of this country are far larger than those of some countries that successfully harvest peat.
We don’t care. The only other relevant country here is Ireland, which this doesn’t mention.
E
The peat-harvesting industry of Ireland has been able to supply most of that country’s fuel for generations.
We’re trying to strengthen the claim that peat harvesting won’t contaminate the water supply. We don’t care about how beneficial peat is for fuelling a nation.