Summary
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) allow developers to use land inhabited by endangered species in exchange for preserving some habitat or replacement land nearby. Some members of endangered species are lost, but the developer ensures that the remaining animals will be protected. Environmentalists like that HCPs secure compromise from developers. Developers prefer HCPs over more restrictive prohibitions.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Environmental laws should reflect a compromise between land developers and environmentalists.
A
In order to avoid protracted legal battles environmentalists should compromise with developers.
We don’t know whether the environmentalists or land developers would initiate legal battles with each other.
B
Developers should adhere only to those environmental laws that are not overburdensome.
We don’t know if developers should only adhere to laws that are not overburdensome. The environmentalists may prefer that land developers adhere to any and all environmental laws.
C
Laws should not be designed to serve the interests of all the parties concerned since they are often so weak that no one’s interest is served well.
As the stimulus describes, HCPs do serve the interests of all concerned parties. Environmentalists are served by securing compromise from developers, and developers are served because the prefer HCPs over more restrictive laws.
D
Laws should be fashioned in such a way as to reconcile the interests of developers and environmentalists.
HCPs do serve as a compromise between developers and environmentalists.
E
The most effective means of preserving endangered species is to refrain from alienating property owners.
We don’t know what the most effective means of protecting endangered species is. HCPs are just one way we are told could help this purpose.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The consumer advocate concludes that antivirus companies’ warning about a destructive computer virus was a “fraud.” Why? Because there weren’t many actual cases of damage from that virus, and yet the companies sold many antivirus programs. According to the advocate, this shows that the warning was just meant to increase sales.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The consumer advocate uses an imbalance between antivirus sales and cases of damage from a virus as evidence that antivirus companies were dishonest about the risk posed by the virus. This ignores the possible alternative explanation that the antivirus programs worked, and without all those sales, the virus would have caused much more damage.
A
restates its conclusion without attempting to offer a reason to accept it
The argument does offer support for its conclusion: the claim that there were way more antivirus sales than actual cases of harm from this virus.
B
fails to acknowledge that antivirus programs might protect against viruses other than the particular one described
The argument doesn’t acknowledge this possibility, but that isn’t a flaw because the argument is specifically about the particular virus described. Whether the antivirus programs are effective against other viruses is just irrelevant.
C
asserts that the occurrence of one event after another shows that the earlier event was the cause of the later one
The advocate’s argument isn’t trying to establish the cause of a correlation. There also just aren’t any earlier and later events discussed.
D
uses inflammatory language as a substitute for providing any evidence
The argument does provide evidence for its conclusion: the imbalance between antivirus sales and actual harm done by the virus.
E
overlooks the possibility that the protective steps taken did work and, for many computers, prevented the virus from causing damage
The argument never addresses this possibility, and instead just assumes without any reason that the reason the virus didn’t do much harm is because it was never harmful. However, if the antivirus programs were effective, that really undermines the argument.
Summary
Toddlers may bite without acting maliciously. Children may bite when they want a toy because the children feel the person with the toy is preventing them from having it.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Toddlers who bite people to take a toy may not be acting maliciously. Toddlers may use biting as a means to an end.
A
Biting people is sometimes a way for toddlers to try to solve problems.
This answer is strongly supported because the stimulus gives us an example of this playing out. Toddlers have the problem of wanting a toy, and they use biting as a way of acquiring the toy to solve the problem.
B
Toddlers sometimes engage in biting people in order to get attention from adults.
This is unsupported because we only know that toddlers biting may be trying to get a toy. We don’t know that they are trying to attract attention, and we also don’t know that they are trying to get attention specifically from adults.
C
Toddlers mistakenly believe that biting people is viewed as acceptable behavior by adults.
This is unsupported because the stimulus provides us no information on adults’ attitudes toward biting. It also gives us no information on how toddlers predict adults will view biting.
D
Toddlers do not recognize that by biting people they often thwart their own ends.
This is unsupported because the stimulus fails to tell us whether or not toddlers are successful in biting to acquire toys.
E
Resorting to biting people is in some cases an effective way for toddlers to get what they want.
This is unsupported because the stimulus avoids telling us the outcome of biting. We don’t know whether or not biting successfully leads to getting the toys toddlers want.
Summary
The physicians conclude that anyone whose skin becomes irritated when injected with tuberculosis proteins has had tuberculosis. This is because people’s immune systems recognize proteins from bacteria that previously infected them. Furthermore, this immune system reaction also occurs (and leads to skin irritation) when someone has had tuberculosis and is then injected with tuberculosis proteins.
Notable Assumptions
The premises establish tuberculosis infection as a sufficient condition for skin irritation from this test, but not a necessary condition. However, the conclusion treats infection as being necessary. This means the physicians are assuming that there is no other reason someone’s skin would become irritated when injected with tuberculosis proteins, other than having had tuberculosis.
A
All of the proteins present in disease-causing bacteria can be recognized by the body’s immune system.
The argument is only concerned with the proteins in tuberculosis bacteria, so this kind of claim about all proteins in all disease-causing bacteria is too broad to be necessary.
B
Localized skin irritations are a characteristic symptom of tuberculosis in most people.
Whether or not skin irritation is usually a symptom of actual tuberculosis infection is irrelevant, because the argument is only concerned with reactions to the tuberculosis test.
C
The ability of the proteins present in the tuberculosis bacterium to trigger the skin irritation is exclusive to that bacterium.
In other words, there is no other bacterium which would lead to skin irritation when someone is injected with tuberculosis proteins. This is necessary because otherwise, we couldn’t conclude that a reaction meant tuberculosis and not some other bacterium.
D
Some people who have been injected with proteins extracted from the tuberculosis bacterium will contract tuberculosis as a result of the injection.
Whether or not it’s possible to get tuberculosis from being injected with tuberculosis proteins is irrelevant to whether a skin reaction truly indicates tuberculosis.
E
The body’s immune system cannot recognize infectious bacteria unless there are sufficient quantities of the bacteria to cause overt symptoms of disease.
What exactly it means to be “infected” by bacteria such that your immune system will recognize those bacteria isn’t relevant, because the argument doesn’t depend on that exact of a definition of “infected.”
A
When an anticounterfeiting technique depends on the detection of counterfeits by experts, the cost of inspection by experts adds significantly to the cost to society of that technique.
While the microprinting technique is cheaper when creating bills, it requires expert inspection. Expert inspection is costly, so microprinting might not in fact be cheaper overall. This strengthens the case for the special ink technique.
B
For any anticounterfeiting technique to be effective, the existence of anticounterfeiting techniques should be widely broadcast, but the method by which counterfeits are detected should be kept secret.
This applies to both techniques in question. We need to strengthen the case for special ink.
C
The process of microprinting paper currency involves fewer steps than does the printing of paper currency with the special ink.
This probably reinforces the notion that microprinting is cheaper. We’re looking to strengthen the case for special ink.
D
Before photocopying technology existed, most counterfeits of paper currency were accomplished by master engravers.
We don’t care about what happened before photocopying. We’re interested in microprinting and special ink.
E
Many criminals do not have access to the advanced photocopiers that are needed to produce counterfeits of microprinted paper currency that cashiers will accept as real.
This strengthens the case for microprinting. We’re trying to strengthen the case for special ink.