A
the argument does not allow for the possibility of being immersed in experiencing a painting without being conscious of the passage of time
The argument doesn’t address whether viewers can lose track of time while looking at a painting.
B
the argument is based on a very general definition of music that does not incorporate any distinctions among particular styles
Distinctions between music styles are irrelevant to the argument. The argument just says that music doesn’t have a temporal dimension.
C
the argument fails to bring out the aspects of music and painting that are common to both as forms of artistic expression
The argument isn’t about the similarities between music and painting. It only focuses on a possible difference.
D
relying on the metaphor of “reading” to characterize how a painting is viewed presupposes the correctness of the conclusion to be drawn on the basis of that characterization
The argument doesn’t presuppose anything. It uses the metaphor of “reading” to describe how a painting is viewed, but it doesn’t cite that metaphor for why music and paintings are different. It cites the lack of a particular path for viewers to follow when looking at a painting.
E
the absence of a particular path that the eye must follow does not entail that the eye follows no path
This is a possibility the argument ignores. Even if viewers’ eyes don’t follow a particular path when looking at a painting, their eyes may still follow some path, allowing the possibility that paintings have a temporal element.
Darla: Why think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Darla questions Charles’s claim that air pollution from automobile exhaust decreases during a recession. As evidence, she points out that during a recession fewer people can afford to buy new cars. Moreover the older the car, the more pollutants that car emits.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Darla’s response weakens the relationship between Charles’s evidence and his hypothesis. She does this by pointing out a fact Charles’s argument does not account for: people buy fewer new cars during a recession and older cars tend to emit more pollutants.
A
It calls into question the truth of the premises that Charles uses to support his conclusion.
Darla does not question Charles’s premises. She does not deny that unemployment typically rises during a recession, and she does not deny that during a recession fewer people commute in cars to jobs.
B
It makes an additional claim that can be true only if Charles’s conclusion is false.
Darla’s claims do not contradict Charles’s conclusion. She questions Charles’s conclusion, but this is not the same as disproving Charles’s conclusion.
C
It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Charles’s conclusion by his evidence.
The additional consideration is that during a recession fewer people buy new cars, and older cars tend to emit more pollutants.
D
It argues that Charles’s conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Charles gives to support that conclusion.
Darla does not argue for the truth of Charles’s conclusion. In fact, she questions why Charles’s hypothesis would follow from his premises.
E
It presents an argument showing that the premises in Charles’s argument support an absurd conclusion that Charles has overlooked.
Darla’s claims point to a consideration Charles’s argument has overlooked, but she does not point to a conclusion that Charles has overlooked.
Summary
The author argues that if the condor is to survive in the wild, its population must increase. Their population will increase only if most of the condors' eggs hatch. However, the author suggests this is highly unlikely due to environmental dangers to the eggs. Thus, the author believes that breeding condors in captivity and releasing them into the wild will make the eggs hatching much more likely.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If most condor eggs do not hatch, the population will not increase, and then the birds will not survive in the wild.
A
The condor as a species will eventually become extinct in the wild.
This is far too strong to support. The author suggests that breeding them in captivity could alleviate the pressures that destroy condor eggs.
B
The best way to save the condor from extinction is to breed it in captivity.
The stimulus does not suggest that breeding condors in captivity is the *best* way to save them from extinction. It is just provided as *a way* to ensure the hatching of more eggs.
C
It is almost impossible to eliminate all the environmental threats to the eggs of condors.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus says that eliminating all of the threats to eggs “in the wild” is extremely unlikely. Not that it is almost impossible in *every* context.
D
If more condor eggs do not hatch, the condor as a species will not survive in the wild.
This is the reasoning in the stimulus. If the condor is to survive, the population must increase. If the population increases, most of the eggs will hatch. Run the contrapositive, and that’s the answer.
E
The most feasible way to save the condor from extinction is to increase egg production.
The stimulus is focused on increasing the hatching success rate, not the rate of egg production itself.