Summarize Argument
Anthropologists overrate the usefulness of field studies because they underestimate how much their presence influences the community they’re studying.
Identify Conclusion
Anthropologists overrate the usefulness of field studies: “the usefulness of field studies tends to be overrated by anthropologists.”
A
Anthropologists tend to overestimate the value of field studies.
This rephrases the conclusion.
B
In a field study, the researcher lives within the community being studied.
This is context. It explains what a field study is, which is a key concept in the overall argument.
C
Field studies have been a central feature of anthropological research for a long time.
This is context. It provides background on what a field study is.
D
Most anthropologists know that when they live within a community being studied, the community is affected at least somewhat.
This is context. It provides background for the premise that anthropologists underestimate how much they affect the community they are studying.
E
Most anthropologists underestimate how much of an effect the researcher’s presence has on a community being studied.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that the usefulness of field studies is overrated by anthropologists.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people who hold insurance politics with other companies besides Popelka can save hundreds of dollars by switching to Popelka. This is based on the fact that a survey of new Popelka policyholders reported savings of, on average, $250 per year as a result of switching to Popelka.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the new Popelka policyholders (the ones who had switched from other insurance companies) are representative of people who hold insurance policies with other companies. This overlooks the possibility that the ones who switched to Popelka are the ones who had the opportunity to save money by switching. The people who haven’t switched yet might be people who can’t save by switching.
A
It overlooks the possibility that at least some of the new Popelka Auto Insurance policyholders surveyed reported that they saved little or no money when they switched their auto insurance coverage to Popelka.
The survey reports savings “on average.” An average recognizes the possibility of outliers. So some people might not have saved money by switching; this doesn’t change the fact that new policyholders on average did save $250 per year.
B
It takes for granted that the new Popelka Auto Insurance policyholders pay no less for their auto insurance, on average, than do people who have held Popelka Auto Insurance policies for a longer period of time.
The argument doesn’t compare how much new policyholders pay with how much longer, non-new policyholders pay.
C
It fails to address adequately the possibility that switching to another insurance company would enable many auto insurance policyholders to save even more money than they would save by switching to Popelka.
The conclusion isn’t that switching to Popelka will help people save the most compared to switching to other companies. The conclusion is only that switching to Popelka will help people save money. Whether switches to other companies save more has no impact on the argument.
D
It takes for granted that few if any of the Popelka Auto Insurance policyholders surveyed underestimated how much they saved when they switched their auto insurance coverage to Popelka.
The argument’s reasoning isn’t based on the estimates of policyholders before they made the switch. Maybe everyone underestimated how much they’d save and found that they ended up saving more than expected; this wouldn’t undermine the argument.
E
It fails to address adequately the possibility that people capable of saving hundreds of dollars by switching their auto insurance coverage to Popelka are disproportionately represented among the new Popelka auto insurance policyholders.
This possibility shows that the savings achieved by the new Popelka policyholders might not be achievable by most people who are with other companies. The survey’s results are based on a sample that can save more, on average, than other people would save by switching.
Summary
Drug companies often send gifts to physicians when marketing their products. Most physicians believe that their choices when prescribing drugs are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts. However, most physicians also believe most other physicians’ prescription choices are influenced by such gifts.
Notable Valid Inferences
Some physicians incorrectly believe either that their choices are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts or that most other physicians’ choices are influenced by such gifts.
A
Physicians who do not accept gifts from drug companies are less likely to prescribe unnecessary drugs than those who do accept such gifts.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about the likelihood of physicians prescribing unnecessary drugs to make this comparison.
B
Most physicians believe that drug companies should adopt new guidelines that regulate their practices in sending gifts to physicians.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about what most physicians believe in regards to drug companies’ guidelines.
C
Some physicians are mistaken either about the degree to which they are influenced by gifts from drug companies or about the degree to which such gifts influence other physicians.
Must be true. If most physicians believe both that they are not influenced by gifts and that most other physicians are influenced by gifts, then there must be some overlap between the groups and some physicians must hold a mistaken belief.
D
Some physicians who admit that their own choices when prescribing drugs are influenced by drug companies’ gifts believe that other physicians’ prescription choices are influenced to a greater degree by such gifts.
Could be false. The stimulus is restricted to physicians that believe their own choices are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about physicians who admit their choices are influenced by these gifts.
E
All physicians who admit that their own choices when prescribing drugs are influenced by drug companies’ gifts believe that most other physicians’ prescription choices are also influenced by such gifts.
Could be false. The stimulus is restricted to physicians that believe their own choices are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about physicians who admit their choices are influenced by these gifts.
Margaret: A primary goal of any university is to serve the needs of the community where it is located. The main reason people have for attending a university is the same as that for attending a community college: preparing oneself for a career.
Speaker 1 Summary
James argues that universities do not work to meet the educational needs of their communities. He supports this by saying that universities’ goals differ from community colleges’ goals. Further, all community colleges have a goal of meeting their communities’ educational needs. So, if universities’ goals are different, they wouldn’t be trying to meet those needs.
Speaker 2 Summary
Margaret doesn’t make an argument, just two factual claims. Firstly, all universities have a primary goal of serving their community’s needs (presumably including educational needs). Secondly, most people attend universities and community colleges for the same reason, to prepare for a career.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement. James and Margaret disagree about whether a primary goal of universities is to meet their communities’ educational needs.
A
A primary goal of any university is to serve the educational needs of its community.
James disagrees and Margaret agrees, making this their disagreement. James directly states that universities do not share this goal with community colleges, while Margaret directly states that universities do have this primary goal.
B
Most universities adequately serve the educational needs of the communities in which they are located.
Neither speaker makes this claim. James and Margaret are just talking about universities’ primary goals. They don’t get as far as discussing whether universities actually accomplish those goals.
C
The main reason people have for attending a university is to prepare themselves for a career.
Margaret agrees with this and James doesn’t state an opinion. As with (E), James never mentions the reasons that people have for attending a university.
D
In a typical community, the primary educational need is to prepare community residents for careers.
Margaret seems to agree with this, but James doesn’t offer an opinion. James doesn’t talk at all about what people’s educational needs actually are.
E
The main reason people have for attending a university is the same as the main reason people have for attending a community college.
Margaret agrees with this and James does not express an opinion. Like with (C), James doesn’t discuss people’s reasons for attending universities or community colleges.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do so few people become more efficient after taking an organization skills seminar, even though many become more organized?
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that highlights a key difference between how the organizational skills seminar affects organization and how it affects efficiency.
A
Some of the people who are most efficient in the workplace are not among the most organized.
This doesn’t present a difference between the effect of organizational skills seminars on organization versus on efficiency. Even if many efficient people are unorganized, we still need a reason why the seminar might contribute to people’s organization but not their efficiency.
B
Most people whose organizational skills in the workplace are below average do not take seminars for building organizational skills in the workplace.
This doesn’t explain why the seminar contributes to organizational skill but not to efficiency. Regardless of organizational skill before the seminar, we know that most people were more organized after the seminar. We need an explanation for why they weren’t also more efficient.
C
Most seminars for building organizational skills in the workplace are designed for people who have been selected for management training.
This doesn’t provide a difference between how organizational skill and efficiency are affected by the seminar. It doesn’t matter for whom the seminars are designed or who takes them; we need a hypothesis that contributes to an explanation of the seminar’s results.
D
Most people who have taken a seminar for building organizational skills in the workplace have below-average organizational skills before they enroll in the seminar.
Again, regardless of who takes the seminar or what that person’s organizational skill level is before taking the seminar, we know that most people were more organized after the seminar. We still need an explanation for why they weren’t also more efficient.
E
Most people who have taken a seminar for building organizational skills in the workplace consequently expend a great amount of time organizing their activities.
This answer provides a hypothesis that highlights a key difference between how the organizational skills seminar affects organization and how it affects efficiency. After one takes the seminar, she spends more time organizing and is thus more organized but not more efficient.
Summary
The author concludes that the recent biography of Shakespeare does not explain what is most interesting about him. This is based on the fact that the biography doesn’t explain what made Shakespeare different from his contemporaries.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts that the biography doesn’t explain what’s “most interesting” about Shakespeare. But the premise doesn’t tell us anything about the concept of what’s “most interesting” about Shakespeare. All that the premise establishes is that the biography doesn’t explain what made Shakespeare different from his contemporaries. The missing link is the assumption that what made Shakespeare different from his contemporaries IS the most interesting thing about Shakespeare.
A
There is no way to know what made Shakespeare different from his contemporaries.
(A) doesn’t tell us what’s most interesting about Shakespeare. So if the premise also doesn’t say anything about what’s most interesting, (A) can’t establish the conclusion.
B
The life of the average man in Elizabethan England is uninteresting.
(B) doesn’t tell us what’s most interesting about Shakespeare. So if the premise also doesn’t say anything about what’s most interesting, (B) can’t establish the conclusion. The fact the average person was uninteresting has nothing to do with what’s most interesting about Shakespeare.
C
Shakespeare was very different from the other men of his time.
(C) doesn’t tell us what’s most interesting about Shakespeare. So if the premise also doesn’t say anything about what’s most interesting, (C) can’t establish the conclusion. The fact Shakespeare was very different from other men does not imply that what made him different was the most interesting thing about him.
D
A biography should always focus on what makes its subject distinctive.
What a biography should do tells us nothing about whether this particular biography does or does not explain what’s most interesting about Shakespeare.
E
What is most interesting about Shakespeare is what made him different from his contemporaries.
We know from the premise that the biography doesn’t explain what made him different from his contemporaries. (A) establishes that what made him different is the most interesting thing about him. So the biography doesn’t explain the most interesting thing about him.