"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do people invest in technologies that promise to extend life and decrease pain when those technologies are risky investments?
Objective
A hypothesis explaining this behavior will state a benefit to investors that makes the risk worthwhile. It must apply to a group of investments including those that promise to extend life and decrease pain.
A
When investments in new technologies that promise to extend life and decrease pain do provide financial return, they generally return many times the original investment, which is much more than the return on safer investments.
This explains why some investors take the risk. When such a technology does succeed, it brings a large financial benefit that makes the risk worthwhile.
B
A large variety of new technologies that promise to extend life and decrease pain have been developed in the last decade.
This does not explain why people invest in those technologies. It states that such technologies are numerous, not that they are generally successful.
C
The development of certain new technologies other than those that promise to extend life and decrease pain is also very risky, because these technologies require large amounts of capital but are unlikely to provide any financial return.
This does not state that most investments are risky, but rather identifies a new category of risky investments. Simply the existence of this category does not explain why the technologies in question attract investments.
D
Some investments that initially seem likely to provide reasonably large financial return ultimately provide no financial return.
It is not stated whether the technologies in question fit this description. It is possible that no technologies that promise to extend life and decrease pain seem likely to provide a large financial return.
E
The scientific research necessary to develop new technologies that promise to extend life and decrease pain sometimes leads to no greater understanding of the natural world.
This is irrelevant information. No relationship between the understanding of the natural world gained from research and the tendency of people to invest in that research is implied.
Summarize Argument
The department chair claims that the psychology textbook was chosen for purely academic reasons despite the associated donation. Her evidence is that the department’s textbook committee gave the textbook the highest-possible rating.
Notable Assumptions
The department chair assumes that the department’s textbook committee wasn’t affected by the donation. Thus, any connection between the donation and the committee would compromise her claim. She also assumes that either no other relevant textbook also received the highest rating, or else she would have to explain why this particular textbook was chosen for “purely academic reasons” over another textbook of comparable merit.
A
The members of the textbook committee were favorably influenced toward the textbook by the prospect of their department receiving a large donation.
The textbook committee were influenced by the donation. Thus, the fact the textbook received a high rating doesn’t signal “purely academic reasons.”
B
The department has a long-standing policy of using only textbooks that receive the committee’s highest rating.
We don’t care about tradition. We care about how the donation influenced the decision to use the textbook.
C
In the previous year, a different textbook from the same company was used in the introductory course.
We don’t care about previous years. We care about how the donation influenced the decision to use the textbook.
D
The department chair is one of the members of the textbook committee.
Even if this was true, she may have been able to give an unbiased opinion of the textbook as a committee member. And if she didn’t, the other members might’ve outvoted her.
E
The textbook company does not routinely make donations to academic departments that use its books.
They made a donation in this case.
Summary
Hemoglobin transports oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. As it picks up more oxygen molecules, a hemoglobin molecule becomes more effective at picking up additional oxygen molecules until it reaches its capacity of four. Grabbing an oxygen molecule changes the shape of the hemoglobin molecule, making it easier to receive more oxygen.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A hemoglobin molecule with more oxygen is more effective at picking up oxygen molecules than a hemoglobin molecule with fewer oxygen molecules.
A
A hemoglobin molecule that has picked up three oxygen molecules will probably acquire a fourth oxygen molecule.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus says that it becomes increasingly likely to pick up an additional oxygen molecule but does not state that it is *likely*.
B
The only factor determining how effective a hemoglobin molecule is at picking up oxygen molecules is how open the shape of that hemoglobin molecule is.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus says that the shape of a hemoglobin molecule plays *a* factor, not that it is the sole factor.
C
A hemoglobin molecule that has picked up three oxygen molecules will be more effective at picking up another oxygen molecule than will a hemoglobin molecule that has picked up only one oxygen molecule.
This comparative statement is supported because the stimulus says that a hemoglobin molecule becomes increasingly effective at picking up more oxygen molecules the more molecules it already has.
D
A hemoglobin molecule that has picked up four oxygen molecules will have the same shape as a hemoglobin molecule that has not picked up any oxygen molecules.
There is no information about the kind of shape a hemoglobin molecule has.
E
Each hemoglobin molecule in human blood picks up between one and four oxygen molecules in or near the lungs and transports them to some other part of the body.
It is possible that a hemoglobin molecule does not pick up any oxygen molecules. No information specifies that a hemoglobin molecule has to pick up between one and four oxygen molecules.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why are drivers with passengers more likely to get in accidents on short trips but less likely to get in accidents on long trips?
Objective
Any hypothesis explaining this phenomenon must state some difference between short and long trips. This difference must include a distinction between solo drivers and drivers with passengers that explains why carrying a passenger increases accident risk on long trips but decreases it on short trips.
A
People are much more likely to drive alone on short trips than on long trips.
This would explain a discrepancy between the total number of accidents in each category, but not different likelihoods of getting in an accident.
B
Good drivers tend to take more long trips than bad drivers.
This does not account for a passenger changing the probability of getting in an accident. It explains a phenomenon different from the one described.
C
The longer a car trip is, the more likely a passenger is to help the driver maintain alertness.
This explains why having a passenger lowers the probability of an accident during a long trip but increases it during a short trip. Passengers on short trips distract the driver, while passengers on long trips keep the driver alert.
D
On a long trip the likelihood of an accident does not increase with each additional passenger.
This states no difference between cars with passengers and cars with no passengers. For the sake of the discrepancy, cars with multiple passengers fall into the same category as cars with one passenger.
E
Most drivers take far more short trips than long trips.
This would explain a higher number of accidents on short trips, but not the phenomenon described. It does not explain why a passenger raises the accident probability in some cases but lowers it in others.
Mayor: Clearly my opponent does not dispute the employment statistics. The unemployed voters in this city want jobs. The 8 percent increase in the number of jobs during my term exceeds that of any of my predecessors.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The mayor counters the challenger’s position and implicitly concludes that she has vindicated her voters by fulfilling her promise to increase job availability. She notes that unemployed voters want jobs and that the 8% increase in the number of jobs during her term is higher than any of her predecessors.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The mayor ignores the challenger’s primary argument, which is that the 8% job increase came from a government office moving to the city with its entire staff. Because she fails to address this, the mayor doesn’t effectively counter the challenger’s argument.
A
takes for granted that those who supported the mayor in the last election believed job availability to be a significant city issue
The mayor does argue that job availability was important to her voters by saying, “The unemployed voters in this city want jobs.” But (A) doesn't describe a flaw in her argument.
B
does not consider whether the number of unemployed persons within the city represents more than 8 percent of the eligible voters
The mayor doesn’t address this, but it doesn’t describe a flaw in her argument. Even if unemployed people represent more than 8% of voters, it doesn’t change the fact that there was an 8% increase in the number of jobs during her term.
C
fails to address the challenger’s objection that the 8 percent increase did not result in an increase in job availability for those who lived in the city at the time of the last election
The mayor fails to address the objection that the 8% job increase came from a government office moving to the city with its entire staff, rather than from increased job availability for her unemployed voters.
D
ignores the challenger’s contention that the influx of newcomers during the mayor’s administration has increased the size of the voting public and altered its priorities
The challenger doesn’t make this contention. He never argues that the newcomers increased the size of the voting public and altered its priorities, so the mayor doesn't need to address this point.
E
explicitly attributes to the challenger beliefs that the challenger has neither asserted nor implied
The mayor only claims that the challenger agrees with the employment statistics. Since the challenger does cite these statistics, she isn’t falsely attributing a belief to him.