If the natural history museum stays within this year’s budget, it will be unable to stay within next year’s budget, for renovating next year will make the museum’s expenditures exceed next year’s very tight budget. After all, the museum will have to renovate next year if it does not do so this year, because work from previous renovations is deteriorating rapidly.

Summary
If the museum stays within this year’s budget, it won’t stay within next year’s budget. To support this conclusion, we’re given two conditional premises:
(1) If the museum doesn’t renovate this year, it must renovate next year.
(2) If the museum renovates next year, it won’t stay within next year’s budget.

Missing Connection
The conclusion is a conditional claim involving this year’s budget, but this year’s budget doesn’t appear anywhere in the premises. Rather, the premises are all about how renovations will affect next year’s budget. So the correct answer must connect this year’s budget to those premises.
Specifically, we can reach the author’s conclusion if we assume that to stay within this year’s budget, the museum must not renovate this year. (Contrapositive: If the museum renovates this year, it must not stay within this year’s budget.)

A
The museum will stay within this year’s budget.
This fails to show that this year’s budget affects next year’s. Because the premises don’t raise the subject of this year’s budget, staying within that budget has no effect on the argument. We still have no reason to think this year’s budget has any impact on next year’s.
B
This year’s budget is less than next year’s budget.
This compares the two budgets but fails to show that this year’s has any effect on next year’s. Because the premises don’t raise the subject of this year’s budget in any way, the relative value of that budget has no effect on the argument.
C
The museum will not renovate next year.
This fails to introduce this year’s budget to the argument. Even if we assume (C), the premises remain completely silent on the subject of this year’s budget. So we’re given no reason to think that this year’s budget has any effect on renovations or to next year’s budget.
D
The museum will exceed this year’s budget if it renovates this year.
Contrapositive: if the museum doesn’t exceed this year’s budget (i.e., if it stays within budget), it must not renovate this year. And from the premises, if the museum doesn’t renovate this year, it must renovate next year, meaning it won’t stay within next year’s budget.
E
The museum will stay within this year’s budget if it does not renovate this year.
This gets the sufficient and necessary conditions reversed. To reach the conclusion, we want an assumption that makes staying within this year’s budget sufficient for exceeding next year’s. But according to (E), staying within this year’s budget isn’t sufficient for anything.

11 comments

Ecologist: El Niño, a global weather phenomenon that occurs once every several years, is expected to become more frequent in coming decades due to the global warming caused by air pollution. In region T, El Niño causes heavy winter rainfall. Since rodent populations typically increase during long periods of sustained rain, it is likely that average rodent populations in region T will also increase in coming decades.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
An Ecologist hypothesizes that the rodent populations in region T will increase over the coming decades. This is because:
Rodent populations increase during long periods of sustained rain
El Nono, which causes heavy rainfall in region T, is expected to become much more frequent due to global warming

Notable Assumptions
The Ecologist assumes that El Nino will consistently bring enough heavy rainfall to cause an increase in the rodent population.
The Ecologist also assumes that there are no unintended consequences from sustained levels of heavy rainfall that would offset the increases to the rodent population.

A
In region T, there is typically much less rainfall in summer than there is in winter.
*When* it typically rains in region T has no impact on the reasoning of this argument. The reasoning is focused on the increased presence of El Nino causing increased rain, and thus increased rodent populations.
B
Rodent populations in region T often diminish during long periods in which there are no heavy rains.
This does not weaken the argument because the Ecologist assumes there *will* be heavy rains.
C
In many regions that, on average, experience substantially more winter rainfall than region T does, average rodent populations are considerably lower than they are in region T.
While this looks like it weakens the relationship between heavy rains and a high rodent population, the Ecologist is focused on region T. Data from other regions has too many conflicting variables.
D
In region T, winters marked by relatively high rainfall have usually not been marked by long periods of sustained rain.
This weakens the argument because it challenges the assumption that the heavy rainfall caused by El Nino will result in the *sustained* rainfall that is correlated with rodent population growth.
E
The global warming caused by air pollution produces a number of effects, other than the increase in the frequency of El Niño, that could affect rodent populations.
This answer choice doesn’t do anything because it does not specify *how* the global warning will impact rodent populations. Will it increase/decrease? It does not say.

5 comments

Journalists often claim that their investigation of the private lives of political leaders is an effort to improve society by forcing the powerful to conform to the same standards of conduct as the less powerful. In reality, however, the tactic is detrimental to society. It makes public figures more concerned with mere appearances, and makes everyone else cynical about the character of their leaders.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

While journalists argue that their investigations of the private lives of political leaders improves society, it is actually detrimental to society. This is because it makes public figures more concerned with appearances and makes everyone else cynical about their leaders.

Identify Argument Part

The argument part refers to the position that journalists often claim. The author then says that position has bad consequences.

A
It is a claim that the argument attempts to refute.

This is incorrect because the author is not refuting that journalists view their investigations as an effort to hold the powerful to the same standards as less powerful citizens. The author is merely saying that effort has negative consequences.

B
It mentions a justification that is sometimes offered for a practice that, the argument concludes, has undesirable consequences.

This is correct because the argument part mentions the journalists’ justification for their practice of investigating the private lives of politicians. The author then concludes this investigating has negative consequences.

C
It is cited as evidence often given for an assertion that the argument concludes is false.

This is incorrect because the author isn’t concluding that journalists are wrong to assert that their investigations are an effort to hold the powerful and less powerful to the same standards. The author is merely arguing that practice has other, bad consequences.

D
It describes a phenomenon that, according to the argument, is much less damaging to society than journalists often assume.

This is incorrect because the author actually argues that the phenomenon is more damaging than what journalists assume.

E
It gives an example of a phenomenon that the argument contends has very different effects from those it is generally assumed by everyone to have.

This is incorrect because we don’t know whether or not it is generally assumed by everyone that journalists’ investigations into the private lives of politicians will have the positive effects journalists claim.


6 comments