Summarize Argument
The toxicologist concludes that headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath will soon rise. This is because gas with MBTE will soon be widely used, and people who work with MBTE report increased rates of the aforementioned symptoms.
Notable Assumptions
The toxicologist assumes that the oil refinery workers experienced headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath because of the MBTE, and not because of some other substance they worked with. He thus believes that oil refinery workers who don’t work with MBTE wouldn’t experience the same symptoms, at least not for the same reason. The toxicologist also assumes that there will be no difference between the MBTE gasoline dealt with in oil refineries and the MBTE gasoline ordinary people will use.
A
Most oil-refinery workers who do not work with MBTE do not have serious health problems involving headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath.
This strengthens the causal relationship between MBTE and the symptoms by ruling out an alternate cause. If all oil refinery workers experienced headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath, then MBTW couldn’t be identified as a cause.
B
Headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath are among the symptoms of several medical conditions that are potentially serious threats to public health.
We don’t care about medical conditions that don’t stem from MBTE. This just tells us that people suffering from various conditions experience the same symptoms brought on by MBTE exposure.
C
Since the time when gasoline containing MBTE was first introduced in a few metropolitan areas, those areas reported an increase in the number of complaints about headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath.
MBTE has already led to an increase in headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath. This suggests that MBTE isn’t just dangerous in a refinery setting.
D
Regions in which only gasoline containing MBTE is used have a much greater incidence of headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath than do similar regions in which only MBTE-free gasoline is used.
Compared with MBTE-free gasoline, MBTE gasoline is correlated with headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath. This strengthens the author’s link between MBTE and the symptoms.
E
The oil-refinery workers surveyed were carefully selected to be representative of the broader population in their medical histories prior to exposure to MBTE, as well as in other relevant respects.
The survey wasn’t skewed. This strengthens the author’s use of the survey as evidence.
Summary
Technological progress is required for economic growth and widespread prosperity. Technological progress also causes a worker’s particular skills to be less crucial to production. A worker’s satisfaction depends on the belief that their work is difficult and requires uncommon skills.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Clearly, then, technological progress may cause worker satisfaction to decrease.
A
decreases the quality of most products
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about the quality of products from the stimulus.
B
provides benefits only to those whose work is not directly affected by it
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus who, if anyone in particular, benefits from technological progress. We only know that it is required for economic growth and widespread prosperity.
C
is generally opposed by the workers whose work will be directly affected by it
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether workers support or oppose technological progress. They may nonetheless support it because it could make their jobs easier, less time consuming, and so forth.
D
causes workers to feel less satisfaction in their work
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that worker satisfaction depends on workers believing that their work is difficult. Yet, technological progress causes a worker’s importance to decrease.
E
eliminates many workers’ jobs
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether any jobs would be eliminated. To say that a worker’s role becomes less crucial is not equivalent to saying the worker’s role would be eliminated.
Summarize Argument
The environmentalist concludes that returning land to an uncultivated state could avoid a major decrease in meat production while also restoring biodiversity. We know this because the prairie once supported 30 to 70 million bison––which is similar to the number of cattle that the North American prairie currently supports (50 million). However, in order to support the current cattle population, the prairie has been destroyed to produce cattle feed. Bison provide as much meat as cattle, but without needing the pesticides, machinery, or government subsidies that damage the prairie ecosystem.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion tells us that it is possible to balance restoring biodiversity with maintaining meat production: “Returning as much land as possible to an uncultivated state could restore biodiversity without a major decrease in meat production.”
A
If earlier North American agricultural techniques were reintroduced, meat production would decrease only slightly.
This conditional statement is not supported by the argument, and it is not what the argument intends to prove, so it is not the main conclusion. We only know that uncultivated land would avoid a major decrease in production, not that it would definitely decrease slightly.
B
Protecting the habitat of wild animals so that we can utilize these animals as a food source is more cost effective than raising domesticated animals.
This is an attempt to make a generalization from the information given; this generalization is not made or supported in our argument so it is not the conclusion. Further, the argument does not address what is cost effective.
C
The biodiversity of the North American prairie ecosystem should not be restored if doing so will have intolerable economic consequences.
The “should” in this answer is a value judgement, while the argument consists of descriptive statements, so this is not the main conclusion. Further, the argument does not specifically address economic consequences.
D
Preservation of the remaining North American bison would be a sensible policy.
The argument only specifically talks about the impacts of returning to uncultivated land on meat production and biodiversity; the argument does not make a judgement on what is or is not sensible.
E
The devastation of the North American prairie ecosystem could be largely reversed without significantly decreasing meat production.
This statement about the relationship between agriculture practices and meat production is what the rest of the argument sets out to support. This answer is a paraphrase of the last part of the argument, which we identified as the main conclusion.