Researcher: Dinosaur fossils come in various forms, including mineralized bones and tracks in dried mud flats. However, mineralized dinosaur bones and dinosaur tracks in dried mud flats are rarely found together. This isn’t surprising, because creatures that scavenged dinosaur carcasses most likely frequented mud flats to find food.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The researcher concludes that it isn’t surprising that dinosaur bone fossils are rarely found near fossilized dinosaur tracks in mud flats. This observation is explained with the hypothesis that animals that scavenged dinosaur carcasses often searched for food in mud flats.

Notable Assumptions

The researcher assumes that dinosaur bones could have been moved away from the dinosaur tracks by the activity of creatures that scavenge dinosaur bones in mud flats. The researcher also assumes that there isn’t an alternate explanation for dinosaur bones and tracks often being separated in mud flats.

A
Dinosaur tracks are also found in locations other than mud flats.

This is irrelevant, since the the researcher’s hypothesis only aims at explaining dinosaur tracks that are in mud flats; no conclusions are being drawn about other types of locations.

B
Scavengers commonly drag a carcass away from the site where it was found.

This strengthens the argument by providing a mechanism for the separation of dinosaur bones from tracks by scavenger activity. This affirms the researcher’s assumption that scavenger activity can lead to tracks and bones being separated.

C
Researchers have found more fossil dinosaur tracks than fossil dinosaur bones.

This is irrelevant, since the hypothesis doesn’t depend on the relative frequency of tracks and bones, only the observation that they are rarely found together in mud flats.

D
Dinosaur fossils other than mineralized bone or tracks in dried mud flats are quite common.

This is irrelevant, since the researcher doesn’t make any claims about other types of dinosaur fossils, and only seeks to explain why bones and tracks are rarely found together in mud flats.

E
It takes longer for bone to mineralize than it takes for tracks to dry in mud flats.

This is irrelevant, because how long bones take to mineralize has no bearing on whether or how those bones can be moved away from their original location by scavengers.


12 comments

Electric stovetop burners would cause fewer fires if their highest temperature were limited to 350ºC (662ºF), which provides more than enough heat for efficient and effective cooking. The lowest temperature at which cooking oil and most common fibers ignite is 387ºC, and electric burners on high go well above 700ºC.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The author tells us that limiting the temperature of electric stove burners to 350°C would cause fewer fires. This is supported in two ways: first, by telling us that some flammable items (oil and most fabric) need to be heated above this point to catch fire; and second, by stating that electric burners can currently go far above the temperature needed to ignite these items. By establishing that a fire risk currently exists, and that this limit would reduce or eliminate it, the author supports the conclusion that setting the limit would lead to fewer fires.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s claim about lowering fire risk: “Electric stovetop burners would cause fewer fires if their highest temperature were limited to 350°C (662°F).”

A
Electric stovetop burners would cause fewer fires if their highest temperature were limited to 350ºC.
This is where the author states the conclusion. Everything else in the argument is meant to convince us that this claim is true.
B
A maximum temperature of 350ºC provides more than enough heat for efficient and effective cooking.
This is used to explain that stoves would still be useful with the proposed limitation, but doesn’t actually form part of the argument about lowering fire risk. This is not supported by anything else, nor does it provide support to the conclusion.
C
The lowest ignition temperature for cooking oil and most common fibers is 387ºC.
This is a premise that supports the conclusion, because it shows that keeping stoves below this temperature would mean a lower risk that oil and fabric near the stove could catch fire.
D
Electric burners on high go well above 700ºC.
This is a premise that supports the conclusion, because it shows that stoves currently reach a high enough temperature to ignite some materials that might come near the burners.
E
Electric stovetop burners cause fires because they go well above 700ºC when set on high.
The argument implies that this is true, but this claim acts as support for the conclusion that limiting stovetop temperatures would reduce the number of fires. That makes it a sub-conclusion at best, not the main conclusion.

3 comments

Question 22

Why is (D) wrong?

For (D), Passage B is saying "Look, you're misunderstanding progressive taxes. By that I mean you have a factually inaccurate conception of what progressive taxes are. Let me use the remaining paragraphs to give you an accurate understanding of what progressive taxes while additionally showing you why as a tax regime it's superior to flat taxes."

I think there's got to be a distinction b/t "you've stated or characterized progressive taxes inaccurately" v. "you've raised an objection to the progressive tax regime".


33 comments