Summary
Fiber-optic telephone cables are more expensive to make than copper cable. Networks using fiber-optic cables are less expensive overall than copper. This is because copper cables require frequent amplification of electrical signals to travel long distances, whereas fiber-optic cables use light pulses that travel farther before requiring amplification.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Savings from switching to fiber-optic cables from copper cables exceeds the greater manufacturing cost.
A
The material from which fiber-optic cable is manufactured is more expensive than the copper from which copper cable is made.
This is unsupported because while we know it is more expensive to manufacture fiber-optic cable, we don’t know if this is directly due to the price of materials or some other part of the manufacturing process.
B
The increase in the number of transmissions of complex signals through telephone cables is straining those telephone networks that still use copper cable.
This is unsupported because while we know that it is more expensive to send signals long distance with copper, we don’t know that it necessarily puts more strain on the networks.
C
Fiber-optic cable can carry many more signals simultaneously than copper cable can.
This is unsupported because we are not told anything about the quantity of signals that each type of cable can carry.
D
Signals transmitted through fiber-optic cable travel at the same speed as signals transmitted through copper cable.
This is unsupported because the author only tells us about the cost, not about the speed of transmitting signals on each type of cable.
E
The cost associated with frequent amplification of signals traveling through copper cable exceeds the extra manufacturing cost of fiber-optic cable.
This is strongly supported because the author states that switching to fiber-optic cables can save money overall despite the greater cost associated with manufacturing fiber optic cables.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that being near woodlands promotes crop health for crops that depend on pollination. This is because bees visit flowers close to woodlands far more often than flowers far from wetlands.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the frequency with which a bee visits a flower has an effect on its pollination. If bees only need to visit a flower once to pollinate it, then additional visits would make little difference.
A
The likelihood that a plant is pollinated increases as the number of visits from pollinators increases.
The more often a bee visits a plant, the more likely the plant is to be pollinated. Being close to woodlands is thus beneficial to crops that depend on pollination, since bees visit crops near woodlands more often than those far from woodlands.
B
Many bees live in habitats other than woodlands.
We don’t care where bees live. We already know they visit flowers near woodlands more often than those far from woodlands.
C
Woodlands are not the natural habitat of all pollinators.
Like (B), this is totally irrelevant. We already know bees visit flowers near woodlands more often than those far from woodlands. We don’t care about other pollinators.
D
Some pollinators visit flowers far from their habitats more often than they visit flowers close to their habitats.
We already know bees visit flowers near woodlands more often than those far from woodlands. We don’t care about other pollinators.
E
Many crops that are not near woodlands depend on pollination.
According to the author, those crops would be more successful if they were near woodlands. This doesn’t strengthen the argument.