Lopez: The real problem is mysis shrimp, which were originally introduced into the lake as food for mature kokanee; but mysis eat plankton—young kokanees’ food. The young kokanee are starving to death. So eradicating the shrimp is preferable to allowing trout fishing.
Summarize Argument
Lopez concludes eliminating non-native mysis shrimp would be better for the kokanee salmon population than allowing fishing for native trout. Why? Because while trout eat mature kokanee, mysis shrimp eat plankton, which lowers plankton levels enough that young kokanee salmon starve.
Notable Assumptions
Lopez assumes eliminating mysis shrimp and thus allowing more young kokanee to avoid starvation would be better for the kokanee population than fishing for native trout and thus allowing more adult kokanee to survive predation. This means assuming that removing the mysis shrimp would leave much more plankton available for young kokanee to eat.
A
Eliminating a non-native species from a habitat in which it threatens a native species is preferable to any other method of protecting the threatened native species.
This strong principle supports Lopez’s argument. Since the mysis shrimp is non-native and threatens the native kokanee population, it implies removing the shrimp is the best way to protect the kokanee.
B
When trying to protect the food supply of a particular species, it is best to encourage the method that will have the quickest results, all else being equal.
Without more information, this doesn’t strengthen or weaken Lopez’s argument. It’s not suggested that allowing trout fishing would protect the kokanee’s food supply, nor is it indicated which would work faster—removing the shrimp or removing the trout.
C
The number of species in a given habitat should not be reduced if at all possible.
This weakens Lopez’s argument. It implies other ways of helping the kokanee population—allowing trout fishing, for example—are preferable to removing a whole species, which Lopez advocates.
D
No non-native species should be introduced into a habitat unless all the potential effects of that introduction have been considered.
This supports not introducing mysis shrimp in the first place, but it says nothing about removing species that are already present. Since the mysis shrimp have already been introduced, this principle doesn’t apply.
E
When seeking to increase the population of a given species, it is most important that one preserve the members of the species who are in the prime reproductive stage of their lives.
If anything, this weakens Lopez’s argument. It implies mature kokanee should be prioritized, suggesting it would be better to allow trout fishing than to remove mysis shrimp.
Summary
People with low self-esteem are treated disrespectfully more often than people with high self-esteem. A recent experiment discovered when people with low self-esteem and people with high self-esteem receive the same treatment from others, people with low self-esteem are more likely to feel they have been treated disrespectfully.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Thus, people with low self-esteem believe they are being treated disrespectfully more often than people with high self-esteem.
A
people with low self-esteem are usually right when they think they have been treated disrespectfully
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the perceptions of people with low self-esteem are objectively correct or not. We only know people with low self-esteem believe that they are treated disrespectfully more often.
B
being treated disrespectfully tends to cause a person to develop lower self-esteem
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what causes a person to develop low self-esteem. We only know that there is a correlation between low self-esteem and feeling disrespected.
C
if an individual has been treated disrespectfully, it is probably because the individual was perceived to have low self-esteem
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what causes a person to be treated disrespectfully. We only know that there is a correlation between low self-esteem and feeling disrespected.
D
people with low self-esteem more frequently think that they are being treated disrespectfully than do people with high self-esteem
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that even in the case where people with low self-esteem and people with high self-esteem receive the same treatment, the people with low self-esteem are more likely to feel disrespected.
E
a person with low self-esteem will be more inclined to treat others disrespectfully than will a person with high self-esteem
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus how people with low self-esteem treat others.
Summary
The author concludes that it would not be wrong to perform mining operations on Mars. Why? Because of the following:
These are the only 2 reasons it could be wrong to engage in an activity that causes pollution: (1) the pollution harms ecosystems, OR (2) pollution harms human populations.
Mining operations on Mars would pollute, but would not harm human populations.
These are the only 2 reasons it could be wrong to engage in an activity that causes pollution: (1) the pollution harms ecosystems, OR (2) pollution harms human populations.
Mining operations on Mars would pollute, but would not harm human populations.
Missing Connection
In order to be wrong, the mining operations must either harm ecosystems or harm human populations. We know that the operations won’t harm humans. But the premises don’t establish that the operations won’t harm ecosystems. So if we want to conclude that the operations would not be wrong, we want to know that they won’t harm ecosystems.
A
Mining creates less pollution than many other human activities.
(A) doesn’t establish that the mining operations on Mars won’t harm ecosystems.
B
There are no ecosystems on Mars.
(B) establishes that the mining operations won’t harm ecosystems. After all, if there are no ecosystem on Mars, then the mining operations there have no ecosystems to harm.
C
The economic benefits of mining on Mars would outweigh its costs.
(C) doesn’t establish that the mining operations on Mars won’t harm ecosystems.
D
It is technologically feasible to perform mining operations on Mars.
(D) doesn’t establish that the mining operations on Mars won’t harm ecosystems.
E
The more complex an ecosystem is, the more valuable it is.
(E) doesn’t establish that the mining operations on Mars won’t harm ecosystems.
Cynthia: Promoting innovation is certainly important. For this reason, patents should be granted only for truly innovative drugs, not for minor variants of previously existing drugs. Since it is much less expensive to tweak an existing drug than to develop a wholly new one, pharmaceutical companies tend to focus primarily on the cheaper alternative.
Speaker 1 Summary
Dario says that patents should be granted for all new drugs. Why? Because patents promote innovation. Dario supports this major premise by explaining that patents reward pharmaceutical companies for spending money on researching new drugs.
Speaker 2 Summary
Cynthia thinks that patents should only be granted for “truly innovative” new drugs, not absolutely all new drugs. Cynthia also supports this proposal by saying it will promote innovation. So how does limiting patents help innovation? Because it would deter companies from just developing variations on existing drugs, which is cheaper than coming up with truly new drugs.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Dario and Cynthia disagree about whether absolutely all new drug developments should be rewarded with patents.
A
pharmaceutical companies should be rewarded for pursuing innovation
Both Dario and Cynthia agree with this. Both speakers want to encourage innovation by offering pharmaceutical companies rewards, they just disagree on what counts as innovation.
B
patents should be granted for all drug compounds
Dario agrees with this, but Cynthia disagrees: here’s the point of disagreement. This claim is Dario’s main conclusion. Cynthia’s conclusion, however, is that only certain drug compounds should get patents.
C
developing truly innovative drugs is costly
Both speakers agree that this is true. Dario talks about the “costly” research needed to develop any new drugs, and Cynthia says that varying existing drugs is “much less expensive” than innovative drugs (meaning innovation is much more expensive).
D
pharmaceutical companies have an incentive to create minor variants of existing drugs
Cynthia agrees with this, but Dario doesn’t express an opinion about minor variants specifically. Dario groups all sorts of new drugs together, and never distinguishes between minor variants and totally new drugs.
E
drug patents can promote innovation
Both speakers agree with this claim. Both Dario and Cynthia think that awarding patents can promote innovation, they just disagree about when precisely the decision to award patents should be made.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people who received extra change acted dishonestly. This is because most of them did not return the extra change they received.
Notable Assumptions
The author’s conclusion is based on the assumption that the customers knew they received extra change. If the customers were unaware they received the extra dollar, they did not act dishonestly by failing to return it.
A
Did those who received an extra dollar count their change?
If yes, the author’s conclusion is valid, as the customers knew they had received extra change and dishonestly kept it. If no, then the author’s conclusion is invalid, as the customers did not know they received the extra change and could not have kept it dishonestly.
B
What percentage of the retail transactions studied were cash transactions?
Irrelevant—the study’s sample is limited to customers who used cash for their transactions.
C
Would the people who returned the extra dollar describe themselves as honest?
Irrelevant—whether the customers self-describe as honest does not affect the author’s characterization of them as honest.
D
Did the people who returned the extra dollar suspect that it was given to them intentionally?
Irrelevant—the conclusion of the argument is about how most of the customers did not return the dollar and therefore behaved dishonestly. The author doesn’t make an explicit claim about those who returned the dollar, or their intentions in doing so.
E
Does increasing the extra change to five dollars have an effect on people’s behavior?
Irrelevant—the author’s conclusion is only about this particular study, in which customers were only given an extra dollar.