Safety expert: Tuna is often treated with carbon monoxide so that it will not turn brown as it ages. Treating tuna with carbon monoxide does not make it harmful in any way. Nonetheless, there is a danger that such treatment will result in more people getting sick from eating tuna.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why might treating tuna with carbon monoxide cause more people to get sick from eating tuna when the carbon monoxide treatments don’t make the fish harmful in any way?

Objective

The right answer will introduce some reason why treating tuna with carbon monoxide might cause more people to get sick from eating tuna. That reason cannot be a direct health risk of the carbon monoxide treatment, because the stimulus tells us that the treatment doesn’t make the tuna harmful. Instead, the answer must describe some causal impact that the treatments have on the way tuna is consumed.

A
Workers in fish processing plants can be sickened by exposure to carbon monoxide if the appropriate safety procedures are not followed at those plants.

The stimulus says that the carbon monoxide treatments might cause more sickness specifically from eating tuna. If we were looking for a reason why the carbon monoxide treatments might cause more people to get sick in general, this would be perfect.

B
Over the last several years, tuna consumption has increased in most parts of the world.

This has nothing to do with the carbon monoxide treatments, so it doesn’t help resolve the discrepancy.

C
Tuna that is treated with carbon monoxide provides no visible indication when it has spoiled to the point that it can cause food poisoning.

This explains why treating tuna with carbon monoxide might cause more people to get sick from eating tuna: if people can’t see that the tuna has gone bad, they might eat spoiled tuna (ew) and get sick! With untreated tuna, people are more likely to see when the fish goes bad.

D
Treating tuna with carbon monoxide is the only way to keep it from turning brown as it ages.

This doesn’t provide any information about how the carbon monoxide treatments might lead to more people getting sick from eating tuna, so it doesn’t help resolve the discrepancy.

E
Most consumers strongly prefer tuna that is not brown because they believe that brown tuna is not fresh.

This might explain why companies would want to treat their tuna with carbon monoxide, but it doesn’t provide any information about why the treatments might lead to more people getting sick from eating tuna.


5 comments

Astrophysicist: Gamma ray bursts (GRBs)—explosions of powerful radiation from deep space—have traditionally been classified as either “short” or “long,” terms that reflect the explosion’s relative duration. However, an unusual GRB has been sighted. Its duration was long, but in every other respect it had the properties of a short GRB. Clearly, the descriptive labels “short” and “long” have now outlived their usefulness.

Summarize Argument
The astrophysicist concludes gamma ray bursts (GRBs) should no longer be called “short” or “long.” Why not? Because one recent GRB lasted a long time, but was more like a short GRB in every other way.

Notable Assumptions
The astrophysicist assumes there’s no use in labeling GRBs “short” or “long” if some GRBs are characteristic of the opposite type in every other way. In particular, this means assuming the “short” and “long” labels would only be useful if they always indicate properties of a GRB besides its actual duration.

A
No other GRBs with unusual properties have been sighted.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests keeping the “short” and “long” labels will only lead to issues for a very small number of GRBs.
B
The classification of GRBs can sometimes be made on the basis of duration alone.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests the “short” and “long” labels may still be useful for some GRBs—those for which duration is the distinctive property.
C
Properties other than duration are more important than duration in the proper classification of the unusual GRB.
This implies the “short” and “long” labels are really stand-ins for more important properties of unusual GRBs, which supports the astrophysicist’s contention that they should be abandoned for new labels.
D
GRBs cannot be classified according to the different types of cosmic events that create them.
This is irrelevant. It implies cosmic origin, not duration, is a poor basis for classification.
E
Descriptive labels are easily replaced with nondescriptive labels such as “type I” and “type II.”
This doesn’t mean the descriptive labels “short” and “long” are no longer useful. It’s possible nondescriptive labels would be even less useful than the descriptive ones.

24 comments

Dentist: I recommend brushing one’s teeth after every meal to remove sugars that facilitate the growth of certain bacteria; these bacteria produce acid that dissolves minerals in tooth enamel, resulting in cavities. And when brushing is not practical, I recommend chewing gum—even gum that contains sugar—to prevent the formation of cavities.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why would chewing sugary gum after a meal help to prevent cavities when sugar is known to lead to the formation of cavities?

Objective

The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains why chewing gum after a meal helps to prevent the formation of cavities. That explanation must offer some dental hygiene benefit of chewing gum that has the potential to outweigh any damage that could be caused by the sugar in some gums.

A
A piece of chewing gum that contains sugar contains far less sugar than does the average meal.

We would expect this to be true—think of how small a piece of gum is! This answer doesn’t explain why chewing gum helps to prevent cavities, though, so it doesn’t reconcile the paradox in the stimulus.

B
Tooth decay can be stopped and reversed if it is caught before a cavity develops.

While this might be relieving to hear on a personal level, it doesn’t help to reconcile the paradox at hand. We need information about how chewing gum after meals helps to prevent cavities, and this answer choice doesn’t give us that.

C
Chewing gum stimulates the production of saliva, which reduces acidity in the mouth and helps remineralize tooth enamel.

This is helpful! Sugar leads to cavities because it causes enamel to dissolve, but chewing gum protects enamel. It makes sense, then, that chewing gum after meals helps to prevent cavities even if the gum contains some sugar.

D
Sugars can be on teeth for as long as 24 hours before the teeth-damaging bacteria whose growth they facilitate begin to proliferate.

This answer choice has nothing to do with the cavity-prevention benefits of chewing gum after meals, which is what we need the answer to explain!

E
Chewing gum exercises and relaxes the jaw muscles and so contributes to the overall health of the oral tract.

This answer doesn’t help because it has nothing to do with the impact that chewing gum has on cavity formation. The “overall health of the oral tract” could refer to factors other than cavities.


7 comments

When the ancient fossils of a primitive land mammal were unearthed in New Zealand, they provided the first concrete evidence that the island country had once had indigenous land mammals. Until that discovery, New Zealand had no known native land mammals. The discovery thus falsifies the theory that New Zealand’s rich and varied native bird population owes its existence to the lack of competition from mammals.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that New Zealand’s rich and varied native bird population was not caused by the lack of competition from mammals. This is based on evidence that New Zealand once had indigenous land mammals.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the indigenous land mammals on New Zealand existed at the same time as New Zealand’s birds existed. The author also assumes that there were enough members of indigenous land mammal species to create competitive pressure with New Zealand’s birds.

A
The unearthed land mammal is only one of several ancient land mammals that were indigenous to New Zealand.
The number of different kinds of mammals doesn’t impact the significance of the evidence. And even if it did, (A) might strengthen by providing additional reason to think birds faced competition from mammals.
B
The recently discovered land mammal became extinct long before the native bird population was established.
This undermines the assumption that the indigenous land mammal recently discovered actually competed with New Zealand’s birds. If it was extinct before the birds came around, it’s not evidence that birds faced competition from land mammals.
C
The site at which the primitive land mammal was unearthed also contains the fossils of primitive reptile and insect species.
The argument concerns competition between birds and land mammals. Reptiles and insects are not mammals and are therefore irrelevant.
D
Countries with rich and varied native land mammal populations do not have rich and varied native bird populations.
We know NZ has a rich and varied bird population, which, in connection with (D), would imply that it doesn’t have a rich and varied population of land mammals. But this doesn’t affect anything concerning the recently discovered mammal and how it might have affected birds.
E
Some other island countries that are believed to have no native land mammals in fact had indigenous land mammals at one time.
Whether other island countries also had indigenous land mammals doesn’t affect whether the recently discovered land mammal on New Zealand implies that birds had competition from land mammals.

6 comments

Restaurant owner: The newspaper reporter who panned my restaurant acknowledges having no special expertise about food and its preparation. His previous job was as a political reporter. He is a good writer, but he is not a true restaurant critic. A newspaper would never call someone a drama critic who had no special training in theater.

Summarize Argument
The restaurant owner concludes that the critic who panned her restaurant is not a true restaurant critic. This is because the critic has no special expertise about food.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is about the critic who panned the owner’s restaurant: “he is not a true restaurant critic.”

A
The newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant acknowledges having no special expertise about food and its preparation.
This is a premise that the restaurant owner uses to demonstrate that the critic isn’t a true restaurant critic. She uses the analogy of a drama critic to show that special expertise is required to be called a “true critic.”
B
The previous job of the newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant was as a political reporter.
This is support for the restaurant owner’s claim about the critic not being a “true critic.” A background in political reporting is very different than expertise in food and food preparation.
C
The newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant is a good writer.
The restaurant owner concedes that the critic is a good writer but maintains he isn’t a true critic. This is neither a premise nor a conclusion, as it does’t add to the restaurant owner’s argument.
D
The newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant is not a true restaurant critic.
This is what the restaurant owner is arguing for. Since the reporter lacks expertise in food and food preparation, and since no one would call someone a drama critic without expertise in their analogous field, the reporter isn’t a true critic.
E
A newspaper would never call someone a drama critic who had no special training in theater.
This is a premise used to show why the reporter in question isn’t a true critic. Since no one would call someone a critic in an analogous field without expertise, the reporter shouldn’t be called a restaurant critic without food expertise.

2 comments