Standard archaeological techniques make it possible to determine the age of anything containing vegetable matter, but only if the object is free of minerals containing carbon. Prehistoric artists painted on limestone with pigments composed of vegetable matter, but it is impossible to collect samples of this prehistoric paint without removing limestone, a mineral containing carbon, with the paint. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the age of prehistoric paintings on limestone using standard archaeological techniques.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that standard archeology cannot measure the ages of ancient paintings on limestone. Why? Because carbon always comes along with vegetable-based paint samples collected from limestone, and anything with carbon and vegetable matter can’t be aged using standard techniques.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that neither vegetable matter nor carbon can be removed from the samples after collection. If either material can be separated out, then the remaining paint would not be restricted by the author’s general rule and standard techniques may be usable.

A
There exist several different techniques for collecting samples of prehistoric pigments on limestone.
The author states that all such techniques involve removing limestone. This does not imply that any method allows paint to be collected without carbon coming along.
B
Laboratory procedures exist that can remove all the limestone from a sample of prehistoric paint on limestone.
This disputes the assumption that the samples must retain their carbon. If limestone can be removed, then the carbon-free paint can be isolated and may be measurable using standard techniques.
C
The age of the limestone itself can be determined from samples that contain no vegetable-based paint.
This suggests a method to determine the limestone’s age, not the paint’s age. The author does not say that knowing the limestone’s age allows archaeologists to know the paint's age.
D
Prehistoric artists did not use anything other than vegetable matter to make their paints.
This does not imply the samples are free of carbon, since the carbon comes from the limestone. It eliminates the possibility that vegetable matter can be separated from the remaining paint, thus strengthening the argument.
E
The proportion of carbon to other elements in limestone is the same in all samples of limestone.
This implies the amount of carbon in a sample can be known, not that it can be removed. The author states that the presence of carbon, not the variability of carbon, makes standard techniques unusable.

15 comments

To acquire a better understanding of the structure and development of the human personality, some psychologists study the personalities of animals.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do scientists study animals’ personalities to understand human personalities?

Objective
The correct answer must fail to identify a difference between humans and animals that explains why scientists would choose to study animal personalities rather than human personalities.

A
The actions of humans and animals are believed to be motivated by similar instincts, but these instincts are easier to discern in animals.
This explains why psychologists would study animals to learn about human personalities. Animals provide results more readily, and those results can be translated to understand human behavior.
B
The law forbids certain experiments on humans but permits them on animals.
This explains why psychologists would study animals to learn about humans. Some experiments would be illegal to perform on humans, but are legal to perform on animals.
C
It is generally less expensive to perform experiments on animals than it is to perform them on humans.
This explains why psychologists would opt to experiment on animals rather than humans. Animal studies are less expensive and thus more accessible for researchers.
D
Proper understanding of human personality is thought to provide a model for better understanding the personality of animals.
This flips the desired relationship on its head. Psychologists are studying animals to understand human personalities, not the reverse.
E
Field observations of the behavior of young animals often inspire insightful hypotheses about human personality development.
This explains why psychologists would opt to study animals over humans. Observing animals can generate insights into human personality that studies of humans alone cannot.

Comment on this

A group of 1,000 students was randomly selected from three high schools in a medium-sized city and asked the question, “Do you plan to finish your high school education?” More than 89 percent answered “Yes.” This shows that the overwhelming majority of students want to finish high school, and that if the national dropout rate among high school students is high, it cannot be due to a lack of desire on the part of the students.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that most students want to finish high school and that if there’s a high high school dropout rate, it’s not due to students’ lack of desire. He supports this with a survey of 1,000 randomly selected students from three high schools in a medium-sized town, where over 89% said they planned to finish high school.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is a cookie-cutter example of a flawed survey. The author draws a conclusion about all high school students based on an unrepresentative survey. Even though the students surveyed were randomly selected, they were still only chosen from three high schools in one medium-sized town. The author mistakenly assumes that 1,000 students from this town represent all high school students.

A
fails to justify its presumption that 89 percent is an overwhelming majority

The author doesn’t need to justify this presumption because 89 percent is an overwhelming majority. He isn’t making an unreasonable assumption here.

B
attempts to draw two conflicting conclusions from the results of one survey

The author does draw two conclusions— that most students want to finish high school and that a high high school dropout rate wouldn’t be due to students’ lack of desire— from one survey. But these conclusions don’t conflict with one another.

C
overlooks the possibility that there may in fact not be a high dropout rate among high school students

The author doesn’t overlook this possibility. In fact, he explicitly addresses it by saying, “If the national dropout rate...is high...”

D
contradicts itself by admitting that there may be a high dropout rate among students while claiming that most students want to finish high school

The author does claim that most students want to finish high school and he admits the possibility of a high dropout rate. But these statements don’t contradict each other. There could be many students who drop out of school despite wanting to finish.

E
treats high school students from a particular medium-sized city as if they are representative of high school students nationwide

This explains the author’s key flaw. He draws a conclusion about all high school students based on a survey of 1,000 students from a single city.


Comment on this

Although wood-burning stoves are more efficient than open fireplaces, they are also more dangerous. The smoke that wood-burning stoves release up the chimney is cooler than the smoke from an open flame. Thus it travels more slowly and deposits more creosote, a flammable substance that can clog a chimney—or worse, ignite inside it.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that wood-burning stoves are more dangerous than open fireplaces. This is because the smoke that wood-burning stoves release up the chimney is cooler than open fireplace smoke, which means that it deposits more creosote. The creosote can clog a chimney or ignite.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there are no other dangerous features of an open fireplace that could outweigh the danger posed by the greater amounts of creosote from wood-burning stoves. The author also assumes that cooler smoke travels more slowly and deposits more creosote.

A
The most efficient wood-burning stoves produce less creosote than do many open fireplaces.
The author’s conclusion is just about wood-burning stoves in general compared to open fireplaces. In addition, the stimulus says wood-burning stoves deposit more creosote. It’s about the amount deposited, which might be different from the amount produced.
B
The amount of creosote produced depends not only on the type of flame but on how often the stove or fireplace is used.
Frequency of use may be a factor, but we have no reason to think open fireplaces are inherently used more frequently than wood-burning stoves.
C
Open fireplaces pose more risk of severe accidents inside the home than do wood-burning stoves.
This is a factor that could outweigh the danger posed by creosote. If open fireplaces are more likely than wood-burning stoves to lead to severe accidents in the home, this could make open fireplaces equally or more dangerous overall, despite depositing less creosote.
D
Open fireplaces also produce a large amount of creosote residue.
The stimulus told us that wood-burning stoves deposit more creosote. So, even if open fireplaces produce a lot, the stoves deposit more.
E
Homeowners in warm climates rarely use fireplaces or wood-burning stoves.
The argument concerns what kind of fire source is more dangerous. Whether homeowners ever actually use those sources doesn’t impact whether one would be more dangerous than the other.

14 comments