Letter to the Editor: Your article on effective cockroach control states that vexone is effective against only one of the more than 4,000 cockroach species that infest North America: the German cockroach. In actuality, vexone has been utilized effectively for almost a decade against all of the species that infest North America. In testing our product, Roach Ender, which contains vexone, we have conducted many well-documented studies that prove this fact.
Summary
The letter writer claims that vexone is effective against all cockroach species in North America.
Notable Valid Inferences
This is a MBF Except question. This means all the wrong answers cannot be logically inferred from the stimulus. The right answer can be logically inferred from the stimulus.
A valid logical inference from the stimulus is that either the Editor’s article or the letter writer is incorrect about vexone’s effectiveness against cockroaches in North America.
A
Vexone is effective against only two species of cockroach that infest North America.
This conflicts with the letter writer’s view. He believes vexone is effective against the more than 4,000 cockroach species in North America.
B
Not all of the major species of cockroach that infest North America can be controlled by Roach Ender.
This conflicts with the letter writer’s view. He believes Roach Ender is effective against all cockroach species in North America.
C
Every species of cockroach that infests North America can be controlled by vexone.
This does not conflict with the letter writer’s view. He believes vexone is effective against all cockroach species in North America.
D
The cockroach infestations that have been combated with vexone have not included all of the cockroach species that infest North America.
This conflicts with the letter writer’s view. He claims that many well-documented studies demonstrate that vexone is effective against all cockroach species in North America.
E
Roach Ender was tested against exactly 4,000 cockroach species that infest North America.
This conflicts with the letter writer’s view. The letter writer believes that studies show vexone is effective against all cockroach species in North America, of which there are more than 4,000.
Summarize Argument
Market researchers claim to get information from observational research, which involves watching customers while they shop, that they can’t get from traditional survey-based market research.
Notable Assumptions
Market researchers assume it’s not possible to formulate traditional surveys in a way that allows them to gather the sort of information they claim is only obtainable through observational research.
A
Even consumers who are unable to explain their preference for or rejection of particular brands reveal which brands they are considering by picking up and putting down products while they are shopping.
This explains why observational research provides information that survey-based research doesn’t. It allows researchers to observe what products consumers consider before buying, even when consumers can’t provide that information on surveys.
B
Market researchers find that consumers are almost always willing to participate in observational research for which the consumer is paid by the hour.
This is irrelevant. It says nothing about the information participants provide during observational research, and it draws no comparisons between observational research and survey-based research.
C
Consumers are becoming increasingly self-conscious about their buying habits, and some consumers have stopped buying some items that they normally used to buy.
This is a phenomenon market research might explain—it doesn’t explain why observations give researchers some information that surveys don’t. It doesn’t imply consumers are more likely to misrepresent their behavior on surveys than in observational studies.
D
Market researchers say they find data collection more enjoyable in observational research than in survey research, because observational research requires more creative judgment on their part.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how much researchers enjoy observational research unless that enjoyment somehow gives them more information about consumers—and there’s no indication it does.
E
Consumers are more likely to respond to oral surveys than they are to respond to written questionnaires.
Both oral surveys and questionnaires are surveys, and thus belong to traditional non-observational market research. This suggests traditional research might be more effective with oral surveys, but does not address observational research at all.
Maurice: But you are recommending nothing short of censorship! Besides which, your claim that television and movie depictions of violence cause violence is mistaken: violence among young people predates movies and television by centuries.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Maurice concludes that Jane is mistaken in claiming that violence in TV and movies causes violence in young people. He supports this by pointing out that violence in young people existed long before movies and TV.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Maurice’s premise doesn’t effectively support his conclusion. Just because violence in young people existed before violent media, doesn’t mean that that media can’t cause violence in young people today. Isn’t it possible that violent movies and TV shows cause violence in young people today, while something else caused it in the past?
A
It presupposes that an unpopular policy cannot possibly achieve its intended purpose.
Maurice never makes this assumption. In fact, neither Maurice nor Jane addresses the popularity of banning violence in movies and TV shows.
B
It confuses a subjective judgment of private moral permissibility with an objective description of social fact.
Maurice never confuses a subjective judgment with an objective description. He also never discusses “moral permissibility” at all. He just says that Jane is advocating for censorship.
C
It rules out something as a cause of a current phenomenon solely on the ground that the phenomenon used to occur without that thing.
This describes Maurice’s key flaw. He argues that violent TV shows and movies can’t cause violence among young people simply because violence among young people used to occur before movies and TV shows existed.
D
It cites purported historical facts that cannot possibly be verified.
Maurice cites the fact that “violence among young people predates movies and television by centuries.” This fact can certainly be verified.
E
It relies on an ambiguity in the term “violence” to justify a claim.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation,” where The author uses a term inconsistently. Maurice simply doesn’t do this. He uses the term “violence” consistently throughout his argument.
Summary
Increased humidity levels in a room protects furniture, draperies, and computers from damage caused by air that is too dry. Humidity can also make people feel warmer, helps the body defend itself against viruses, and relieves some skin rashes.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
We should note that, since this is an “except” question, any strongly supported conclusion would be an incorrect answer choice. We’re looking for an answer choice that is unsupported or least supported. Some strongly supported conclusions could include:
Dry air can feel cooler than warm air.
Higher humidity levels can help relieve some skin conditions.
Higher humidity levels can benefit a person’s immune system.
Dry air can feel cooler than warm air.
Higher humidity levels can help relieve some skin conditions.
Higher humidity levels can benefit a person’s immune system.
A
Humidity can be bad for computers.
This answer is anti-supported. We know from the stimulus that humidity levels in a room can protect computers from the effects of air that is too dry. It is dry air, instead, that is bad for computers.
B
A room can be too dry for the optimal maintenance of its furnishings.
This answer is supported. We know from the stimulus that raising humidity levels in a room can protect computers from the effects of air that is too dry.
C
Dry air can feel cooler than humid air of the same temperature.
This answer is supported. We know from the stimulus that humidity can make people feel warmer.
D
Increased humidity can be beneficial to the skin.
This answer is supported. We know from the stimulus that humidity can help alleviate some skin rashes.
E
The human immune system can benefit from humidity.
This answer is supported. We know from the stimulus that humidity can help the body’s defense against viruses.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Birds usually hide in vegetation when startled, but tend to flee vegetation when startled in suburban gardens.
Objective
A hypothesis explaining this behavior must imply a difference between startled birds in general and birds startled at feeders in suburban gardens. This difference must explain why birds in suburban gardens seem to buck the trend by fleeing vegetation and colliding with windows.
A
Predator attacks are as likely to occur at bird feeders surrounded by dense vegetation as they are at feeders surrounded by little or no vegetation.
This eliminates an irrelevant distinction. The author states or implies no difference between feeders surrounded by dense vegetation and those surrounded by little to no vegetation, nor suggests to which category suburban garden feeders belong.
B
The bird feeders in some suburban gardens are placed at a considerable distance from the houses.
This deepens the mystery. If the birds are long distances from the windows when startled, their collision with them seems less coincidental—yet no more clear.
C
Large birds are as likely as small birds to fly into windowpanes.
This is irrelevant information. The author makes no distinction between large and small birds, so their similarity in this respect does nothing to explain the birds’ behavior.
D
Most of the birds startled while feeding at bird feeders placed in suburban gardens are startled by loud noises rather than by predators.
This is an irrelevant distinction. There is no suggestion that birds startled by noises are less likely to seek vegetation than birds startled by predators.
E
The windowpanes of many houses clearly reflect surrounding vegetation.
This explains the tendency of birds at suburban feeders to collide with windows. The birds mistake the windowpanes for vegetation, colliding with them accidentally.