From 1880 to 2000 Britain’s economy grew fivefold, but emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, were the same on a per capita basis in Britain in 2000 as they were in 1880.
Summary
From 1880 to 2000 Britain’s economy grew fivefold, but emissions of carbon dioxide were the same on a per capita basis in Britain in 2000 as they were in 1880.
Notable Valid Inferences
Economic growth does not always increase per capita emissions of carbon dioxide.
A
A decrease in per capita emissions of carbon dioxide never occurs during a period of economic growth.
Could be true. To say that this never occurs is too extreme. It is possible that between 1880 and 2000, per capita emissions fluctuated only to become the same at the end of the stated time period.
B
Countries whose economies are growing slowly or not at all usually cannot afford to enact laws restricting carbon dioxide emissions.
Could be true. The information in the stimulus is limited to the country of Britain. Britain’s economy grew fivefold between 1880 and 2000, and we cannot assume that this rate is slow for economic growth.
C
Economic growth initially leads to increased per capita emissions of greenhouse gases, but eventually new technologies are developed that tend to reduce these emissions.
Could be true. It is possible that between 1880 and 2000, per capita emissions fluctuated only to become the same at the end of the stated time period.
D
As the world’s population grows, emissions of greenhouse gases will increase proportionately.
Could be true. The information in the stimulus is restricted to the country of Britain. It is possible that the world’s population experienced a different overall outcome from economic growth than Britain.
E
Economic growth always increases household income and consumption, which inevitably increases per capita emissions of carbon dioxide.
Must be false. The stimulus tells us that even though Britain’s economy grew, per capita emissions remained the same. Therefore, it is not always the case that economic growth increases per capita emissions.
Summary
The author concludes that if Whalley sticks with her current platform, she can win the election. Why? Because although sticking with her current platform will lead to her losing to her opponent by a few percentage points among voters under 50, it will also lead to her beating her opponent by a bigger percentage among older voters.
Missing Connection
By sticking to her current platform, she’ll win older voters by a larger percentage than she will lose younger voters. But does that guarantee that she can win? No, since we don’t know the comparative number of voters that she’ll win/lose compared to her opponent in each age category. What if the number of over 50 people is much smaller than the number of younger people? In that case, Whalley might not win with her current platform.
To make the argument valid, we want to know that the number of voters Whalley will win among the older voters is higher than the number of voters Whalley will lose among the younger voters by sticking with the current platform.
To make the argument valid, we want to know that the number of voters Whalley will win among the older voters is higher than the number of voters Whalley will lose among the younger voters by sticking with the current platform.
A
There is no change Whalley could make to her platform that would win over more voters under 50 than it would lose voters 50 and over.
(A) establishes that Whalley doesn’t have a better alternative compared to her current platform for winning older voters. But this doesn’t establish that her current platform will allow her to get more votes than her opponent.
B
The issues that most concern voters under 50 are different from those that most concern voters 50 and over.
(B) doesn’t establish that her current platform will allow her to get more votes than her opponent.
C
If Whalley changes her platform, her opponent will not change his platform in response.
The argument concerns what her current platform allows. What happens if Whalley changes her platform doesn’t establish what happens if she keeps her current platform.
D
There will be more voters in the election who are 50 and over than there will be voters under 50.
If the older group has more people than the younger group, then that means the number of voters Whalley will gain by winning the older group will exceed the number of voters she’ll lose among the younger group.
E
Whalley would change her platform if she thought it would give her a better chance to win.
The argument concerns what her current platform allows. Whether Whalley would change her platform has nothing to do with what her current platform allows.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Word-of-mouth campaigns are more successful when product boosters are open about their involvement in the marketing campaign, even though it seems like such openness might undermine a supposed advantage of word-of-mouth campaigns: that consumers tend to be less skeptical of this strategy than they are of mass-media advertisements.
Objective
The right answer will give us some reason why consumers react more positively to word-of-mouth product boosters who admit that they are part of a marketing campaign. This benefit will help us understand why product boosters who are open about their affiliation are more successful, even though it may seem like this strategy would make them less trustworthy and thereby undermine a typical advantage of word-of-mouth campaigns.
A
Word-of-mouth marketing campaigns are generally used for specialty products that are not well suited to being marketed through mass-media advertisements.
The type of product being marketed doesn’t matter for our purposes. We’re interested in the general advantages of a particular marketing strategy rather than information about what type of products are being sold via said strategy.
B
Those who tend to be the most receptive to mass-media marketing campaigns are also the least likely to be influenced by knowledge of a product booster’s affiliation.
This doesn’t help us. We need to know why knowledge of a product booster’s affiliation makes campaigns more successful on aggregate, not information about a particular subset of consumers and the likelihood that they’ll be influenced by this strategy.
C
Most people who work as product boosters in word-of-mouth marketing campaigns have themselves been recruited through a word-of-mouth process.
This tells us nothing about product boosters who admit their affiliation or why they tend to be more successful than those who do not.
D
Most word-of-mouth marketing campaigns cost far less than marketing campaigns that rely on mass-media advertisements.
We don’t need to compare word-of-mouth marketing campaigns to mass-media advertisements, we need to know about word-of-mouth campaigns wherein product boosters acknowledge their affiliation vs. those in which they don’t. We also aren’t interested in costs, just effectiveness.
E
When a word-of-mouth product booster admits his or her affiliation, it fosters a more relaxed and in-depth discussion of the marketed product.
This helps explain why product boosters who admit their affiliation are more successful: their admission leads to more relaxed, in-depth discussion, which likely reduces skepticism and thereby enhances a purported advantage of word-of-mouth campaigns rather than undermining it.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Legal theorists hypothesize that jurors in a trial regard scientific evidence as more credible than they would outside a trial because judges prescreen scientific evidence, and therefore allow only credible scientific evidence in the courtroom.
Notable Assumptions
Legal theorists assume that jurors not only know judges prescreen scientific evidence, but that jurors also trust judges to do so in a way where only credible evidence is allowed in the courtroom. Legal theorists also assume that some other, unaccounted-for reason—i.e. hearing such scientific evidence in-depth—leads jurors to give scientific evidence more credence in trials than they otherwise would outside trials.
A
whether jurors typically know that judges have appraised the scientific evidence presented at trial
If jurors don’t know that judges have appraised the scientific evidence, then they can’t be confident in the evidence for the reason the legal theorists have hypothesized. If they are, then the hypothesis remains possible.
B
whether jurors’ reactions to scientific evidence presented at trial are influenced by other members of the jury
Even if some jurors are influenced by other jurors, we’re interested in why any jurors at all give scientific evidence more credence when it’s presented at a trial than when it’s encountered elsewhere.
C
how jurors determine the credibility of an expert witness who is presenting scientific evidence in a trial
We’re not interested in expert witnesses. We have no reason to believe jurors determine expert credibility with the same criteria they use to evaluate scientific evidence.
D
whether jurors typically draw upon their own scientific knowledge when weighing scientific evidence presented at trial
Do jurors do this in non-trial situations? We have no idea, which means this has no bearing on the legal theorists’ hypothesis: that jurors give scientific evidence more credence in trials than they would elsewhere.
E
how jurors respond to situations in which different expert witnesses give conflicting assessments of scientific evidence
We’re not interested in expert witnesses. We’re interested in scientific evidence.
Summary
As a people, the Kuna generally have a low incidence of high blood pressure. However, Kuna who have moved to Panamanian mainland do not have low incidence of high blood pressure. Kuna who live on Panamanian islands, unlike Kuna who live on the mainland, usually drink cocoa every day. This cocoa is high is flavonoids.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Drinking cocoa high in flavonoids every day tends to decrease the incidence of high blood pressure.
A
Foods high in flavonoids are not readily available on the Panamanian mainland.
We don’t know what kinds of foods are accessible on the mainland. It is possible that the cocoa is readily available and Kuna on the mainland choose not to drink it.
B
Kuna who live on the islands drink cocoa because they believe that it is beneficial to their health.
We don’t know what the Kuna believe about the cocoa. It is possible that the Kuna drink the cocoa for other reasons, possibly because it tastes good.
C
The Kuna have a genetic predisposition to low blood pressure.
We can’t say that the Kuna are genetically predisposed to low incidence of high blood pressure. In the stimulus, we are told that Kuna who live on the mainland do not have low incidence of high blood pressure.
D
Kuna who live on the Panamanian mainland generally have higher blood pressure than other people who live on the mainland.
We don’t know anything about other people who may live on the Panamanian mainland. The stimulus is limited to the Kuna who either live on the Panamanian mainland or Panamanian islands.
E
Drinking several cups of flavonoid-rich cocoa per day tends to prevent high blood pressure.
It is likely that the cocoa drink tends to cause low incidence of high blood pressure for Kuna living on Panamanian islands. This would explain the difference in incident between Kuna living on the mainland and Kuna living on the islands.