Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the recent accusations of graft in his precinct are unfounded. This is based on the fact that no officer in the precinct has ever taken a gift of cash or objects valued at more than $100. In addition, if someone accepts gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100, that constitutes graft.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that there are other things that also count as graft besides gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100. In other words, the author assumes that the only things that are considered graft are gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100.
A
bases a rebuttal of accusations of graft on knowledge about only a limited sample of officers
The argument isn’t based on a limited sample of officers. The premise asserts that “no officer in my precinct” has ever accept gifts of cash/objects valued at more than $100. The conclusion is about the author’s precinct. The conclusion isn’t about a broader group of officers.
B
fails to consider that there may be other instances of graft besides those indicated by the chief of police
The author overlooks that there may be other actions that constitute graft. If other things can count as graft, then even if the officers did not accept the gifts discussed, that doesn’t absolve them of potentially having committed graft through other actions.
C
bases a claim about the actions of individuals on an appeal to the character of those individuals
The author’s premise doesn’t involve an appeal to the character of the officers. The premise establishes that the officers have not committed one action that would count is graft. This doesn’t establish anything about the officers’ character.
D
takes for granted that if the accusations of graft are unfounded, so is any accusation of corruption
The conclusion concerns only accusations of graft. The author does not assert anything about accusations of corruption.
E
relies on a premise that contradicts the conclusion drawn in the argument
The author’s premise is that no officer in the precinct has taken gifts of cash/objects at more than $100 dollars. This doesn’t contradict the conclusion, which is that accusations of graft are unfounded.
Economist: Although average hourly wages vary considerably between different regions of this country, in each region, the average hourly wage for full-time jobs increased last year. Paradoxically, however, in the country as a whole, the average hourly wage for full-time jobs decreased last year.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the average hourly wage for full-time jobs increase in each region of the country last year, but decrease in the country as a whole?
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains how the average hourly wage for full-time jobs increased in each region last year, even though it decreased nationwide. It must show some change in the country’s higher-paid jobs. Those jobs were either eliminated or were somehow paid less, while still raising the average wage in each region.
A
In the country as a whole, the average hourly wage for full-time jobs has decreased slightly for each of the last three years.
We already know that the average hourly wage decreased last year and the fact that it decreased over the last three years is not relevant. Instead, we need to know how it increased in each region of the country last year, even though it decreased in the country as a whole.
B
Last year, to reduce costs, employers moved many full-time jobs from regions with relatively high hourly wages to regions where those jobs typically pay much less.
This helps to explain the paradox. As many jobs moved from higher-paying to lower-paying regions, the national average hourly wage decreased, but it could still increase in each region.
C
The year before last, the unemployment rate reached a ten-year low; last year, however, the unemployment rate increased slightly.
The country’s unemployment rate does not affect its average hourly wage. Regardless of unemployment, we know that the average hourly wage increased in each region but decreased nationwide and we need an answer that helps to explain this paradox.
D
Last year, the rate at which the average hourly wage for full-time jobs increased varied considerably between different regions of the country.
Regardless of its rate of increase, we know that the average hourly wage for full-time jobs increased in each region. (D) doesn’t help to explain how the average hourly wage decreased nationwide, given the fact that it increased in each region.
E
Last year, hourly wages for most full-time jobs in the manufacturing sector declined while those for most full-time jobs in the service sector increased.
We’re only concerned about the change in the average hourly wage for full-time jobs overall. It doesn't matter which jobs saw pay increases or decreases, just that the average hourly wage rose in each region but fell nationwide.
Summary
Although critics worry that pessimistic news reports about the economy cause people to lose confidence in the economy, studies show that, on matters on which people have direct experience, they don’t defer to journalists. People have direct experience with the economy.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
People don’t defer to journalists regarding the economy.
Critics don’t need to be worried that pessimistic news reports will influence people’s feelings about the economy.
Critics don’t need to be worried that pessimistic news reports will influence people’s feelings about the economy.
A
Critics who think that the economy is affected by the extent of people’s confidence in it are wrong.
Unsupported. The issue is whether news about the economy affects people’s perceptions. We don’t know anything about whether people’s perceptions affect the economy.
B
Pessimistic news reports about such matters as foreign policy, of which people do not have experience every day, are likely to have a negative impact.
Unsupported. Although it’s possible people defer to journalists on foreign policy, there’s no support for characterizing the effect of that deference as negative. Being influenced by news reports is not inherently negative.
C
Pessimistic news reports about the state of the economy are likely to harm the economy.
Unsupported. We know people don’t defer to journalists on the economy. So, there’s no evidence news reports will harm the economy by making people lose confidence in it. In theory the news could hurt the economy through some other means, but the stimulus doesn’t speak to that.
D
News reports about the economy are unlikely to have a significant effect on people’s opinions about the state of the economy.
Strongly supported. We know that on matters on which they have direct experience, people don’t defer to journalists. And we’re told people have direct experience with the economy. So, they don’t defer to journalists on the economy.
E
Journalists need not be deeply concerned about their reporting’s effects on the well-being of the average citizen.
Unsupported. The stimulus indicates people are unlikely to defer to journalists on the economy. But journalists might have an impact on people regarding other topics. We have no basis to say journalists shouldn’t be concerned about potential effects regarding other topics.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that farming using irrigated seawater would be cheaper than other kinds of irrigated farming if it’s done near oceans. This is because, if done near oceans, the water wouldn’t have to be pumped far, and the distance-based expense of pumping is the biggest cost involved in irrigated agriculture.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is support for the conclusion. Because the greatest expense involved in irrigated agriculture is pumping, reduced pumping costs would make seawater farming near oceans cheaper than other kinds of irrigated farming.
A
It is a claim that the argument shows to be false.
The referenced text is used by the author to support the conclusion.
B
It is a hypothesis that, if proven, would undermine the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text is used by the author to support the conclusion.
C
It is evidence provided to support the argument’s conclusion.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text.
D
It is the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text is support for the conclusion, but is not the conclusion itself.
E
It is a claim for which the argument provides evidence, but which is not the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text is the author’s conclusion.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that some planets with oval orbits around distant stars were probably thrown into those orbits by encounters with other planets orbiting those same distant stars. This is because many comets orbiting our sun have been thrown into oval orbits by close encounters with planets orbiting our sun.
Notable Assumptions
The author asumes there is no other more likely explanation for the oval orbits of planets around distant stars other than close encounters with planets around those same stars. The author also assumes that the origin of the oval orbits of comets around our sun is relevant to the origin of the oval orbits around planets around distant stars. Another assumption is that at least some distant stars with planets that have oval orbits also have other planets that might get close to the planets with oval orbits.
A
When two planets or other large objects in orbit have a close encounter, usually the smaller of the two is the more greatly affected.
This has no impact, because we have no reason to think the planets with oval orbits are smaller than whatever other planets they may have had close encounters with.
B
There is no indication that the orbit of any planet orbiting our sun has been affected by a close encounter with another planet orbiting our sun.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that planetary orbits being affected by other planets might not be as likely as comets being thrown into oval orbits by planets.
C
In most cases in which planets have been discovered orbiting a distant star, more than one planet has been found orbiting the star.
This strengthens by helping to establish one of the assumptions: some distant stars have multiple planets orbiting them, which is required in order for the author’s theory about close encounters between planets orbiting the same star to work.
D
Most comets with an oval orbit around our sun were thrown into that orbit by a close encounter with some other object.
We already know that many comets orbiting our sun have been thrown into an oval orbit by other planets. We don’t need additional help establishing that comet orbits can be affected by planets. We need to show that this effect can happen to planetary orbits.
E
For each distant star that has been found to have a planet, no other object large enough to affect the planet’s orbit has been found orbiting the star.
This weakens the argument by undermining the plausibility of the theory that planets with oval orbits were thrown into those orbits by other planets orbiting the same star.