Summarize Argument
Specialization in international trade carries risk. Small countries often have a small number of products that make up the majority of their exports. Examples of risks that could hurt the economy of these countries are that raw material exports could be used up and foodstuffs could be destroyed by natural disasters.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s warning about specialization in international trade: “such specialization carries risks.”
A
Specialization within international trade comes with risks.
This accurately rephrases the conclusion that specialization within international trade carries risks.
B
A natural disaster can destroy a whole season’s production overnight, devastating a small country’s economy.
This is a premise. It is an example of a risk that faces countries who specialize.
C
A small country’s supply of raw materials can be used up in a short period.
This is a premise. It is another example of a risk that faces countries who specialize.
D
Some countries rely on a small number of products for the export-based sectors of their economies.
This is a premise. It demonstrates why specialization is risky. If countries rely on only a few products, their exports are not diversified against disaster.
E
When international trade is free, countries can specialize in what they export.
This is context that sets up the argument about the potential risks of specialization.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
The group who knew they were competing for prizes wrote stories that ranked significantly lower on average than the group who didn’t know they were writing for prizes.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis explaining why the writing quality was different between people who knew they were being judged for prizes and people who didn’t know they were being judged. That explanation must result in people writing worse when they’re aware they’re being judged for prizes.
A
The cash prizes were too small to motivate an average adult to make a significant effort to produce stories of high quality.
First, we don’t know if any of the stories submitted were of high quality. Second, the cash prizes seemed to make a difference.
B
People writing to win prizes show a greater than usual tendency to produce stereotypical stories that show little creativity.
The group who knew they were writing for prizes wrote unoriginal stories, whereas the other group wrote with more relative creativity since they didn’t know they were competing. This explains the difference between the groups.
C
Most adults show little originality in writing stories on a topic suggested by someone else.
We need to know why one group wrote worse stories than the other. This lacks any comparative aspect.
D
The team of judges was biased in favor of stories that they judged to be more realistic.
We don’t know that the group who didn’t know they were writing for prizes wrote relatively realistic stories.
E
No one explained clearly to either group what standards would be used in judging their stories.
This doesn’t explain why one group wrote worse stories than the other. We need a comparative aspect in our answer.
Green: I disagree. Some of our salespeople with big territories wear out their cars in three years.
Hernandez: I meant three-year-old cars subjected to normal use.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Hernandez concludes that staff cars should be replaced every four years instead of every three years. Why? Replacement every four years would save money, as three-year-old cars are still in good condition. Hernandez clarifies that this claim only applies to the subset of staff cars which are subject to normal use, in response to Green’s comment that some staff cars used in large areas are not still in good condition after three years.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Hernandez responds to Green by clarifying the set to which the premise that three-year-old cars are in good condition applies. By clarifying that it’s specifically the subset of three-year-old cars that have been subject to normal use which are still in good condition, Hernandez neutralizes Green’s objection.
A
by explicitly qualifying a premise used earlier
Hernandez explicitly qualifies the earlier premise that “three-year-old cars are still in good condition” to specify that the claim applies to the subset of cars which are used normally, rather than the entire set of three-year-old staff cars.
B
by criticizing salespeople who wear out their cars in three years
Hernandez does not criticize salespeople anywhere in the argument.
C
by disputing the accuracy of Green’s evidence
Hernandez does not dispute the accuracy of Green’s evidence, but claims that it is already compatible with the intentions of Hernandez’s original claims.
D
by changing the subject to the size of sales territories
Hernandez doesn’t talk about the size of sales territories, and stays focused on the original subject of staff cars.
E
by indicating that Green used a phrase ambiguously
Hernandez does not claim that Green’s language is ambiguous at any point, instead responding to the substance of Green’s objection.
Summarize Argument
The economist concludes that significantly raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment. This is because raising the minimum wage would make minimum-wage jobs more expensive for businesses, leading to layoffs.
Notable Assumptions
The economist assumes that businesses will shoulder the costs of the minimum wage raise, rather than increasing the price of their products and services to account for the new expense. She also assumes that most businesses aren’t currently seeking a substantial number of employees to fill their minimum wage jobs, which if true would suggest that layoffs aren’t imminent.
A
Businesses typically pass the cost of increased wages on to consumers without adversely affecting profits.
The minimum wage raise won’t affect profits. Employers therefore won’t need to lay off minimum-wage workers, at least not for the reason mentioned.
B
When the difference between minimum wage and a skilled worker’s wage is small, a greater percentage of a business’s employees will be skilled workers.
We don’t care about skilled workers. We have no idea if businesses are even looking for skilled workers.
C
A modest increase in unemployment is acceptable because the current minimum wage is not a livable wage.
The economist only cares about how the minimum wage affects unemployment. We don’t care about livable wages.
D
Most workers are earning more than the current minimum wage.
The economist never claimed minimum wage workers constitute the majority of workers. We don’t care that most people earn more than the minimum wage.
E
The unemployment rate has been declining steadily in recent years.
Even if unemployment has been declining, a minimum wage raise may make it rise again. We don’t care about general trends.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Rather than growing as expected once viruses were removed from the environment, the plankton population shrank.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why the plankton population shrank. The explanation must explain why plankton do better in an environment with viruses rather than one without viruses, likely through some beneficial feature of viruses.
A
Viruses in seawater help to keep the plankton population below the maximum level that the resources in the water will support.
Without viruses, plankton still would’t be able to expand beyond the maximum level water resources support. We need to know why the plankton population actually shrank.
B
Plankton and viruses in seawater compete for some of the same nutrients.
If plankton and viruses are competitors, then the plankton population should’ve grown without the viruses. Instead, it shrank.
C
Plankton utilize the nutrients released by the death of organisms killed by viruses.
Viruses kill organisms which in turn feed plankton. Without viruses, the plankton population starved. This explains why the plankton population shrank.
D
The absence of viruses can facilitate the flourishing of bacteria that sometimes damage other organisms.
The language here is very weak. We don’t know if bacteria flourished without the viruses, or if plankton are one of the organisms those bacteria can damage.
E
At any given time, a considerable portion of the plankton in seawater are already infected by viruses.
This doesn’t explain why the plankton population shrank without the viruses. If many members were already infected, we need some other reason why the plankton population shrank further once the viruses were gone.
Summarize Argument
The council member concludes that to prevent anarchy, the council must deny the Senior Guild’s request for an exception. As support, he says that granting this exception would lead to other, undeserved exceptions and eventually to exceptions to all kinds of city ordinances.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The council member’s argument is vulnerable to criticism because he never provides evidence to support the key assumption that granting the Senior Guild’s exception would inevitably cause the council to grant undeserved exceptions to all kinds of city ordinances. Similarly, he never gives reason to believe that granting the request would cause anarchy.
A
distorts an argument and then attacks this distorted argument
The council member never attacks, distorts, or even presents any argument made by the Senior Guild. Instead, he presents his own argument for why the Guild’s exception should be denied.
B
dismisses a claim because of its source rather than because of its content
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw. The council member doesn’t make this mistake. He argues that the Guild’s request should be denied, but he doesn’t do so by attacking the Guild itself. In fact, he concedes that the Guild deserves this exception.
C
presumes, without sufficient warrant, that one event will lead to a particular causal sequence of events
The council member assumes that granting the Senior Guild’s exception will lead to a particular causal sequence of events— all manner of other exceptions and anarchy. But he doesn't offer any reason to think that one will actually cause the other.
D
contains premises that contradict one another
The council member’s premises may not support his conclusion well, but they never contradict one another.
E
fails to make a needed distinction between deserved exceptions and undeserved ones
The council member actually does distinguish between undeserved and deserved exceptions by pointing out that the Senior Guild’s exception is deserved, while some others are not. He just fails to take that distinction into consideration in his argument.