Dr. Khan: Professor Burns recognizes that recent observations fail to confirm earlier ones that apparently showed a comet reservoir far out in our solar system. She claims this nonconfirmation is enough to show that the earlier observations are incorrect. But the recent observations occurred under poor conditions.
Summary
Recent observations fail to confirm earlier observations that showed a comet reservoir far out in the solar system, according to Professor Burns. Professor Burns claims that this failure to confirm is enough to show that the earlier observations are incorrect. The recent observations occurred in poor conditions.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The recent observations are not sufficient evidence to show that the earlier observations are incorrect.
A
If the recent observations had been made under good conditions, they would have provided conclusive evidence of a comet reservoir far out in our solar system.
This is anti-supported because even if the recent observations were accurate, those observations failed to confirm earlier observations about a comet reservoir in the solar system.
B
Contrary to Professor Burns’s view, the recent observations confirm the earlier ones.
This is anti-supported because the recent observations were taken when weather conditions were poor, meaning they are probably not useful results. This means they shouldn’t be used to confirm any findings one way or another.
C
Professor Burns’s claim about the implications of the recent observations is incorrect.
This is strongly supported because the author states that the recent observations were taken when weather conditions were poor, which casts doubt on their validity. Since Professor Burns uses these observations to cast doubt on earlier observations, Professor Burns is incorrect.
D
The recent observations, even if they had been made under good conditions, would not have been enough to suggest that the earlier ones are incorrect.
This is unsupported because the author doesn’t explore how we should have interpreted the results of recent observations if those observations had been made under good conditions.
E
The poor conditions present during recent observations render them worthless.
This is unsupported because while the poor conditions cast doubt on recent observations’ usefulness in evaluating the earlier observations, it is too strong to say that the poor conditions makes them entirely worthless.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that society wouldn’t be better off if the government enacted laws requiring people to be polite each other. This is because enforcing these laws would lead to more problems than the problems created by people being impolite to each other.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is the conclusion of the argument.
A
It is the conclusion drawn by the argument as a whole.
This accurately describes the referenced text.
B
It is cited as evidence for the generalization that is the argument’s overall conclusion.
The referenced text is not cited as evidence. It is the conclusion.
C
It is cited as evidence for the assertion used to support the argument’s overall conclusion.
The referenced text is not cited as evidence. It is the conclusion.
D
It is cited as an illustration of a generalization that serves as the main premise of the argument.
The referenced text is not an illustration of another claim. It’s a conclusion reached based on the cost-benefit reasoning used by the author. Because enforcing laws against politeness creates more problems than impoliteness, society wouldn’t be better off with those laws.
E
It describes a phenomenon that the conclusion of the argument purports to explain.
The referenced text is the conclusion. The author is trying to prove that society wouldn’t be better off with laws against politeness.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that concern for the welfare of people is necessary for successful governance of Acredia. This is based on the fact that whenever Acredian governments have fallen, their falls have always been during the rule of someone who didn’t care about the welfare of people.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that there might be some cases where Acredian governments have been successful, but the ruler didn’t care about the welfare of people. In other words, although we know that whenever governments have failed, rulers haven’t been concerned with welfare of people, that doesn’t imply that concern with welfare of people is necessary. It’s possible there are successful Acredian governments that have also been unconcerned with welfare of people.
A
ignores the possibility that the conditions that are necessary for the welfare of the people are likely to change over time
The argument concerns what is necessary for a successful Acredian government. What’s necessary for the welfare of people is a separate issue.
B
infers the necessity of a certain condition for success from the fact that its absence has always led to failure
The premise doesn’t establish that the absence of concern for welfare has “always” led to gov. failure. It establishes that when a government has failed, it’s always been during the rule of one not concerned with welfare. (B) reverses the correct description of the premise.
C
appeals to evidence from sources that are likely to be in some way biased or unreliable
The premise doesn’t rely on a source. In any case, even if it did, we have no reason to think the evidence is based on a source that’s biased or unreliable.
D
infers that a certain condition is required for success from the fact that the lack of that condition is associated with failure
The author infers that concern for welfare is necessary for success from the fact that lack of concern has been “associated” with failure. (D) accurately describes the premise portion, unlike (B). We know whenever a gov. has failed, it’s been during lack of concern.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that the character of past rulers can be assessed in some completely objective way
The argument doesn’t try to establish anything about the character of past rulers. The argument concerns whether certain features in a ruler are necessary for success.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The police chief hypothesizes that the 20% reduction in crime is a result of her policing strategy. She offers no support for this claim.
Notable Assumptions
The police chief assumes that the reduction in crime owes to her policing strategy rather than to some other factor (e.g. economic prosperity in the city, generally falling crime rates in the country, other changes in the justice system).
A
The crime rate in the police chief’s city is still significantly higher than in many other cities.
The police chief’s policing strategy can still have caused a 20% reduction in crime, even if that reduction leaves the city with an above-average crime rate.
B
The crime rate in the police chief’s city is higher now than it was several decades before the chief’s tenure began.
Like (A), the police chief’s policing strategy can still have caused a 20% reduction in crime while leaving the city with a higher crime rate than several decades earlier.
C
The crime rate in the police chief’s city fell significantly during the first few years of the chief’s tenure, then it leveled off.
We don’t care how the police chief got to the 20% reduction over the years. We simply care that the reduction was an effect of her policing strategy.
D
The crime rate in the country as a whole fell by about 30 percent during the police chief’s tenure.
The police chief’s strategy likely wasn’t what caused the 20% crime reduction, given that crime fell by 30% around the country. In fact, the police chief’s strategy appears to have resulted in a milder reduction than those employed around the country.
E
The variation in crime rates between different areas of the city is smaller in the police chief’s city than in many other cities.
This supports the police chief’s claim. By targeting particularly high-risk areas, the police chief lowers variation between different areas of the city. This could’ve caused the 20% reduction.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the irregular flight style of the red admiral evolved as a means of avoiding predators. This is based on the fact that nonpoisonous butterflies like the red admiral need to avoid predators to survive. In addition, the irregular flight style is not energy efficient (which eliminates one potential explanation for that flight style).
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s no other explanation for the irregular flight style besides avoidance of predators. The author also assumes that poisonous butterflies do not have an irregular flight style.
A
No species of poisonous butterfly has an irregular flight style like that of the red admiral.
This affirms the assumption that poisonous butterflies don’t have the irregular flight style. If this were not true, then that would suggest the flight style might not have to do with avoiding predators, because poisonous butterflies wouldn’t need to avoid them.
B
Attacks from predators are not the most common cause of death for butterflies.
Whether predators are the most common cause of death doesn’t relate to the purpose of the irregular flight style. Butterflies could fly irregularly to avoid predators regardless of whether they are the most common or second most common cause of death.
C
Many other types of butterfly have flight styles similar to that of the red admiral.
But are those other types of butterfly nonpoisonous? And do they use the flight style to avoid predators? Without knowing the answer to these questions, (C) doesn’t help connect the red admiral’s flight style to avoiding predators.
D
It is much more energy efficient for butterflies to fly in an irregular fashion than it is for heavier varieties of insects.
We already know from the premises that the irregular flight style is not energy efficient. Whether it’s more efficient for red admirals than it would be for other insects has no impact. It’s not energy efficient for red admirals.
E
All of the predators that prey on the red admiral also prey on other species of nonpoisonous butterflies.
And do the other nonpoisonous butterflies try to fly irregularly? Without knowing the answer to this question, (E) doesn’t have a clear impact on the relationship between the red admiral’s flight pattern and whether its used to avoid predators.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that copyright protection for the life of the author plus several decades is too long. This is because the societal benefit from the additional years of copyright is more than offset by the societal cost of creating monopolies in the copyrighted works. In other words, the societal cost of the additional years of protection outweighs the societal benefit.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if the societal cost of additional years of copyright protection outweighs the societal benefit, this is something that makes those additional years of protection unjustified. The author also assumes that there aren’t non-societal benefits that could help justify the costs of additional years of copyright protection.
A
A statute should be written in a way that eliminates any appearance of its being inconsistent in its aims.
The argument’s reasoning has nothing to do with an inconsistency in copyright statutes. There’s nothing contradictory within the statutes. They have benefits, and they also have costs. That’s not a contradiction.
B
A statute should be repealed if the conditions that originally justified enacting the statute no longer hold true.
The author never suggests that the original justification has changed. The argument is simply based on an assessment of costs and benefits, and the author doesn’t say that those costs/benefits have changed.
C
A statute that is justified in one country is justified in every country.
The author never presents a country in which copyright statutes are justified. He is simply criticizing certain countries’ copyright statutes.
D
A statute should not limit rights unless it can be shown that it thereby enhances other rights.
The reasoning isn’t that copyright statutes are unjustified because they don’t enhance other rights. The reasoning is based on weighing costs/benefits. Copyright statutes may enhance the rights of the owner, so (D) wouldn’t help show some statutes are unjustified.
E
If a statute is to be justified by its benefit to society, it should be designed so that its societal benefit always exceeds its societal cost.
(E) connects the premise, which shows that the costs outweigh the benefits, to the judgment that copyright protections for life plus several decades are too long, or in other words, unjustified.