Summary
The author concludes that Landis violated his official duties. This is based on the fact that Landis’s spending of $10,000 was immoral.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts that Landis violated his official duties. But we have no idea from the premise or from the contextual statements what Landis’s official duties include. Why does spending $10,000 in a way that’s immoral constitute a violation of official duties? We want to learn that Landis’s official duties require the avoidance of immoral spending.
A
The money Landis used was not his own money.
Learning the origin of the money does not establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.
B
It is immoral to spend money on luxury items when there are people who lack basic necessities.
We already know as a premise that Landis’s spending was clearly immoral. Our goal is to prove that Landis’s spending was a violation of official duties. (B) doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.
C
Landis knew about or participated in the decision to redecorate his office.
What Landis knew concerning the redocoration doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.
D
Every public official has an official duty never to perform immoral actions.
(D) establishes that avoiding immoral actions (such as immoral spending) is part of Landis’s official duties. So the fact that Landis engaged in immoral spending proves that Landis violated his official duty to avoid immoral actions.
E
Had Landis not spent the money redecorating the office, it would have been used to help alleviate poverty in the city.
What Landis would have done with the money had he not spent it on redecorating doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that when a business performs a notably ethical action, the news media should publicize the fact that the business performed that action. This is based on the following premises. People should purchase from businesses that meet high ethical standards. News media should help people to make purchases from business that meet high ethical standards. And, when people learn of a business’s ethical conduct, that often motivates them to purchase from that business.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a business that performed a notably ethical action is a business that “meets high ethical standards.”
A
Some businesses that have high ethical standards do not actually meet those standards.
Having high ethical standards and meeting high ethical standards are different concepts, and the argument isn’t concerned with having high standards. The argument is only concerned with whether performing an ethical action constitutes meeting high ethical standards.
B
Meeting high ethical standards is primarily a matter of refraining from unethical behavior.
This points out why performing a notably ethical action doesn’t necessarily constitute meeting high ethical standards. We don’t know whether a business that performs a notably ethical action is refraining from unethical actions, so we don’t know that it’s meeting high standards.
C
It is relatively easy for a business to meet its ethical standards if it does not set them very high.
Whether a business sets its own standards and meets its own standards is a separate from whether a business meets high ethical standards. We have no reason to think high standards are based on a business’s own standards.
D
The news media is more likely to publicize a business’s unethical conduct than it is to publicize a business’s ethical conduct.
What the news media currently does has no impact on an argument concerning what news media should do. The author concludes that news media should do something; how often they currently do that thing doesn’t impact whether they should do it.
E
Some businesses that meet high ethical standards would not do so if they could not remain profitable while meeting those standards.
Profits have no clear connection to the argument. Even if a business is partially concerned with profits when it meets high ethical standards doesn’t change the fact that it meets high ethical standards.
Natalie: You mistake the films’ startling sameness for evidence of a lack of creativity. It would be more accurate to say that he ultimately creates strong new works from the same core elements, and these works are thus original.
Speaker 1 Summary
Minh believes that a certain director is “pillaging” his past work, but not getting much value from doing so. In support, Minh points out that the director’s recent films are very predictable, and in fact are nothing more than repetitions of his past films.
Speaker 2 Summary
Natalie argues that the director’s recent work is actually original, despite their similarity to past films. How so? Because the director is using the same elements to create new works (rather than just repeating past works).
Objective
We need to find a point of agreement about the director’s recent films. Minh and Natalie agree that the recent films are very similar to the director’s previous films.
A
They share many features with his earlier films.
Minh agrees with this, and so does Natalie. Minh says that the new films are simply repetitions of the director’s earlier films. Natalie doesn’t go so far, but does say that the films have a “startling sameness” and use the same elements.
B
They constitute evidence that he is pillaging his own catalog.
Minh agrees with this, but Natalie does not. Natalie thinks that the recent films do not show a lack of creativity that amounts to just pillaging past works, but in fact are original.
C
They are nothing more than repetitions of the director’s earlier films.
Minh agrees with this, but Natalie disagrees. Natalie thinks that even though the new and old films use the same elements, the new films are original works.
D
They are less original than his earlier films.
Neither speaker directly compares the director’s newer films with his earlier films. Each speaker expresses an opinion about whether the new films are original, but neither talks about how the old films measure up.
E
They provide evidence of the director’s creativity.
Natalie agrees with this, but Minh doesn’t. Minh thinks that the new films are evidence that the director is just repeating his past works rather than coming up with original new films.
Summary
The author concludes that we should not reroute high-tension power lines away from heavily populated areas. Why? Because our resources should be spent to protect ONLY against well-substantiated threats to public health.
Missing Connection
Is having high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas a well-substantiated threat to public health? It might be...the premises don’t say it isn’t. So the author’s conclusion isn’t justified by the premise right now. In order to make the argument valid, we want to establish that high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas is NOT a well-substantiated threat to public health. This would then justify a claim that we shouldn’t spend resources trying to reroute the lines.
A
Public health would be damaged by the loss of electric power.
(A) doesn’t establish that high-tension power lines in heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat. So it doesn’t guarantee that we shouldn’t reroute the lines.
B
Proponents of expensive safety measures with respect to high-tension power lines ignore economic realities.
(B) doesn’t establish that high-tension power lines in heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat. So it doesn’t guarantee that we shouldn’t reroute the lines.
C
Scientific evidence exists for causal links between various modern practices and threats to public health.
(C) doesn’t establish that high-tension power lines in heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat. So it doesn’t guarantee that we shouldn’t reroute the lines.
D
No investigation of the effects of high-tension power lines has established any health threat to people.
If no investigation has shown any health threat from these lines, then the potential threat isn’t well-substantiated. In connection with the premise, this allows us to conclude we shouldn’t use any resources toward protecting the population from high-tension power lines.
E
Rerouting high-tension power lines away from heavily populated areas would hinder our ability to study the effects of power lines on people.
(E) doesn’t establish that high-tension power lines in heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat. So it doesn’t guarantee that we shouldn’t reroute the lines.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
The cheetah has a spotted coat and lives out in the open savannah, even though other cats with spotted coats live in forests.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference between cheetahs and other large cat species. That difference must result in cheetahs gaining some advantage from their spots despite spots being incongruous with their habitat, or else result in the spots making no difference at all.
A
Unlike all other large cat species, cheetahs’ hunting strategy does not rely on stealth but instead relies purely on speed.
Cheetahs have spots because they can—it doesn’t mess with their ability to hunt. Unlike other cat species, they aren’t trying sneak up on their prey. Instead, they use their speed to hunt, so they don’t need to camouflage.
B
Of all the large cat species, cheetahs most often have their prey stolen from them by larger predators.
What’s the point of spots in this scenario? It still seems that spots would be a disadvantage for cheetahs. We need something to say that’s not the case.
C
Because they have wide paws with semiretractable claws, cheetahs are not able to climb upright trees.
We already know cheetahs aren’t climbing trees, at least not regularly—they live in the open savannah. We need to know why they have spots.
D
Unlike lions, cheetahs are typically solitary hunters.
Whether or not they’re hunting alone, cheetahs have spots that don’t blend in with their habitat. We need to know why this is.
E
Unlike all other large cat species, cheetahs are unable to roar.
This is leading us to think the spots stand in for other aggressive displays, but we need something more explicit to explain the anomaly.