"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do children find it easier to catch balls when they are thrown faster?
Objective
Any hypothesis explaining this phenomenon must state a difference between balls thrown slowly and balls thrown at high speeds. This difference must result in children more easily catching balls thrown at high speeds.
A
Balls thrown at a faster speed, unlike balls thrown at a slower speed, trigger regions in the brain that control the tracking of objects for self-defense.
This explains why children have an easier time catching faster balls. Because the high speed triggers different regions in the brain, they catch fast balls using a different mechanism than they use to catch slow balls.
B
Balls that are tossed more slowly tend to have a higher arc that makes it less likely that the ball will be obscured by the body of the adult tossing it.
This deepens the mystery. If balls tossed slowly are less likely to be obscured, children should catch them more easily.
C
Adults generally find it easier to catch balls that are thrown slowly than balls that are thrown at a faster speed.
This refers to adults, not children. It is not implied that the catching abilities of adults are aligned with or opposite those of children.
D
Children are able to toss balls back to the adults with more accuracy when they throw fast than when they throw the ball back more slowly.
This refers only to children’s ability to throw balls accurately, not to catch them. It does not explain why children find balls easier to catch when they are coming in faster.
E
There is a limit to how fast the balls can be tossed to the children before the children start to have more difficulty in catching them.
This limit does not explain why children more easily catch faster balls in general. It introduces a separate phenomenon at higher speeds, without explaining the phenomenon at hand.
Summary
A functional magnetic-resonance image (fMRI) is similar to a genetic profile because it can contain information a patient wishes to keep private. An fMRI also contains enough information to create a recognizable image of a patient’s face. On the other hand, someone’s genetic profile can be linked to them only through labels or records.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
fMRIs can identify patients in a way that genetic profiles do not.
A
It is not important that medical providers apply labels to fMRIs of patients’ brains.
There is no support for whether it is important for medical providers to apply/not apply labels to fMRIs of patients' brains. You have to make this assumption.
B
An fMRI has the potential to compromise patient privacy in circumstances in which a genetic profile would not.
The stimulus says that an fMRI can reveal an image of a patient’s face while a genetic profile does not. This has the potential to compromise patient privacy in differing circumstances.
C
In most cases patients cannot be reasonably sure that the information in a genetic profile will be kept private.
There is no information about the safety of data in genetic profiles, so it is unreasonable to contend that most patients cannot be sure that their information is kept private.
D
Most of the information contained in an fMRI of a person’s brain is also contained in that person’s genetic profile.
This comparative statement is not supported. There are no details about how much information overlaps between an fMRI and genetic profile.
E
Patients are more concerned about threats to privacy posed by fMRIs than they are about those posed by genetic profiles.
This is an unreasonable assumption to make. The passage does not compare the level of concern patients feel about the privacy threats posed by fMRIs vs. genetic profiles. It is unclear whether patients even know about the potential privacy risks.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The council member concludes that the shoe factory would be a better emergency shelter site, compared the courthouse, which other council members proposed. Why? Because no evidence has been provided to show that the courthouse would be a better shelter.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter lack of support vs. false conclusion flaw. Just because there isn’t enough support to confirm a certain conclusion, that doesn’t mean that conclusion must be wrong. The courthouse hasn’t been well-defended by opposing council members as a better shelter than the shoe factory, but that doesn’t mean it might not actually be a better shelter.
A
asserting that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct
The council member actually does the opposite: assuming that a lack of evidence for a view is proof that the view is incorrect.
B
accepting a claim simply because advocates of an opposing claim have not adequately defended their view
The council member accepts the claim that the shoe factory would be a better shelter, because advocates of the courthouse haven’t defended their choice. But a lack of support for the courthouse doesn’t necessarily make the shoe factory a better shelter in reality.
C
attacking the proponents of the courthouse rather than addressing their argument
The council member doesn’t attack the proponents of the courthouse, or say anything at all about their character.
D
attempting to persuade its audience by appealing to their fear
The council member doesn’t appeal to the emotions of the audience, and certainly doesn’t make any appeal to fear.
E
attacking an argument that is not held by any actual council member
The council member counters a view that is held by at least some council members: the view that the courthouse would be a better shelter site.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that Travaillier Corporation is trying to attract new customers. Her evidence is that Travaillier is trying to expand its operations into bus tours, despite the fact most of Travaillier’s customers usually travel by air and haven’t changed their preferences
Notable Assumptions
In order for Travaillier to be attempting to attract new customers, the author must assume that its current customers aren’t interested in bus tours. While these customers usually travel by air, we have no idea whether or not they’re open to bus tours as vacation options, either in lieu of or in addition to air travel. She also assumes that, even if these travellers don’t currently want bus tours, Travaillier isn’t trying to increase their interest in bus tours rather than attract entirely new customers.
A
In the past, Travaillier has found it very difficult to change its customers’ vacation preferences.
The author claims Travaillier isn’t trying to change its customers’ vacation preferences.
B
Several travel companies other than Travaillier have recently tried and failed to expand into the bus tour business.
We don’t care if other companies have tried and failed. Travaillier might be trying, as well.
C
At least one of Travaillier’s new employees not only has experience in the bus tour industry but has also designed air travel vacation packages.
Even taking away new hires as evidence, the fact Travaillier has been negotiating with charter bus companies suggests they might be trying to break into bus tours.
D
Some of Travaillier’s competitors have increased profits by concentrating their attention on their customers who spend the most on vacations.
We don’t know if people taking bus tours spend the most on vacations.
E
The industry consultants employed by Travaillier typically recommend that companies expand by introducing their current customers to new products and services.
Travaillier isn’t trying to get new customers—they’re trying to change their current customers’ preferences. If we added this as an addition premise, the author’s conclusion wouldn’t follow.