Summary
For up to a year after sale, Jones is responsible for repairing any defects in the roof and roof-supporting parts of the house.
The only roof-supporting walls of the house are the exterior walls.
Jones isn’t responsible for any other repairs.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
The only walls that Jones is responsible for repairs on are the exterior walls.
A
Jones did not know of any defects in the roof or roof-supporting components of the house at the time the contract was written
Unsupported. The stimulus gives no indication of what Jones knew.
B
although other components of the house may contain defects, the roof and roof-supporting components of the house are currently free from such defects
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t consider the current condition of any part of the house.
C
the contract does not oblige Jones to repair any defects in the house’s nonexterior walls after ownership of the house has been transferred
Very strongly supported. The only things Jones is obliged to repair are the roof and any roof-supporting components. And the only roof-supporting walls are exterior walls. So the nonexterior walls aren’t roof-supporting, meaning Jones isn’t obliged to repair them.
D
Smith will be obliged to repair all structural defects in the house within a year after ownership is transferred, except those for which Jones is responsible
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t consider Smith’s obligations at all. We know that Jones has certain obligations for repairs, but that doesn’t mean Smith is responsible for all other repairs. We know nothing of anyone’s obligations except Jones’.
E
in the past Jones has had to make repairs to some of the house’s exterior walls
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t consider what repairs have occurred, if any, or who performed those repairs.
Summary
The argument concludes that wooden cutting boards only need to be wiped off in order to prevent bacterial contamination of food cut on them, not washed like plastic cutting boards. This is supported by the claim that bacteria can sink into wooden cutting boards very quickly, rather than lingering on the surface.
Notable Assumptions
The argument jumps straight from bacteria sinking into wooden cutting boards to the conclusion that there must be no need to wash those cutting boards to prevent contamination. This assumes that once food debris is wiped off, there’s no way for the bacteria that penetrated a wooden cutting board to recontaminate the surface.
A
Washing plastic cutting boards does not remove all bacteria from the surface.
Whether or not washing removes all the bacteria from plastic cutting boards is irrelevant—the argument is only concerned with what steps are necessary to prevent contamination for wooden cutting boards.
B
Prevention of bacterial contamination is the only respect in which wooden cutting boards are superior to plastic cutting boards.
The argument doesn’t involve any broad claims about whether wooden or plastic cutting boards are overall superior, so this is irrelevant.
C
Food that is not already contaminated with bacteria can be contaminated only by being cut on contaminated cutting boards.
The argument isn’t concerned with every possible way food can be contaminated, it’s only considering when wooden cutting boards can contaminate food. Other sources of contamination are irrelevant.
D
Bacteria that penetrate into wooden cutting boards do not reemerge on the surface after the cutting boards have been used.
Reemerging after use would be one way for bacteria that penetrated into a wooden cutting board to recontaminate the surface. If we negate this, then bacteria can reemerge, which would mean that wiping the surface clean would not suffice to prevent contamination.
E
Washing wooden cutting boards kills bacteria below the surface of the cutting boards.
What would happen if someone washed a wooden cutting board isn’t relevant to the argument, which claims that washing is not necessary to prevent contamination from wooden cutting boards.
P: Your hypothesis is laughable! What would have been the point of such a person’s writing Homeric epics down? Surely a person who knew them well enough to write them down would not need to read them; and no one else could read them, according to your hypothesis.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
P concludes that M is incorrect to hypothesize that the Greek alphabet was invented by someone who knew the Phoenician writing system and wanted to record Homer’s stories. P claims that writing down those stories would have been pointless for such an individual, who would already know those stories without writing them down. Also, no one else would know the newly-invented alphabet and be able to read the stories.
Identify and Describe Flaw
P argues that M’s hypothesis is not convincing because there would be no point for someone to write down a story that they knew, in a new alphabet. However, P’s argument can be criticized for overlooking some convincing possible reasons:
1) the writer might anticipate forgetting the story later, and
2) the writer might teach the new alphabet to others.
A
It fails to demonstrate that the Phoenician alphabet alone could have provided the basis for the Greek alphabet.
P’s argument doesn’t rely on the claim that the Phoenician alphabet alone is the basis for the Greek alphabet. P isn’t making any claims at all about the basis for the Greek alphabet.
B
It incorrectly assumes that the first text ever written in Greek was a Homeric poem.
P simply doesn’t claim, nor rely on an assumption, that the first text written in Greek was a Homeric poem.
C
It confuses the requirements for a complex oral tradition with the requirements of a written language.
P doesn’t make any claims about the requirements of an oral tradition compared to those of a written language.
D
It attempts to demonstrate the truth of a hypothesis merely by showing that it is possible.
P doesn’t attempt to demonstrate the truth of a hypothesis at all, but rather, attempts to cast doubt on the truth of M’s hypothesis.
E
It overlooks the possibility that the person who invented the Greek alphabet did so with the intention of teaching it to others.
P claims that inventing an alphabet to write down Homeric stories would have been pointless partially because no one could have read the stories in a new alphabet. This overlooks the possibility that the writer wanted to teach others the alphabet.
Summarize Argument
The advertisement concludes that the audience’s skin should be regularly moisturized. This is based on an analogy to the earth, which experiences cracking and the loss of its beauty when it is not regularly moisturized.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The advertisement’s flaw is that it uses a bad analogy: it draws a conclusion about one case based on another case that isn’t really relevantly analogous. There’s no reason to believe that a lack of moisturizing will cause the same effects for skin as for the earth, since skin doesn’t have the same material properties as the earth.
A
It treats something that is necessary for bringing about a state of affairs as something that is sufficient to bring about that state of affairs.
The advertisement doesn’t confuse necessary and sufficient conditions in its reasoning. It does treat a lack of moisture as sufficient to cause cracking and loss of beauty in the earth, but never confuses that for a necessary condition.
B
It treats the fact that two things regularly occur together as proof that there is a single thing that is the cause of them both.
The advertisement just doesn’t claim that any two things that regularly occur together have a single shared cause. The only things that occur together here are lack of moisture and dryness, where one causes the other.
C
It overlooks the fact that changing what people think is the case does not necessarily change what is the case.
The advertisement doesn’t make any claims whatsoever about the relationship between what people think and what is actually true.
D
It relies on the ambiguity of the term “infusion,” which can designate either a process or the product of that process.
The advertisement doesn’t rely on an ambiguous use of the term “infusion”. Both times “infusion” is used, it it used to mean that moisture is being provided—it’s consistent, not ambiguous.
E
It relies on an analogy between two things that are insufficiently alike in the respects in which they would have to be alike for the conclusion to be supported.
The advertisement relies on an analogy between the earth and skin to draw a conclusion about the consequences of not moisturizing skin. The earth just doesn’t have the relevant similarities to skin which would be needed for the conclusion to be supported.
Sharon: The high number of citizens not registered to vote has persisted despite many attempts to make registering easier. Surveys show that most of these citizens believe that their votes would not make a difference. Until that belief is changed, simplifying the registration process will not increase the percentage of citizens registering to vote.
Speaker 1 Summary
Francis concludes that more people would register and vote if local election boards made the registration process easier. This is because failure to properly register prevents a large portion of the voting-age citizens from voting.
Speaker 2 Summary
Sharon concludes that until people start to think their votes make a difference, simplifying the registration process would not lead to more people registering and voting. This is because the portion of citizens who don’t register has been high even after prior attempts to simplify the registration process, and because surveys show most citizens think their votes won’t make a difference.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether making the registration process easier will lead to more people registering and voting.
A
whether changing the voter registration process would be cumbersome
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Francis speaks about a cumbersome registration process, but doesn’t say anything about whether changing the process will be cumbersome.
B
why so many citizens do not register to vote
This is a point of disagreement, although not framed in the way we might have predicted. Francis thinks so many people aren’t voting because of a difficult registration process. Sharon thinks the real problem is a belief that one’s vote doesn’t make a difference.
C
what percentage of those registered to vote actually vote
Sharon doesn’t express an opinion about what proportion of people aren’t registered to vote.
D
whether local election boards have simplified the registration process
Francis doesn’t express any opinion about this. She thinks more people would register to vote if the process were easier, but that doesn’t indicate any belief about whether some simplification has already occurred.
E
why the public lacks confidence in the effects of voting
Neither express an opinion about this. Although Sharon mentions that people don’t think their votes make a difference, she doesn’t describe why people think this way.