Summary
Heavy tapestry fabrics are only for applications that do not need frequent laundering. These applications do not include any types of clothing, but include types of window treatments such as swags and balloon valances.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If a fabric is appropriate for clothing, then that fabric is not a heavy tapestry fabric.
A
If a fabric is not a heavy tapestry fabric, then it is not appropriate for use in swags.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to heavy tapestry fabrics. We don’t know anything about fabrics that are not heavy tapestry fabrics.
B
Heavy tapestry fabrics should not be used unless swags or balloon valances are being made.
This answer is unsupported. To say that heavy tapestry fabrics should only be used for swags or balloon valances is too extreme. These applications were only examples, not an exhaustive list.
C
If heavy tapestry fabrics are appropriate for a particular application, then that application must be a window treatment.
This answer is unsupported. To say that heavy tapestry fabrics should only be used for window treatments is too extreme. This application was only provided as an example.
D
If a fabric is appropriate for use in a skirt or jacket, then that fabric is not a heavy tapestry fabric.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that heavy tapestry fabrics are not appropriate for any type of clothing. Therefore, if a fabric is appropriate for clothing, then that fabric must not be a heavy tapestry fabric.
E
Heavy tapestry fabrics are sometimes appropriate for use in types of clothing other than skirts and jackets.
This answer is anti-supported. The stimulus tells us that heavy tapestry fabrics are not appropriate for any type of clothing.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Increased housing supply generally leads to lower rents for existing apartments, but rents for existing apartments in Brewsterville rose when the housing supply increased.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why, contrary to what usually happens, existing apartments became more expensive when the housing supply increased. This explanation must show some quirk in Brewsterville’s housing situation that causes rents to rise with supply, or else some other factor that affected the prices of existing apartments without factoring in housing supply.
A
Fewer new apartments were constructed than originally planned.
Even if just one new apartment was constructed, existing rents would be expected to drop. We need to know why they rose.
B
The new apartments were much more desirable than the existing apartments.
The new apartments, no matter how desirable, contributed to the housing supply. And yet, rents for existing apartments rose. We need something that explains why that happened.
C
Rents in some areas close to Brewsterville dropped as a result of the construction of the new apartments.
We care about what happened in Brewsterville, not in areas close-by.
D
A sizeable number of people moved out of the existing apartments while the new apartments were being constructed.
Does this mean the rents would rise? We don’t know. This doesn’t give us enough information to be a true explanation.
E
The new apartments were constructed at the outset of a trend of increasing numbers of people seeking residence in Brewsterville.
Even though the housing supply rose, that housing supply was quickly filled by people moving into Brewsterville. The end result was either a net neutral or net negative for the housing supply, hence why rents didn’t drop as expected for existing apartments.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that increasing productivity in the economy as a whole may help business owners, but it will increase unemployment. She supports this by saying that increasing productivity in a corporation means increasing profit, which often means reducing the number of employees in that corporation.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter part to whole flaw, where the argument assumes that what is true of a part of something is also true about the whole. Here, the author assumes that increasing productivity in the whole economy will lead to more unemployment, simply because increasing productivity in a single corporation can reduce the number of employees there.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that increased unemployment is sufficient reason to abandon increased productivity as an economic goal
The author never claims that politicians should abandon the goal of increased economic productivity. She just notes that they often overlook the drawbacks of this goal.
B
fails to justify its presumption that attempting to increase productivity in the economy as a whole would produce results similar to those produced by attempting to increase productivity in a single corporation
The author assumes that what is true of a single corporation is also true of the economy as a whole. Just because increasing productivity in a corporation may reduce employees doesn’t mean that increasing productivity in the economy will increase unemployment.
C
unfairly criticizes politicians in general on the basis of the actions of a few who are unwilling to consider the drawbacks of attempting to increase productivity
The author doesn’t generalize about all politicians based on the actions of a few. She just notes that politicians often advocate for increased economic productivity while ignoring its drawbacks. This also seems to be a factual, contextual statement, not an unfair criticism.
D
fails to justify its presumption that attempting to increase productivity in the economy as a whole is always more important than the interests of workers or business owners
The author never assumes that increased economic productivity is always more important than the interests of workers or business owners. She points to unemployment as a drawback of increased productivity, but she never makes any claims about which one is more important.
E
fails to address all potential drawbacks and benefits of attempting to increase productivity at a single corporation
The author’s argument is vulnerable because she assumes that a drawback of increasing productivity at a single corporation also applies to increasing productivity in the economy as a whole, not because she doesn’t address all potential drawbacks and benefits.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a good movie reviewer should be able to give favorable reviews of movies that she personally may not like. This is because the purpose of movie reviewers is to help people figure out what movies they might enjoy. The unstated assumption is that to help people figure out what they might like, a movie reviewer can’t just give negative reviews based on her own personal taste.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is what the author thinks a good movie reviewer should be able to do: “A good movie reviewer should be able to give favorable reviews of movies that are not to his or her taste.”
A
Movie reviewers’ tastes in movies are very different from and usually better informed than those of most moviegoers.
This is part of the context. Movie reviewers have different, better tastes. But the author pivots to argue that a good reviewer should be able to set aside their personal taste and give favorable reviews to movies she might not like.
B
If a movie reviewer is good, he or she should be able to give favorable reviews of movies that are not to his or her taste.
This is an almost verbatim restatement of the conclusion.
C
The function of a movie reviewer is different from that of a film critic.
This is part of the premise.
D
Movie reviewers see many more movies than most moviegoers see.
This is part of the context.
E
The role of movie reviewers is to help people determine which movies they might enjoy seeing, not to help people better appreciate movies.
This is a premise. The author doesn’t offer anything to help prove the role of movie reviewers. Rather, he uses the claim about a movie reviewer’s role to assert what a good movie reviewer should be able to do.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that playing a musical instrument alters brain structure. As evidence, he notes that the part of the brain responsible for differentiating piano sounds tends to be larger in highly skilled musicians than in people who rarely play an instrument.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The author points out a correlation: a certain area of the brain tends to be larger in highly skilled musicians. He then jumps to the conclusion that playing an instrument causes changes to the brain. He overlooks two key alternative hypotheses:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed— maybe having a larger brain area causally contributes to people becoming highly skilled musicians.
(2) Maybe there’s some other, underlying factor that causes both altered brain structure and musical skill.
A
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that what is true about the brain structures of highly skilled pianists is also true of the brain structures of other highly skilled musicians.
The author only says that a certain area of the brain tends to be larger in highly skilled musicians. Presumably this correlation also applies to highly skilled pianists, but he never specifically mentions the brain structure of pianists.
B
The argument fails to address the possibility that people who become highly skilled musicians do so, in part, because of the size of a certain area of their brains.
The author overlooks the possibility that the causal relationship could be reversed. Maybe having a larger brain area causally contributes to people becoming highly skilled musicians, not the other way around.
C
The argument draws a conclusion about a broad range of phenomena from evidence concerning a much narrower range of phenomena.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization, where the argument draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence. The author doesn’t make this mistake. He draws a conclusion about musicians’ brain structures from evidence about musicians’ brain structures.
D
The argument fails to address the possibility that a certain area of the brain is smaller in people who have listened to a lot of music but who have never learned to play a musical instrument than it is in people who have learned to play a musical instrument.
The author does address this possibility. He explicitly says that a certain area of the brain is smaller in non-musicians than in highly skilled musicians. The amount of music that people listen to is irrelevant.
E
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that highly skilled musicians practice more than other musicians.
The author never makes this assumption. He compares the brain structures of highly skilled musicians and non-musicians (people who “rarely, if ever,” play an instrument). He doesn’t compare highly skilled musicians to other musicians.
Researcher: Overhearing only one side of a cell-phone conversation diverts listeners’ attention from whatever they are doing. Hearing only part of a conversation leaves listeners constantly trying to guess what the unheard talker has just said. Listeners’ attention is also diverted because cell-phone talkers speak abnormally loudly.
Summary
Hearing only one side of a cell-phone conversation distracts a person from whatever they’re doing. Hearing only one person in a conversation results in listeners constantly trying to guess what the unheard person is saying. Cell-phone conversations distract listeners because people talking on a cell-phone are abnormally loud.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
When a person performing a task hears a cell-phone conversation, that person ends up distracted from whatever they’re doing.
A
The risk that a driver will cause an accident is increased when the driver is talking on a cell phone.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what the risk of accident is for any driver. Since we don’t know the baseline risk, we also can’t say that this risk increases.
B
When a driver hears a passenger in the driver’s vehicle talking on a cell phone, that detracts from the driver’s performance.
This answer is strongly supported. Hearing only one side of a cell-phone conversation distracts a person from whatever they’re doing. Since the driver is distracted, this detracts from their driving.
C
Overhearing one side of a conversation on a traditional telephone does not divert listeners’ attention from tasks at hand.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to overhearing conversations being had over a cell-phone. We don’t know what the effects are from overhearing a conversation had over a traditional phone.
D
People who overhear one side of a cell-phone conversation inevitably lose track of their thoughts.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if these people lose track of their own thoughts, we just know that they become distracted from whatever they’re doing.
E
Conversing on a cell phone requires making more guesses about what one’s conversational partner means than other forms of conversation do.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what conditions are required for having a conversation via cell-phone.