Summarize Argument
The author concludes that trial by jury isn’t a fair way to settle disputes involving scientific or technical issues. This is because people who have special knowledge of these issues are systematically excluded from juries.
Notable Assumptions
The author believes that a trial is unfair if people with relevant knowledge are systematically excluded from sitting on juries in those trials. This means the author assumes that fair trials cannot intentionally exclude people whose knowledge may be relevant to the trial.
A
The more complicated the issue being litigated, the less likely it is that a juror without specialized knowledge of the field involved will be able to comprehend the testimony being given.
This seems to strengthen the author’s argument. We’re looking for something that tells us juries are still fair even when they exclude people with relevant knowledge.
B
The more a juror knows about a particular scientific or technical issue involved in a trial, the more likely it is that the juror will be prejudiced in favor of one of the litigating parties before the trial begins.
Special knowledge actually renders a trial jury less fair, since the member with special knowledge is more likely to be prejudiced towards one party before the trial even starts. Thus, there’s a good reason why such people are systematically excluded.
C
Appointing an impartial arbitrator is not a fair means of settling disputes involving scientific or technical issues, because arbitrators tend to favor settlements in which both parties compromise on the issues.
The author never mentions impartial arbitrators. Even if those were the only other option, jury trials might still be unfair.
D
Experts who give testimony on scientific or technical issues tend to hedge their conclusions by discussing the possibility of error.
What effect does this have on jurors? Without more information, we can’t say this weakens the author’s claim that jury trials are unfair.
E
Expert witnesses in specialized fields often command fees that are so high that many people involved in litigation cannot afford their services.
Feasibility is beside the point. Besides, we don’t care about witnesses—we care about jurors.
A
criticizes the astronomer’s opponents rather than their arguments
The author does not attack the character, background, or behavior of the opponents. The premise merely points out that the opponents have not proven the thesis false.
B
infers the truth of the astronomer’s thesis from the mere claim that it has not been proven false
The author infers the truth of the thesis from the claim that the opponents haven’t proven the thesis false. This is a flaw because the thesis can still be false even if no one has proven it false.
C
ignores the possibility that alternative explanations may exist for the cratering
The author’s thesis is that meteors and other cosmic debris from our solar system did not cause the cratering on the moon. The author is open to other explanations; he didn’t conclude that there is one particular explanation for the craters.
D
presumes that the astronomer’s thesis should not be subject to rational discussion and criticism
The author does not assume that the thesis shouldn’t be subject to criticism. The author never asserts that the opponents should not have tried to criticize the thesis.
E
fails to precisely define the key word “meteoroids”
Failure to define a word is not a flaw. Words can simply take on their ordinary dictionary definitions. Here, “meteoroids” means something like space rocks.
Mendota: I disagree. The average income for the lowest quintile may have increased by a greater percentage, but the absolute amount of the increase in average income was surely greater for the highest quintile.
Speaker 1 Summary
Larew concludes that the lowest income quintile experienced a greater increase in economic prosperity than did the highest income quintile. This is because the lowest quintile’s average income increased by a greater percentage than the highest quintile’s increased.
Speaker 2 Summary
Mendota concludes that the lowest quintile’s economic prosperity did not improve more than the highest quintile’s improved. This is because the lowest quintile’s average income increased by a lower absolute amount than did the highest quintile’s.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether the lowest quintile’s economic prosperity improved more than did the highest quintile’s, and about whether increases in economic prosperity are better measured by the percentage increase in average income or by the absolute amount of an increase.
A
change in the economic prosperity of the lowest income quintile relative to the highest is accurately measured by comparing their percentage changes in average income
This is a point of disagreement. Larew thinks change in economic prosperity is accurately measured by reference to percentage changes in average income. Mendota believes change in economic prosperity should be measured instead by the absolute amount of changes in income.
B
change in the economic prosperity of the lowest income quintile is more accurately measured in terms relative to the highest income quintile than in terms relative only to the lowest income quintile
Neither expresses an opinion. The speakers happen to compare the lowest quintile to the highest quintile. That doesn’t imply a belief that this comparison results in a better measure of change in prosperity for the lowest quintile than would a comparison to some other quintile.
C
changes in the average income of people in the lowest quintile should ever be compared to changes in the average income of people in the highest quintile
The speakers agree. Both speakers compare changes in average income between the lowest quintile and the highest quintile. Larew compares percentage increases, while Mentoda compares increases in absolute amount.
D
there were any improvements at all in the economic situation of those in the lowest income quintile during the ten years being considered
Not a point of disagreement. Larew believes there was at least some improvement in the lowest quintile’s economic situation. Mendota could agree that there was at least some improvement, just not as much as the improvement experienced by the highest quintile.
E
the average income of people in the lowest quintile increased by a greater percentage over the last decade than did that of people in the highest quintile
The speakers agree. Both acknowledge that the average income of the lowest quintile increased by a greater percentage than did that of the highest quintile.
Summarize Argument
The problems caused by urbanization could be solved by trading urban-produced goods for agricultural products.
Notable Assumptions
The right answer choice will offer evidence to believe that the issues resulting from urbanization could be solved by trading urban-produced goods/services for agricultural products. As of right now, we have no reason to believe that urban-produced and agricultural goods have anything to do with the issues resulting from urbanization—the correct answer choice will offer information that makes the relationship clearer.
A
Government subsidies to urban manufacturers can ease the problems caused by the migration of people from rural to urban areas.
This does not affect the argument. It provides another way to solve the problems caused by urbanization but doesn’t tell us about how good the economists’ solution is.
B
All problems that have economic causes must have economic solutions.
This does not affect the argument. We don’t know if urbanization has economic causes—maybe people leave rural areas because they just want to experience life in the city.
C
A scarcity of agricultural products is a central element of many problems created by urbanization.
This strengthens the argument by giving us reason to believe that obtaining agricultural products would improve the issues caused by urbanization—a lack of these products is a central part of the problem, so increasing access to them through trade would help improve the issues.
D
Problems associated with migration to cities from rural areas are primarily due to trade imbalances between countries.
This does not affect the argument. We don’t know if the proposed solution would have any impact on existing trade deficits—this answer choice would require us to make several assumptions to have any impact.
E
Free trade policies can exacerbate the problems caused by increasing urbanization.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that the economists’ solution would actually make the problems they’re trying to solve worse.
A
impugns the character of the economists rather than addressing their arguments
The author’s reasoning isn’t based on attacking the economists’ character. Although the author does note that they haven’t shopped anywhere recently, this isn’t a comment on character. And, the actual evidence concerns price increases of specific consumer items.
B
fails to show that the economists mentioned are not experts in the area of consumer prices
The author doesn’t need to show that the economists aren’t experts. Maybe they are experts; they can still be wrong about their claims concerning average price increases over the past year.
C
mistakenly infers that something is not true from the claim that it has not been shown to be so
The author relies on price increases of specific consumer items. The author did not say as part of the reasoning, “Economists haven’t shown that price increases aren’t lower than 3% over the past year.”
D
uses evidence drawn from a small sample that may well be unrepresentative
The evidence concerns specific consumer items that have had large price increases. But we have no reason to think those specific items are representative of consumer items generally. There can always be outliers to a statistical average.
E
attempts to persuade by making an emotional appeal
The author relies on statistics concerning specific consumer items. This is not an appeal to emotions.
Fran: By your own admission, “addictive” is broad enough to include other commonly consumed products, such as coffee and soft drinks containing caffeine. But of course the manufacture and sale of these products should not be restricted.
Speaker 1 Summary
Sherrie argues that governments should restrict the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. Why? Because tobacco is addictive, which Sherrie believes is sufficient to warrant treating tobacco like other dangerous drugs.
Speaker 2 Summary
Fran’s argument supports the implied conclusion that just being addictive is not a sufficient reason to restrict the manufacture and sale of a product. Fran gets there by pointing out that caffeine is also addictive, and then claiming that restrictions on caffeine products like coffee are not justified. This logically leads to the unstated conclusion that addictive potential alone is not enough to justify restrictions.
Objective
We’re looking for something Sherrie and Fran disagree about. They disagree about whether a product being addictive is sufficient to justify restricting its manufacture and sale.
A
The manufacture and sale of all drugs should be regulated by governments.
Neither Sherrie nor Fran makes this claim. Even Sherrie only says that “dangerous” drugs should be regulated, but never mentions drugs that are not dangerous.
B
Coffee and soft drinks that contain caffeine should not be regulated by governments.
Fran might agree with this (if we assume that “regulated” and “restricted” mean the same thing), but Sherrie never states an opinion. It’s unclear what Sherrie thinks should be done about caffeine products.
C
Agreement by scientists that a substance is addictive justifies government restrictions on products containing that substance.
Sherrie agrees with this, but Fran disagrees—this is the point of disagreement. Sherrie uses this claim directly as a premise. Fran, however, says that caffeine, an addictive substance, should not be restricted. So Fran thinks not all addictive substances should be restricted.
D
Scientists are not proper authorities with respect to the question of whether a given substance is addictive.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Sherrie directly refers to scientists as proper authorities, and Fran doesn’t disagree. Instead, Fran’s disagreement is about the policy decisions that should follow from a substance being addictive.
E
Scientists and governments have a duty to cooperate in regulating drugs to protect the public health.
Neither speaker talks about cooperation between scientists and government. Their discussion is about whether a certain government policy should follow from a scientific finding, not about how scientists and governments should interact.