Summary
For both C and S, if a prisoner tries to escape from their sector, C and S must leave their respective stations to pursue the prisoner.
If they are not pursuing an escaped prisoner, C and S cannot leave their stations until their replacements have arrived.
On May 11 at 9pm, C and S finished a four-hour shift and their replacements arrived at the end.
C had violated the rules described. S had not violated the rules described.
If they are not pursuing an escaped prisoner, C and S cannot leave their stations until their replacements have arrived.
On May 11 at 9pm, C and S finished a four-hour shift and their replacements arrived at the end.
C had violated the rules described. S had not violated the rules described.
Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference to draw, because there are many ways in which C could have violated the rules and S would not violate the rules. Let’s use process of elimination to identify what must be false.
A
Chelas and Stelma were at their respective stations at 9 P.M.
Could be true. C could have violated the rules by leaving his station and coming back before the end of the shift. Or C could have violated by failing to pursue a prisoner. S could have stayed at her station the whole time. Or she could have pursued an escaped prisoner.
B
Stelma left her station before 9 P.M. but Chelas did not.
Could be true. S could have left to pursue an escaped prisoner. And C could have violated by failing to pursue that escaped prisoner.
C
Chelas left his station before 9 P.M. but Stelma did not.
Could be true. C could have violated by leaving the station even though a prisoner wasn’t trying to escape. S could have followed the rules and stayed at her station.
D
A prisoner attempted to escape from Chelas and Stelma’s sector at 7 P.M. and neither Chelas nor Stelma left his or her station before 9 P.M.
Must be false. If a prisoner tried to escape from the sector at 7pm, S had to leave her station to pursue the prisoner, because we know she followed the rules.
E
A prisoner attempted to escape from Chelas and Stelma’s sector at 7 P.M. and both Chelas and Stelma left their stations before 9 P.M.
Could be true. S could have followed the rules by chasing the escaped prisoner. C could have violated the rules by leaving the station but for some other reason besides chasing the prisoner.
A
there are no potential sources for historical understanding other than written texts and the arts
The argument doesn’t assert or imply this. It simply argues that most of the surveyed historians neglect many important repositories of historical knowledge aside from written texts.
B
painting, architecture, music, dance, and culinary arts are important only as sources for historical understanding
The argument isn’t concerned with the worth of these sources outside of their historical value. It only discusses the value of these sources for historians.
C
there are no sources for historical understanding that are neither considered best by historians nor neglected by them
The argument takes this for granted. Though most of the surveyed historians don’t consider other sources than written texts to be the best for historical understanding, that doesn’t mean they neglect all other sources. They may utilize some sources they don’t consider best.
D
something other than written texts is the best source for historical understanding
The argument doesn’t take this for granted. It only states that the majority of the surveyed historians believe written texts to be the best source for historical understanding.
E
the other sources for historical understanding mentioned by the historians surveyed are not important repositories of historical knowledge
We don’t know that the argument assumes this. The argument doesn’t put forth a belief about the value of these sources. It only argues that the majority of the surveyed historians neglect these sources.
A
fails to define adequately the term “top management”
The author doesn’t need to define “top management.” A CEO is at the top of a company’s hierarchy.
B
presumes, without giving justification, that one is not indifferent to something that one considers a top priority
We don’t know if the author presumes this. The author only claims that CEOs don’t behave indifferently toward their employees’ needs and aspirations. He doesn’t address whether CEOs personally feel indifferent toward their employees’ needs and aspirations.
C
presumes, without giving justification, that the CEOs’ priorities tend to be misplaced
The author doesn’t discuss whether CEOs’ priorities tend to be misplaced. He just argues that the belief that CEOs behave indifferently toward their employees’ wants and needs is unfounded.
D
presumes, without giving justification, that the CEOs’ claims are reflected in actual practice
This is a key possibility that the author overlooks. Just because CEOs claim to highly value their employees’ wants and needs, that doesn’t necessarily mean that CEOs don’t act indifferently toward their employees’ wants and needs.
E
makes a generalization based on an unrepresentative sample
The sample that the author references, of 125 CEOs, is representative of top management. CEOs are at the top of their companies’ management hierarchy.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that nothing can have greater value than one’s own freedom
The author doesn’t presume this. She argues that one’s freedom is always worth the risk of losing one’s life, but she never says that nothing is more valuable than freedom. The author may believe that many things are more valuable than freedom.
B
fails to consider that it is not always possible to rebel physically against an encroachment on one’s freedom
The author doesn’t state or imply that she thinks it’s always possible to rebel physically against an encroachment on one’s freedom, and her stance on this issue is irrelevant to the soundness of her conclusion.
C
generalizes inappropriately from a single extreme case to a universal claim
This is the flaw that the author commits. Using a single, extreme example of someone locked in a cement room, the author then makes a universal claim that one’s freedom is always more valuable than the risk of losing one’s life. The example doesn’t necessarily justify the claim.
D
fails to establish that the freedom of others is worth taking risks for
The author’s argument isn’t concerned with the freedom of others. The author’s argument is only concerned with one’s own freedom and life.
E
overlooks the possibility that some people do not have the courage to take risks for freedom
We don’t know if the author overlooks this. However, even if she does, it has no bearing on whether her conclusion, that one’s freedom is always more valuable than the risk of losing one’s life, is valid.
A
John does not consider how others besides himself are affected by fluoridation of water.
John’s argument isn’t concerned with others besides himself. He only argues that he should stop drinking fluoridated water.
B
John does not consider whether fluoridated water causes other diseases.
John’s argument isn’t about other diseases. He only argues that he should stop drinking fluoridated water to avoid developing bone cancer.
C
John does not consider whether there were any brief periods during the 40 years in which fluoride was not added to the water.
Whether there were periods during the 40 years in which fluoride wasn’t added to the water is irrelevant. John argues he should stop drinking fluoridated water now.
D
John does not focus on the positive effects that fluoridated water has on people.
John’s argument isn’t concerned with positive effects of fluoridated water. He argues that he should stop drinking fluoridated water so he doesn’t develop bone cancer.
E
John does not consider the possibility of other causes of bone cancer.
John fails to consider this. John argues that ceasing to drink fluoridated water is the only way he can ensure that he won’t develop bone cancer, but he ignores the possibility that he could develop bone cancer for other reasons even if he stops drinking fluoridated water.