Summary
Some people argue that because advertising changes people’s preferences, advertising is socially harmful. The author shows this argument is flawed by pointing out that classes in music and art change people’s preferences, too, but there’s nothing wrong with these classes. The author’s implicit point is that advertising is not necessarily bad simply because it changes people’s preferences.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Advertising is not necessarily bad simply because it changes people’s preferences.
The fact that something changes people’s preferences does not make the thing wrong.
The fact that something changes people’s preferences does not make the thing wrong.
A
consumers would still want most of the things they want even if they were not advertised
Unsupported. The author acknowledges that it’s possible advertising does change people’s preferences. The point is that it’s not bad simply because it changes people’s preferences.
B
the social perniciousness of advertising is not limited to its effect on people’s preferences
Antisupported. The author’s point is that advertising isn’t necessarily bad simply because it changes people’s preferences. So the author isn’t suggesting that advertising is socially pernicious.
C
the fact that advertising changes consumers’ preferences does not establish that it is bad
Strongly supported. Using an analogy, the author points out that the fact something changes preferences does not automatically make it bad.
D
if advertising changes consumers’ preferences, it generally does so in a positive way
Unsupported. Although the author believes changing consumers’ preferences isn’t necessarily bad, that doesn’t suggest the changes are positive. They may simply be neutral.
E
it is not completely accurate to say that advertising changes people’s preferences
Unsupported. The author drew an analogy to something that does change people’s preferences, but isn’t bad. The author isn’t denying that advertising change’s people’s preferences. He’s saying even if it changes people’s preferences, it’s not necessarily bad.
More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights than occur at crosswalks not so marked. Obviously these so-called safety features are a waste of taxpayer money.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that the crosswalk safety features are a waste of money because more pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks with these features than at crosswalks without them.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author compares the number of injuries at crosswalks with safety features and crosswalks without them. He assumes that these crosswalks are similar to one another in all relevant ways, but there could be some important differences between them. For example, maybe far more people cross at the crosswalks with safety features. Or maybe these crosswalks are more dangerous in the first place and the safety features make them much safer, even though more injuries still occur at them.
A
fails to consider that crosswalks marked by both striping and flashing lights are marked in this way precisely because they are the most dangerous ones
If the crosswalks got safety features because they were the most dangerous, there would likely be even more injuries without the features. Even though the safety features haven’t completely eliminated injuries, the author can’t conclude that they’re a waste of money.
B
takes for granted that safety features that fail to reduce the number of injuries are a waste of taxpayer money
The author never claims that the safety features “fail to reduce the number of injuries,” just that more injuries occur at crosswalks with the safety features.
C
presumes that there are less expensive features that will reduce the number of pedestrian injuries just as effectively as striping and flashing lights
The author doesn’t propose any alternative measures for reducing injuries. He never assumes that less expensive features will be as effective, he just suggests that the current features aren’t effective enough.
D
takes for granted that crosswalks with both striping and flashing lights have no other safety features
The author only addresses striping and flashing lights, but he never assumes that these are the only safety features at crosswalks.
E
fails to consider that, in accidents involving pedestrians and cars, the injuries to pedestrians are nearly always more serious than the injuries to occupants of cars
The author only addresses pedestrian injuries. How these injuries compare to drivers’ injuries is irrelevant.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the Korean sighting of the aurora borealis 5 days after John’s reported sighting of unusually large sunspots helps to confirm his reported observation. This is because sunspot activity is typically followed by the appearance of an aurora borealis after a time that average five days.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the observed aurora borealis did not appear as a result of phenomena unconnected to sunspot activity. This overlooks the possibility that many other phenomena could give rise to an aurora borealis, which could account for the Korean sighting of the aurora borealis.
A
An aurora borealis can sometimes occur even when there has been no significant sunspot activity in the previous week.
If anything, this undermines the argument by suggesting the aurora borealis may have occurred without any sunspot activity occurring five days before it.
B
Chinese sources recorded the sighting of sunspots more than 1000 years before John of Worcester did.
This simply indicates that sunspots have occurred for many years. But it doesn’t help confirm John’s reported sighting of sunspots or connect the aurora borealis with confirmation of John’s sighting.
C
Only heavy sunspot activity could have resulted in an aurora borealis viewable at a latitude as low as that of Korea.
This strengthens by eliminating other potential causes of the aurora borealis. Only sunspot activity could have created an aurora borealis viewable in Korea, so there must have been sunspot activity before the Korean sighting.
D
Because it is impossible to view sunspots with the naked eye under typical daylight conditions, the sighting recorded by John of Worcester would have taken place under unusual weather conditions such as fog or thin clouds.
This has no clear impact on John’s sighting. This simply gives more details about when his sighting would have occurred.
E
John of Worcester’s account included a drawing of the sunspots, which could be the earliest illustration of sunspot activity.
The fact John drew sunspots doesn’t help connect the Korean sighting of aurora borealis with John’s sighting of sunspots. What do drawings have to do with the aurora borealis? Nothing.
Summary
Many homeowners add commercial fertilizer to their lawns to keep them healthy.
Lawn soil needs macronutrients and micronutrients to remain healthy long-term.
Widely available commercial fertilizers only contain macronutrients.
Raking up grass clippings instead of letting them decay in the soil depletes soil’s micronutrients.
Lawn soil needs macronutrients and micronutrients to remain healthy long-term.
Widely available commercial fertilizers only contain macronutrients.
Raking up grass clippings instead of letting them decay in the soil depletes soil’s micronutrients.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
If homeowners rake their grass clippings instead of letting them decay, then widely available commercial fertilizer alone is not enough for their soil to remain healthy long-term.
Homeowners who use widely available commercial fertilizer and also rake their grass clippings need to use another source of micronutrients in order for their soil to remain healthy long-term.
Homeowners who use widely available commercial fertilizer and also rake their grass clippings need to use another source of micronutrients in order for their soil to remain healthy long-term.
A
There is no single fertilizer that provides both the macronutrients and micronutrients necessary for maintaining soil’s long-term health.
Unsupported. “Widely available commercial fertilizers” do not provide both the macronutrients and micronutrients necessary for soil’s long-term health. But this doesn’t mean that no fertilizer provides all necessary nutrients.
B
The macronutrients nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are available to homeowners only in commercial fertilizers.
Unsupported. These macronutrients are available to homeowners in commercial fertilizers, but they might be available in other fertilizers or methods too.
C
Widely available commercial fertilizers are not alone sufficient to maintain a healthy balance of nutrients in soil for lawns where grass clippings are not allowed to decay and return to the soil.
Very strongly supported. Widely available commercial fertilizers only provide macronutrients, and soil needs both macro and micronutrients. Since raking grass clippings depletes micronutrients, commercial fertilizers alone are not enough to keep the soil healthy in these lawns.
D
For soil to remain healthy in the long term, it requires the regular addition of both commercial fertilizers and a source of micronutrients such as grass clippings that are allowed to decay and return to the soil.
Unsupported. Commercial fertilizers provide macronutrients and decaying grass clippings provide micronutrients. But these might not be the only sources of nutrients. There could be other methods, like using compost or manure, that also allow soil to remain healthy long-term.
E
Homeowners who rake up their grass clippings are unable to maintain the long-term health of the soil in their lawns and gardens.
Unsupported. Raking up grass clippings depletes soil’s micronutrients, but there might be other sources of micronutrients that homeowners can use to maintain the long-term health of their soil.
Summary
Sharon heard her favorite author criticize a political candidate that she had supported for years. As a result, Sharon’s opinion of the author declined, while her opinion of the candidate remained the same.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Someone who hears an opinion that counters a long-held belief will doubt the source rather than question their held belief.
A
Artists who speak out on political matters will have influence only among their most dedicated fans.
There is no support for whether an artist’s most dedicated fans will be influenced. The stimulus just says that Sharon was not influenced.
B
A political statement from an artist should be considered only if the artist has established a reputation for being an honest and knowledgeable observer of politics.
There is no justification given for when an artist should give a political statement.
C
Artists should limit their public political statements to issues that are somehow related to the arts.
There is no support for when an artist should or should not give a political statement.
D
Someone who hears testimony that contradicts a long-standing opinion will generally entertain doubts about the source of the testimony rather than the correctness of the opinion.
Sharon’s longstanding support for a political candidate outweighs the opinion of her favorite author. As a result, Sharon’s opinion of the author declines (doubts the testimony of the source) instead of challenging her own beliefs.
E
People are far less likely to renounce an allegiance that they have had for many years than to renounce an allegiance that is new to them.
There is no information about how long Sharon supported her favorite author, so this comparative statement cannot be made.
Summarize Argument
In a study, volunteers were evenly divided into five groups. Each group tasted Sparkle Cola and one of five competing colas, with each group tasting a different one of the competing colas. Most people in the study said they preferred Sparkle compared to the other cola they tasted. The author concludes from this that Sparkle got a more favorable response from people in the study than any of the competing colas tested.
Identify and Describe Flaw
We know most consumers picked Sparkle as tasting better. But this doesn’t mean for every competing cola, most picked Sparkle. For example, perhaps one cola was picked by everyone who tasted it, but the other 4 competing colas lost out to Sparkle. The claim that “most” consumers preferred Sparkle applies to the overall study, not each individual matchup between Sparkle and a competing cola.
A
It overlooks the possibility that a generalization true of the entire group of volunteers was not true of each of the five smaller groups.
“Most” of the volunteers preferred Sparkle is a generalization true of the entire group of volunteers. But it’s not necessarily true of each of the five smaller groups. So one of the groups might have preferred their competing cola over Sparkle.
B
It takes for granted that most of the volunteers would buy Sparkle Cola rather than one of the other colas tasted, at least in situations where Sparkle Cola is not much more expensive.
The conclusion only concerns whether Sparkle elicited a more favorable response during the taste tests in the study. The conclusion doesn’t concern whether people would buy Sparkle.
C
It overlooks the possibility that some cola not tested in the study would have elicited a more favorable response than Sparkle Cola.
The conclusion only concerns the comparison between Sparkle and “the competing colas tested.” It doesn’t assert anything about colas that were not tested in the study.
D
It overlooks the possibility that many people may prefer Sparkle Cola to competing colas for reasons such as the packaging or price of Sparkle Cola, rather than its taste.
The argument only concerns the response of Sparkle Cola vs. the competing colas based on the taste tests in the study. Whether people might prefer Sparkle for reasons besides taste was not part of the study and isn’t part of the conclusion.
E
It is based on a study that does not elicit consumers’ responses to any beverages other than colas.
The conclusion is concerned only with colas. So the fact the study didn’t investigate non-colas is irrelevant.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that watching too much TV leads people to overestimate risks. Her evidence is a study showing a positive correlation between people who watch more TV than average and people who believe they’ll be victims of natural disasters.
Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the author concludes that watching too much TV causes people to overestimate risks. She thus assumes the opposite isn’t true (i.e. worrying about risks causes people to watch more TV), or that overestimating risks and watching TV aren’t jointly caused by some third factor. She also assumes that people who believe they’ll be victims of natural disasters believe the same about other risks the world presents. For example, if these people were less inclined to believe they’ll be the victims of violent crime, then the study wouldn’t help the author’s argument.
A
Many people overestimate the dangers that the world poses to them, regardless of the amount of television they watch.
Even if most people overestimate risk, watching too much TV might still be something that leads people to overestimate risk.
B
A person is less likely to live in an area that is prone to natural disasters if that person watches an above-average amount of television than if that person watches a below-average amount of television.
This seems to strengthen the author’s argument. People who watch lots of TV are less likely than average to be at risk of suffering a natural disaster, yet they believe themselves to be more at risk than average.
C
People who watch a below-average amount of television tend to have a fairly accurate idea of the likelihood that they will be victims of a natural disaster.
We don’t care about people who don’t watch much TV. We already know they’re less likely than people who watch lots of TV to believe they’ll be the victims of natural disasters.
D
People who are well informed about the risks posed by natural disasters tend to have become well informed in some way other than by watching television.
We don’t care about people who accurately estimate the risk posed by natural disasters. We need to weaken the link between watching lots of TV and overestimating risk.
E
A person is more likely to watch an above-average amount of television if that person lives in an area that is prone to natural disasters than if that person lives in an area that is not.
People who watch lots of TV have good reason to worry about natural disasters: they’re more likely than most people to live in areas prone to natural disasters. Thus, they might not be overestimating the risk of natural disasters at all.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if Earth’s atmosphere becomes significantly warmer, heavy downpours are likely to become more frequent. This is supported by a causal chain. A warm atmosphere leads to faster evaporation, which leads to rain clouds forming more quickly. A warm atmosphere also leads to more moisture in the atmosphere, which makes clouds larger. The larger, more quickly forming rain clouds result in heavier downpours. This is how heavy downpours are more likely if the atmosphere gets warmer.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is offered as support for the conclusion. It’s part of the causal chain that shows how a warmer atmosphere can lead to more frequent heavy downpours.
A
It is the only conclusion in the argument.
The referenced text is not a conclusion. It’s a premise offered to support the conclusion.
B
It is the conclusion of the argument as a whole but is not the only explicitly stated conclusion in the argument.
The referenced text is not a conclusion. It’s a premise offered to support the conclusion.
C
It is a statement that the argument is intended to support but is not the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
The referenced text is not supported by any other statement. It’s a premise offered to support the conclusion.
D
It is used to support the only conclusion in the argument.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. It is part of the causal chain that is offered to support the conclusion in the first sentence.
E
It provides a causal explanation of the phenomenon described by the conclusion of the argument as a whole, but it is not intended to provide support for that conclusion.
The referenced text does provide support for the conclusion.