Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The journalist concludes that limiting the intake of iron-rich foods should reduce one’s chances of develop Parkinson’s disease. This is based on an observed correlation: that people with high dietary iron intake are more likely to develop Parkinson’s than people with low iron intake. For the author, this leads to the implied hypothesis that iron intake contributes to Parkinson’s.
Notable Assumptions
The journalist assumes that iron intake causes Parkinson’s, rather than both higher iron intake and higher likelihood of contracting Parkinson’s disease having a shared cause.
A
Most people who have a genetic predisposition to Parkinson’s disease have no more iron in their diets than people without the predisposition.
This strengthens by ruling out one alternate explanation for the correlation between high iron intake and Parkinson’s disease, i.e. that people genetically predisposed to Parkinson’s disease happen to also consume more iron.
B
Many of the vegetables regularly consumed by vegetarians who do not contract Parkinson’s disease are as rich in iron as meat and seafood.
This is irrelevant, since the author does not compare iron contents in different types of food. Meat and seafood are just possible examples of iron-rich foods.
C
Children and adolescents require a much larger amount of iron in their diets than do mature adults.
This is irrelevant, because the author does not make any claims about age, or even about the amount of iron required in peoples’ diets. The author just compares iron intake for people who do and don’t develop Parkinson’s, and this doesn’t affect that correlation.
D
The iron in some foods is much less easily absorbed by the body than the iron contained in other foods.
How easily iron is absorbed from different food sources is irrelevant to the author’s hypothesis that iron intake causes Parkinson’s, and that a general reduction of iron intake from food should thus lower the risk of Parkinson’s disease.
E
The amounts of iron-rich foods consumed by people starts to decline beginning at age 50.
The author doesn’t make any claims about the ages at which people tend to consume iron, so this is irrelevant. The correlation between iron intake and Parkinson’s isn’t affected by age-based trends in iron intake.
Summary
The author concludes that if what Grimes and the company president said are correct, then the contract was violated. Here’s what Grimes and the president said:
Grimes said the contract requires that before the proposed procedural changes are made, either the company president or at least one lawyer in the company’s legal department must be told about them.
The president said that the proposed procedural changes were made before the president or Yeung was told about them.
Grimes said the contract requires that before the proposed procedural changes are made, either the company president or at least one lawyer in the company’s legal department must be told about them.
The president said that the proposed procedural changes were made before the president or Yeung was told about them.
Missing Connection
For the purpose of the conclusion, we can accept what Grimes and the president said as true. With that understanding, we’re trying to prove that the contract was violated — in other words, that neither the president nor any lawyer in the legal department was told about the changes before they were made.
We know that the president wasn’t told. But we don’t know that there wasn’t any lawyer in the legal department who was told. We want to establish, then, that no lawyer in the legal department was told.
(You might be thinking that we’re looking for an answer that says Yeung is a lawyer in the legal department. This isn’t enough to make the argument valid, because we wouldn’t know that Yeung is the only lawyer in the department. If an answer says Yeung is THE ONLY lawyer in the department, then it would be correct.)
We know that the president wasn’t told. But we don’t know that there wasn’t any lawyer in the legal department who was told. We want to establish, then, that no lawyer in the legal department was told.
(You might be thinking that we’re looking for an answer that says Yeung is a lawyer in the legal department. This isn’t enough to make the argument valid, because we wouldn’t know that Yeung is the only lawyer in the department. If an answer says Yeung is THE ONLY lawyer in the department, then it would be correct.)
A
Yeung is a lawyer in the company’s legal department.
(A) doesn’t establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told. Sure, we know Yeung wasn’t told. But there could have been other lawyers who were told.
B
Neither Grimes nor Yeung was told about the procedural changes until after they were made.
(B) doesn’t establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told.
C
No lawyer in the company’s legal department was told about the procedural changes until after they were made.
(C) establishes that no lawyer in the legal department was told before the changes were made. Now we know that neither of the requirements were met: the president wasn’t told, and no lawyer in the legal department was told. So the contract was violated.
D
If the company’s president was told about the procedural changes before they were made, then the contract was not violated.
(D) doesn’t establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told.
E
If no lawyer in the company’s legal department was told about the procedural changes before they were made, then the contract was violated.
(E) doesn’t provide any new information that we can’t get from the premises. We want to establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told; we already know that if this didn’t happen, the contract was violated.
Summarize Argument
The jurist tells us that one of the goals of criminal punishment should be to ensure that criminal wrongdoing doesn’t yield a profit. In support, the jurist explains the general rule that it’s important not to allow lawbreakers to get an unfair advantage over people who follow the law. In other words, breaking the law shouldn’t be profitable. This, then, supports the conclusion that criminal punishment should aim to prevent crime from being profitable.
Identify Argument Part
The claim about the importance of guaranteeing that lawbreakers don’t get an unfair advantage is the premise offered to support the conclusion that criminal punishment should seek to keep criminal acts profitless.
A
It states a condition that, if fulfilled, will ensure that a legal system remains just.
The jurist suggests that avoiding an unfair advantage to lawbreakers is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for a just system. The argument actually doesn’t include any condition that would guarantee a just legal system.
B
It expresses a principle that is offered as support for the conclusion.
This is a good description of the role played by the claim about the importance of preventing crime from being unfairly advantageous. It’s a general principle that acts as a premise supporting the conclusion about a goal of criminal punishment.
C
It is a conclusion for which the only support offered is the claim that the legal system serves multiple goals.
Firstly, the claim about lawbreakers not getting an unfair advantage isn’t a conclusion: nothing else supports it. Secondly, the jurist never specifically claims that the legal system serves multiple goals.
D
It is a premise presented as support for the claim that the most important goal of criminal punishment is to ensure that criminal wrongdoing remains profitless.
The jurist doesn’t claim that preventing crime from being profitable is the most important goal of criminal punishment, just that it should be a goal. There’s nothing in the argument comparing goals and saying which is most important.
E
It is presented as refuting an argument that criminal punishment has goals other than guaranteeing that lawbreaking remains profitless.
This argument isn’t about refuting someone else’s point, it’s just about establishing one specific goal. Also, the jurist never claims that guaranteeing that lawbreaking remains profitless is the only goal of criminal punishment.
Summarize Argument
Retailers make use of advertised price cuts to attract consumers more often than they should. Why are such price cuts a problem? Because they lower profits and undermine customer loyalty.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s stance on retailers’ behavior: “too often they resort to using advertised price cuts to promote their wares.”
A
Feeling lucky is the most enjoyable emotional experience garnered from shopping.
This is context that helps to explain retailers’ motivation for using price cuts in the first place. This claim doesn’t receive support from anywhere else in the stimulus, so it cannot be the conclusion.
B
Retailers take advantage of the fact that shoppers enjoy feeling lucky.
This is context that helps to explain retailers’ motivation for using price cuts in the first place. This claim doesn’t receive support from anywhere else in the stimulus, so it cannot be the conclusion.
C
Advertised price cuts are overused as a means of gaining retail sales.
This accurately paraphrases the main conclusion. The author believes that retailers use advertised price cuts “too often” in order to attract sales.
D
Using advertised price cuts to promote retail products reduces profit margins and undermines customer loyalty.
This is the author’s premise. These two downsides of using advertised price cuts support the conclusion that such price cuts are used more often than they should be.
E
Making consumers feel lucky is usually not a good formula for retail success.
This is an overgeneralization of the main conclusion. The author merely concludes that one specific way of making consumers feel lucky—namely, advertised price cuts—is used too often. She doesn’t raise any concerns with the broader principle of making consumers feel lucky.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there is reason to believe that there may be life on Europa. As support for this conclusion, the author cites photographs that show that the icy surface of the moon seems to have buckled because of turbulent water underneath the surface. The author claims that this buckled ice is evidence that there is a warm sea underneath Europa’s icy surface. Scientists believe that a warm sea is a factor in the development of life, so the presence of a warm sea would support the author’s conclusion that there may be life on Europa.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is an intermediate conclusion. It receives support from the observation that the icy surface seems to have buckled. This claim then provides support for the main conclusion that there may be life on Europa.
A
It is a subsidiary conclusion used by the argument to support its overall conclusion.
The claim in the question stem is a subsidiary conclusion because it receives support from the observation that the icy surface seems to have buckled, and it goes on to support the argument’s main conclusion that there may be life on Europa.
B
It is the overall conclusion of the argument.
The overall conclusion of the argument is that there may be life on Europa, not that there is a warm sea beneath Europa’s icy surface.
C
It is used to discredit a theory that the argument disputes.
The argument does not discuss a theory that it disputes. The argument just works to support the claim that there may be life on Europa.
D
It is the only consideration presented in support of the argument’s overall conclusion.
It is not the only consideration used to support the main conclusion; there is additional evidence offered (for example, that such warm seas are thought to be a primary factor in the development of life).
E
It is presented as support for a subsidiary conclusion drawn in the argument.
The claim in the question stem is the subsidiary conclusion, it is not used to support the subsidiary conclusion.