Summarize Argument
The taxpayer argues that the city has been fiscally irresponsible in spending too little each year to maintain the city’s bridges. Proper maintenance would prevent severe deterioration, limiting reconstruction costs to $10 million. However, due to the city’s inadequate maintenance spending, the city must now pay $400 million to reconstruct the bridges.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the taxpayer’s opinion the city has been fiscally irresponsible by not spending enough to maintain its bridges to prevent costly deterioration.
A
should have budgeted substantially more money for maintenance of its bridges
This a good paraphrase of the conclusion. The taxpayer argues that the city was fiscally irresponsible by underfunding bridge maintenance, leading to high emergency repair costs. He contends that the city should have spent “substantially more”—$15 million—to reduce such costs.
B
would have had a well-run bridge program if it had spent more money for reconstruction of its bridges
The taxpayer argues that the city should have spent more on maintaining, not rebuilding, the bridges. Moreover, he contends the city was fiscally irresponsible by underfunding maintenance but does not claim that more spending on reconstruction would ensure fiscal responsibility.
C
is spending more than it needs to on maintenance of its bridges
The taxpayer argues the opposite of this claim. The taxpayer contends that the city is spending less than it needs to maintain its bridges. The city only pays $1 million for bridge maintenance, but the taxpayer argues that a “well-run” budget would spend $15 million yearly.
D
is economizing on its bridge program to save money in case of emergencies
The taxpayer does not discuss why the city is economizing. The taxpayer argues that the city’s economizing is ineffective and will ultimately cost more, but the taxpayer does not explain why the city chose to spend so little on bridge maintenance.
E
has bridges that are more expensive to maintain than they were to build
The taxpayer discusses reconstructing the city’s bridges—not building them. Moreover, the taxpayer contends that the city’s bridges are more expensive to rebuild than maintain: maintaining the bridges costs only $15 million annually, but reconstructing them costs $400 million.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author believes that a recent article was incorrect when it claimed that there is no evidence the rate of extinction of animal species is increasing; in other words, the author believes that there is evidence that the rate of extinction of animal species is increasing. This position is supported by data on North American fish extinctions, which show more than double the extinctions from 1950-2000 than there were from 1900-1950.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s statement of disagreement with the article authors: “They are wrong.”
A
There is evidence that the rate of extinction of animal species is accelerating.
This accurately rephrases the argument’s conclusion. This is just another way of saying that the author disagrees with the claim that there is no evidence of an accelerating extinction rate.
B
The future rate of extinction of animal species cannot be determined from available evidence.
The author does not make this claim. Whether an exact future extinction rate can be determined is not discussed, the dispute is just over whether or not the rate is increasing.
C
The rate of extinction of North American fishes is parallel to the rate of extinction of all animal species taken together.
The argument is not designed to support this claim. While this might be taken as an assumption the author makes, nothing in the argument gives us a reason to believe that the North American fish extinction rate is representative.
D
Forty species and subspecies of North American fishes have vanished in the twentieth century.
This claim is not supported by the rest of the argument. The author states this number as a fact to help demonstrate the increasing fish extinction rate, but nothing else provides support for the claim of how many fish species have vanished.
E
A substantial number of fish species are in danger of imminent extinction.
The author never claims this to be true. The argument isn’t concerned with how many fish species are likely to go extinct soon, fish are just used as an example to demonstrate a general increase in extinction rates.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The city council member argues that the mayor is disregarding the city’s interests in order to pursue her own financial interests. To support this, the city council member says that the city desperately needs to take advantage of any source of revenue, but the mayor is blocking real estate development fees that would provide this much-needed revenue. The city council member then implies that the mayor’s family’s investment in real estate is influencing her decision to block the development fees, thus putting her own financial interests above the interests of the city.
Identify Conclusion
The city council member’s conclusion is that the mayor is betraying the city’s interests: “the mayor is sacrificing the city’s interests to personal interests.”
A
Imposing real estate development fees is the best way for the city to exploit the available sources of revenue.
This is not a claim made in the argument. We know that the development fees would provide revenue, but we do not know if this is the best way to do so.
B
The city would benefit financially from the passage of legislation imposing real estate development fees.
The council member seems to believe this, but it is not his main conclusion. In fact, he never actually claims this. At best, this is an assumption that supports the main conclusion.
C
In blocking council members’ attempts to impose real estate development fees, the mayor is sacrificing the city’s interests to personal interests.
This is the main conclusion that the argument is trying to support. This claim is supported by the fact that the mayor has personal interests in blocking real estate tax, while the city has an interest in imposing the tax, and the mayor is siding with her own interest.
D
Significantly reducing the number of building starts would not, on balance, result in revenue loss to the city.
This answer is a rejection of the claim made by the mayor. However, the argument does not attempt to directly reject this claim by the mayor, so this answer is not supported by the argument. The argument of the city council member does not address this topic.
E
The mayor’s family has a strong financial interest in preventing the passage of legislation that would impose real estate development fees.
This is a sub-conclusion. This AC is supported by the fact that the mayor’s family is involved in real estate development. However, it is not the main conclusion, because this AC provides support for the overall conclusion that the mayor is favoring her interests over the city’s.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author claims that different species commonly change their environment in ways that aid their survival, contrary to the assumption that only very intelligent species do so. To support this claim, the author gives an example of plankton, whose gas emissions lead to clouds forming over the ocean, which cools the Earth and benefits the plankton.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s broad statement that the characteristic of species altering their environment to assist their own survival “is actually quite common.”
A
The Earth would be far warmer than it is now if certain species of plankton became extinct.
This may be implied by the statements in the argument, but it is not the main conclusion because plankton are only used as an example to support the more general claim that many species beneficially alter their environments.
B
By altering their environment in ways that improve their chances of survival, certain species of plankton benefit the Earth as a whole.
The author never makes a claim that the plankton’s effects on the environment benefit the Earth as a whole. This is easy to assume based on knowledge that global warming is harmful, but it is not something the author says.
C
Improving their own chances of survival by altering the environment is not limited to the most highly evolved species.
This accurately captures the author’s main conclusion. The rest of the argument, i.e. the plankton example, provides support for the author’s claim that beneficial environment alteration is common and not restricted to highly-evolved species.
D
The extent of the cloud cover over the oceans is largely determined by the quantity of plankton in those oceans.
This is not something the author claims. Based on the argument, plankton might be sufficient to emit particles that cause cloud cover, but we don’t know if they’re necessary or if there may be other sources of these particles.
E
Species such as plankton alter the environment in ways that are less detrimental to the well-being of other species than are the alterations to the environment made by more highly evolved species.
The author never says anything about how other species are affected by the changes plankton make. The focus is on one species at a time, not the wider effects.