Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
Ornithologists conclude that, despite recent reforestation efforts, the songbird situation is still getting worse. This is because songbirds are affected by forest fragmentation rather than a net reduction in size. Open spaces and wide corridors in forests, presumably the result of reforestation, make songbirds less shielded from their natural predators.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text gives a phenomenon that’s seemingly at odds with the wider situation. Shouldn’t reforestation efforts mean the songbird situation is improving? The argument shows why this isn’t necessarily the case.
A
It is used as evidence that various species of songbirds will continue to be threatened with extinction.
The referenced text isn’t evidence. It’s a phenomenon that the author reconciles with the current threat to songbird species.
B
It is presented as a claim that is rejected by ornithologists who present declining songbird populations as evidence of deforestation.
The author never states that ornithologists reject the claim that reforestation is happening. In fact, it’s something the ornithologists in question do in fact claim.
C
It is presented as a phenomenon that is compatible with the ornithologists’ claim that the threat to songbirds continues to worsen.
Despite reforestation seeming helpful to songbird species, the threat to songbirds is only growing stronger. The rest of the argument demonstrates how these two things can happen at once.
D
It is used as evidence that songbirds’ predators will continue to have a habitat and so will continue to pose a threat to songbirds.
The argument isn’t that reforestation gives songbirds’ predators a home. It’s that forest fragmentation leaves songbirds vulnerable to predators.
E
It is presented as evidence for the claim that songbirds’ predators are threatened by extinction unless they have open spaces and corridors that give them access to their prey.
The referenced text isn’t evidence. It certainly isn’t supporting the idea that songbirds’ predators are threatened which extinction, since that claim never appears in the argument.
Summary
The author concludes that the technical sophistication of newer video games often makes them less compelling to players. This is based on the fact that in these newer games, players find it hard to identify with the in-game figures that they control. The reason players find it hard to identify with these figures is that players can see these figures represent other people.
Missing Connection
The conclusion introduces the concept of being “less compelling to players.” The premises don’t establish anything about what leads to a game being less compelling to players. So at a minimum, the correct answer should establish what makes a game less compelling.
We can make a more specific prediction, because the premises tell us what the author thinks leads to games being less compelling. The premises establish that in the newer video games, players find it hard to identify with the figures they control. To make the argument valid, we want to establish that if it’s hard to identify with the figures one controls, a game becomes less compelling.
We can make a more specific prediction, because the premises tell us what the author thinks leads to games being less compelling. The premises establish that in the newer video games, players find it hard to identify with the figures they control. To make the argument valid, we want to establish that if it’s hard to identify with the figures one controls, a game becomes less compelling.
A
There are no newer, more technically sophisticated video games in which the player controls the movements of a simple icon on the screen.
(A) doesn’t establish what makes a game less compelling to players. Since neither this answer nor the premises establish what makes a game less compelling, it cannot make the argument valid.
B
Most early video games in which the player controlled a simple icon on the screen were in other respects less compelling to players than newer video games.
(B) establishes that certain early video games were less compelling than the newer video games. But this doesn’t establish that the technical sophistication of newer video games makes them less compelling.
C
The technical sophistication necessary for creating detailed human figures in video games cannot in itself make those video games fully compelling even to players who identify with those figures.
(C) establishes that the technical sophistication of the video games isn’t sufficient to make the games fully compelling. But this doesn’t establish that it decreases how compelling the games are. There’s a difference between not making something the most compelling and actively decreasing how compelling something is.
D
When players cannot easily identify with the figure or icon whose movements they control in a video game, they usually find that game less compelling than it otherwise would be.
(D) connects the premises to why the technical sophistication of newer video games often makes them less compelling. Failure of players to easily identify with the in-game figures they control usually decreases how compelling a game is.
E
If some aspect of a video game’s technical sophistication makes it less compelling to players, then that video game contains a human figure with whom it is difficult for players to identify.
(E) tells us what must be true IF an aspect of technical sophistication makes a game less compelling. But that’s the destination; we want to reach the conclusion that something is less compelling.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do we grow most North American pumpkins in regions with long, cold winters when there are many North American regions with longer growing seasons where pumpkins wouldn’t be exposed to early autumn frosts?
Objective
The right answer will describe some benefit of growing pumpkins in regions with long, cold winters, or else some drawback to growing pumpkins in the North American regions where there’s no risk of frost well into autumn.
A
Pumpkins are usually grown to reach maturity in autumn.
This is the opposite of what we need. If pumpkins reach maturity in autumn, we would presumably want a longer autumn in order to allow more pumpkins to reach maturity during the season.
B
Pumpkins depend on bees for pollination, and bees are active only in warm weather.
This is the opposite of what we need. If pumpkins depend on bees and warm weather for pollination, we would expect that it makes more sense to grow them in regions without long, cold winters.
C
More pumpkins are sold to consumers in regions of North America with long growing seasons than to those in regions with short growing seasons.
This is the opposite of what we need. If there were greater demand for pumpkins in regions with long growing seasons, that might be another reason why it would make sense to grow pumpkins there, rather than having to ship them from regions with shorter growing seasons.
D
Prolonged cold temperatures kill soil-borne fungus and other sources of disease that would kill or seriously damage pumpkins.
This is a benefit of growing pumpkins in regions with long, cold winters: during the winter, soil-borne fungus and other disease sources are killed off, leaving the soil safer for pumpkins during growing seasons. It makes more sense, then, that we grow pumpkins in these regions!
E
Most of the pumpkin seed used by growers in North America is produced in areas where the growing season is long, and plants used for seed production are protected in greenhouses.
This is the opposite of what we need. If pumpkin seeds were produced in regions with long growing seasons, that might be another reason why it would make sense to grow pumpkins there, rather than having to ship the seeds to other regions.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that we need to adopt the alternate code. This is because the traditional code contains a lot of obscure, unnecessary rules, which lead to debates over procedural details, which in turn leads to a decline in public confidence in the council. Public confidence is necessary for the council to be successful. In addition, the alternate code has been used successfully elsewhere.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there are no downsides to the alternate code that would outweigh the harm caused by the traditional code. The author also assumes that, if we want to avoid the problems of the traditional code, there’s no other option besides adopting the alternate code.
A
The council’s use of the problematic rules in the traditional code is intermittent.
Whether the problematic rules are used intermittently or continuously, there are still negative aspects of the traditional rule. The fact a problem might occur intermittently does not suggest the problem is minor or does not need to be fixed.
B
Those who have adopted the alternate code sometimes attempt to use it to obscure their opponents’ understanding of procedures.
Attempts to use the other code to confuse opponents does not suggest these attempts are successful or that they would lead to the same debates and decline in public confidence that the traditional rules lead to.
C
Revision of the traditional code is underway that will eliminate the problematic rules.
This undermines the assumption that avoiding the problem of the traditional code requires adopting the alternate one. (C) presents an alternative — if we can just remove the problematic rules from the traditional code, then it’s no longer “imperative” to adopt the alternate code.
D
It is not always reasonable to adopt a different code in order to maintain the public’s confidence.
We get a specific reason to think that changing codes to maintain public confidence is reasonable here — the council’s success depends on the public’s having confidence. Changing might not always be reasonable, but the author gives a specific reason to think it may be here.
E
The alternate code contains few provisions that have thus far been criticized as obscure or unnecessary.
(E) tells us that the alternate code doesn’t have many provisions that are criticized as obscure/unnecessary. This is a point in favor of the alternate code, because we know the traditional code has a “large number” of obscure/unnecessary rules.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the movie Firepower was intended to provoke antisocial behavior. This is based on the fact that the movie has produced antisocial behavior among many who have seen it.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the fact Firepower produced antisocial behavior proves it intended to produce that effect. This overlooks the possibility that something can produce unintended effects.
A
rejects an argument on the grounds that it was offered by a person who was biased
The author doesn’t claim that Jenkins was biased.
B
concludes from a mere correlation between certain phenomena that those phenomena are causally related
The premise establishes that the movie caused antisocial effects. So the argument doesn’t move from correlation to cause.
C
infers that something is true of a whole solely on the grounds that it is true of a part of the whole
The argument doesn’t commit a part-to-whole fallacy. The premises concern the effects of Firepower, and the conclusion concerns the intention behind Firepower.
D
overlooks the possibility that people can act in a way that is contrary to their expressed interest
The author’s argument doesn’t relate to the director’s interest. Jenkins’s position involved a claim about the director’s interest; but the author’s rejection of Jenkin’s argument doesn’t relate to the director’s interest.
E
concludes from the mere fact that an action had a certain effect that the effect was intended by the person who performed the action
The author concludes that the movie was intended to produce antisocial effects merely from the fact that the movie produced such effects. This is flawed, because the movie might have produced unintended effects.
Summarize Argument
The expert concludes that widespread food shortages will definitely happen. This is based on the claim that the planet’s resources will only allow for only a certain amount of increase in food production from now, after which no more increases will be possible.
Notable Assumptions
The expert assumes that the world population will eventually grow past the point where the maximum food production allowed by the planet’s resources is enough.
A
The world’s food resources, though limited, are renewable.
This doesn’t help the argument, because it doesn’t establish that the world’s population will ever exceed the level supported by maximum food production. In fact, it tells us nothing at all about population.
B
Food resources from the world’s oceans will eventually be fully utilized.
This is irrelevant, since the expert has already established that there is a maximum amount of food production allowed by the planet’s resources; it doesn’t make a difference to point out where those resources might come from.
C
The world’s population has recently remained fairly stable because of falling birth rates.
This weakens by undermining the expert’s assumption that the world population’s food needs will surpass what the earth can produce. If the population continues to be stable, even the planet’s current food production should still be enough to prevent food shortages.
D
Periodic regional food shortages have occurred at least briefly throughout history.
This is irrelevant, since the expert’s prediction of widespread food shortages in the future doesn’t rely on any evidence of regional food shortages occurring in the past.
E
Population will continue to grow at least briefly when food production has reached its maximum level.
This strengthens by affirming the expert’s assumption that the world population’s food needs will surpass what the earth can produce.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that modern civilizations that continue to rely heavily on irrigation for agriculture are likely to collapse. This is based on a comparison to the ancient Sumerian civilization, which relied on irrigation for agriculture. After irrigation built up toxic levels of salts and other impurities in the soil, the Sumerian civilization collapsed.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the problem of toxic levels of salts and other impurities faced by the Sumerians is likely to face modern civilizations that rely on irrigation for agriculture.
A
Most modern civilizations could not feed themselves through agriculture without relying heavily on irrigation.
This suggests modern civilizations need irrigation to feed themselves through agriculture. But this doesn’t relate to whether such reliance will lead to collapse from toxic soil.
B
Factors unrelated to the use of irrigation would probably have caused Sumerian civilization to collapse sooner or later.
Even if other factors would have led to the Sumerian collapse, that doesn’t change the fact that toxic soils contributed to the Sumerian collapse or whether what happened to the Sumerians will happen to modern civilizations.
C
Many modern farmers use irrigation techniques that avoid the buildup of salts and other toxic impurities in the soil.
This points out why what happened to the Sumerians might not happen to modern civilziations. Modern techniques might not lead to toxic levels of salt and impurities in soil.
D
Many modern civilizations do not rely to any significant extent on irrigation for agriculture.
We’re concerned with what happens to the ones that do rely on irrigation for agriculture. But whether these kinds of civilization are common or rare doesn’t relate to whether these kinds, however many there are, will collapse.
E
The soil of ancient Sumeria already contained some toxic salts and other impurities before the Sumerians started using irrigation for agriculture.
We have no reason to think modern soil doesn’t also contain some toxic salts and other impurities. In addition, even if modern soil doesn’t already have this, that just means it might take longer for the collapse. But (E) doesn’t suggest there wouldn’t be a collapse.