There are two kinds of horror stories: those that describe a mad scientist’s experiments and those that describe a monstrous beast. In some horror stories about monstrous beasts, the monster symbolizes a psychological disturbance in the protagonist. Horror stories about mad scientists, on the other hand, typically express the author’s feeling that scientific knowledge alone is not enough to guide human endeavor. However, despite these differences, both kinds of horror stories share two features: they describe violations of the laws of nature and they are intended to produce dread in the reader.
Summary
There are two types of horror stories: stories about mad scientists and stories about monstrous beasts.
In some stories about monstrous beasts, the beast symbolizes the psychological disturbance of the protagonist.
In some stories about mad scientists, the author expresses the feeling that science isn’t enough to guide humanity.
Both kinds of stories describe violations of the laws of nature and are intended to produce dread in the reader.
Notable Valid Inferences
Some stories that describe violations in the laws of nature are also intended to produce dread in the reader.
Some stories that express the author’s feeling about science describe violations in the laws of nature.
Some stories that symbolize the protagonist’s psychological disturbances describe violations of the laws of nature.
A
All descriptions of monstrous beasts describe violations of the laws of nature.
This could be false. We know that all horror stories that are about monstrous beasts describe violations of the laws of nature; maybe stories with monstrous beasts of other genres don’t describe violations of nature.
B
Any story that describes a violation of a law of nature is intended to invoke dread in the reader.
This could be false. We only know about horror stories that describe a violation of nature, not all stories that do so.
C
Horror stories of any kind usually describe characters who are psychologically disturbed.
This could be false. We don’t know that horror stories “of any kind” usually describe characters’ psychological disturbance; we just know that horror stories about monstrous beasts sometimes describe psychological disturbance.
D
Most stories about mad scientists express the author’s antiscientific views.
This could be false. We don’t have any indication that authors have antiscientific views; some authors may just believe that science alone isn’t enough to guide human endeavor.
E
Some stories that employ symbolism describe violations of the laws of nature.
This must be true. Whether a horror story is about a scientist or a beast, it describes a violation in the laws of nature. Some horror stories about beasts use symbolism, so there is overlap between stories that use symbolism and those about violations of natural laws.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Carl is an incompetent detective. This is because Carl has solved a smaller percentage of his cases than any other detective in the police force.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that competence is determined by what proportion of cases any given detective has solved relative to what proportion of cases their peers have solved. She also assumes that the case Carl solved didn’t involve significantly more work or more difficult work than the cases his peers solved, which would call into the question the idea of his “incompetence.”
A
Because the police chief regards Carl as the most capable detective, she assigns him only the most difficult cases, ones that others have failed to solve.
Carl solves a smaller percentage of cases because the cases he works on are uniquely difficult. He works on these cases because he’s seen as very capable by his superior. Thus, it’s unfair and likely incorrect to call him an “incompetent detective.”
B
Before he became a detective, Carl was a neighborhood police officer and was highly respected by the residents of the neighborhood he patrolled.
We don’t care how competent Carl was as a police officer. We’re only interested in his abilities as a detective.
C
Detectives on the police force on which Carl serves are provided with extensive resources, including the use of a large computer database, to help them solve crimes.
All this says is that Carl has the same resources as other detectives. This doesn’t weaken the claim that he’s an incompetent detective.
D
Carl was previously a detective in a police department in another city, and in the 4 years he spent there, he solved only 1 out of 30 crimes.
If anything, this supports the author’s argument. Carl solved a low proportion of cases when he worked in a different town, which suggests his current circumstances aren’t the problem.
E
Many of the officers in the police department in which Carl serves were hired or promoted within the last 5 years.
Was Carl among those officers? We don’t know, and it doesn’t really matter. We care how competent he is as a detective, regardless of his tenure.
Summarize Argument
People’s responses to words are impacted not only by meaning, but also by how they sound. We know this because experiments demonstrated that people have positive and negative reactions to nonsense words.
Identify Argument Part
This is the evidence that supports the conclusion. This study allows the author to claim that responses to words are not just meaning dependent (because nonsense words have no meaning) but also based on how those words sound.
A
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that people have either a positive or a negative response to any word.
This is not an accurate representation of the conclusion. The conclusion says the response is impacted by sound, not that people will have these responses to any given word.
B
It is a conclusion for which the only support provided is the claim that people’s responses to words are conditioned both by what the words mean and by how they sound.
It is a premise. It provides evidence for the claim in this answer choice, which is the real conclusion.
C
It is a generalization partially supported by the claim that meaningful words can trigger positive or negative responses in people.
This is evidence, not a supported generalization. It is not supported by the first claim, which is a separate observation.
D
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that people’s responses to words are engendered not only by what the words mean, but also by how they sound.
This is evidence that supports the conclusion explaining the multiple ways people’s responses to words are conditioned.
E
It is a conclusion supported by the claim that people’s responses under experimental conditions are essentially different from their responses in ordinary situations.
It is a premise. The claim in this answer choice is not contained in the stimulus.
A
fails to define the term “hypertensive personality”
The author does define the term — it’s the combination of nervousness and anxiety. In any case, failure to define a term is not a flaw.
B
presupposes that people have permanent personality traits
The author does not assume that people have permanent personality traits. If some personality traits are temporary, that wouldn’t undermine the author’s reasoning. Hypertensive personality can be temporary, but still have effects on high blood pressure.
C
simply restates the claim that there is a “hypertensive personality” without providing evidence to support that claim
We know there’s a correlation involving people who are more nervous/anxious. People who are more nervous/anxious have the “hypertensive personality.” The author doesn’t need to provide evidence that these traits exist.
D
takes a correlation between personality traits and high blood pressure as proof that the traits cause high blood pressure
The author assumes the correlation between the hypertensive personality traits and high blood pressure implies that those traits cause high blood pressure. This overlooks alternate explanations for the correlation.
E
focuses on nervousness and anxiety only, ignoring other personality traits that people with high blood pressure might have
There’s no reason the author needed to bring up other traits. The evidence concerns certain specific traits, and the conclusion concerns those same traits. There’s nothing wrong with leaving out discussion of other traits.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Grey most likely read Jordan’s book. This is because Grey’s book, which came out after Jordan’s book, features a metaphor that’s too unique to have been created by two people independently.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the metaphor in question first appeared in Jordan’s book, rather than some book that both Jordan and Grey could’ve found the metaphor in. The author also assumes that the reverse relationship between Grey and Jordan isn’t true—that Grey in fact invented the metaphor sometime before 1885, and Jordan subsequently used it in her book.
A
A text that was probably known to both Jordan and Grey was published in 1860 and also contained the same unusual metaphor.
Rather than Grey borrowing from Jordan as the author claims, both borrowed from another author.
B
The passage in Grey’s book that employs the unusual metaphor expresses an idea that bears little relation to any ideas expressed in Jordan’s book.
Grey’s metaphor expresses a different idea than the metaphor in Jordan’s book. Still, the metaphor is the same, and that metaphor is so unusual that it’s very unlikely both writers could’ve independently created it.
C
Both Grey’s book and Jordan’s book were written for the same audience.
We’re not interested in who the books were written for. We care about where the metaphor originated.
D
Jordan used the same metaphor in a work that she wrote in 1894 and published in 1895.
Even if Jordan reused the metaphor in 1894, the fact still stands that she used it in 1885. We need to know if the metaphor has some other, earlier source than the 1885 instance.
E
According to most scholars, Grey was generally a more inventive writer than Jordan and developed many original metaphors.
We don’t care about Grey’s overall contribution to the metaphor. We care about the specific metaphor in question.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Patients treated with physio+drugs performs as well as patients treated with physio, yet specialists claim the drugs are still absolutely necessary.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why drugs are a necessary component of treatment. Some patients might be fine with physio on its own, but some might need the combination to derive the same treatment benefit. The correct answer will also tell us that the experts know this to be the case, hence their insistence that drugs are important.
A
Medical specialists treat all patients who have serious back muscle injuries with either physical therapy alone or a combination of drugs and physical therapy.
This doesn’t explain why drugs are necessary. Patients treated with physio alone perform just as well, so what’s the point of the drugs?
B
Medical specialists who prescribe these treatments make accurate judgments about who needs both drugs and physical therapy and who needs physical therapy alone.
Some patients need drugs in addition to physio, while others only need physio to get the same benefit. Medical specialists know who these patients are, hence why they claim the drugs are essential.
C
Some back muscle injuries have been completely healed by a combination of drugs and physical therapy.
Okay, but this could be true about physio on its own as well. We need to know why the drugs are ever necessary to begin with.
D
Some back muscle injuries that have been aggravated by improper attempts at physical therapy, such as home massage, have been successfully treated with drugs.
We’re talking about a treatment package that includes physio and drugs. This is simply talking about treating botched physio with drugs.
E
Patients with injuries to other muscles show more improvement when treated with both drugs and physical therapy than when treated with physical therapy alone.
We don’t care about other muscles. We care about back muscle injuries, which according to the stimulus seem to be equally treated by physio+drugs and physio.
Summary
The stimulus discusses the importance of packaging for a product's commercial success. It gives an example of a popular drink that introduced a "new, improved" version. It succeeded in blind taste tests but failed in the market because the packaging was almost identical to the earlier version. This led customers to expect the new product to share certain features of the old, an expectation that was not satisfied.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Commercial success depends on the packaging of a product (necessary condition).
If the packaging of a product creates expectations it does not meet, it will not succeed.
If the packaging of a product creates expectations it does not meet, it will not succeed.
A
Proper product packaging is more important than the quality of the product.
This comparative statement is too strong to support. While the passage says that packaging is “vital,” there is no evidence that it is more important than the quality of the product. The quality can be just as (or more) vital.
B
Products generally succeed in the market if they are packaged in a manner that accurately reflects their nature.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus does not give information about when/how products “generally” succeed. All we know is that this product failed because its packaging did not satisfy its expectations.
C
Changing the packaging of a product will not improve the product’s sales unless the product is also changed.
There is no support for this. The stimulus does not discuss the effects of solely changing packaging without changing the product.
D
To succeed in the market, a new product should not be packaged in a way that creates expectations that it does not meet.
This directly addresses the reasoning. The stimulus says that packaging is “vital” to a product’s commercial success. Thus, if a product is to succeed, it must not be packaged in a way that creates unfulfilled expectations (exactly what the example drink does).
E
An improved version of an existing product will sell better than the earlier version unless the improved version is packaged like the earlier one.
This is too strong to support. There is no guarantee that an improved version of a product will sell better if it is packaged differently.