Editorialist: Some people argue that ramps and other accommodations for people using wheelchairs are unnecessary in certain business areas because those areas are not frequented by wheelchair users. What happens, however, is that once ramps and other accommodations are installed in these business areas, people who use wheelchairs come there to shop and work.
Summary
The Editorialist states that some people argue that accessible features for businesses are unnecessary because wheelchair users do not frequent them. However, the editorialist points out that once such accommodations are installed, people with wheelchairs show up to shop and work.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Some businesses could attract more customers by installing accessible features.
Whether some people decide to go to certain businesses is influenced by whether accommodations are present.
A
Owners of business areas not frequented by wheelchair users generally are reluctant to make modifications.
The stimulus does not say anything about whether business owners feel “reluctant” or not. The stimulus is focused on the effect of modifications, not the owners’ feelings towards them.
B
Businesses that install proper accommodations for wheelchair users have greater profits than those that do not.
This is far too strong to support. The stimulus does not mention increased profits, and the editorial is only focused on the number of wheelchair users frequenting the areas.
C
Many businesses fail to make a profit because they do not accommodate wheelchair users.
The Editorialist does not make any link to profits and a lack of accommodations. The stimulus is focused on wheelchair users frequenting the area.
D
Most businesses are not modified to accommodate wheelchair users.
This is far too strong to support. The stimulus does not say that “most” businesses do not have accommodations. The Editorialist is focused on the effect of the accommodations.
E
Some business areas are not frequented by wheelchair users because the areas lack proper accommodations.
This is directly mirrored in the argument. Wheelchair users do not go to places without accommodations. However, once accommodations are installed, wheelchair users begin to visit those areas.
A
treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect
This is how the environmentalists’ argument errs. While a single trip by the spacecraft may do as much damage to the ozone layer as a year’s pollution by a factory, the spacecraft’s trips have the potential to help the ozone layer in a way that factories don’t.
B
justifies a generalization on the basis of a single instance
The environmentalists don’t justify a generalization. They only say that trips by the spacecraft are unjustified because of the damage they do to the ozone layer.
C
fails to distinguish the goal of reversing harmful effects from the goal of preventing those harmful effects
The environmentalists don’t have to distinguish these goals. They only discuss the scientists’ goal of reversing the harm that has been done to the ozone layer.
D
attempts to compare two quantities that are not comparable in any way
The spacecraft and an average factory are comparable, as they both damage the ozone layer.
E
presupposes that experiments always do harm to their subjects
We don’t know if they presuppose this. The environmentalists only discuss the spacecraft experiment and never state that all experiments harm their subjects.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author looks at the trend of physicians not prescribing herbs and concludes the reason for this is because the current system prevents physicians from recommending the medicinal use of herbs. As evidence, the author states drugs require regulatory-agency approval for medicinal use. Moreover, regulatory-agency approval costs $200 million and only patent holders can expect to recover such large expenses. Herbs themselves and their medicinal uses cannot be patented.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author questions what others claim as the reason physicians do not prescribe herbs. She does this by providing an alternative explanation for why physicians refrain from prescribing herbs. The medical effectiveness of herbs may not be in serious doubt, but rather the current system does not allow this practice because herbs and their medicinal uses cannot be patented.
A
questioning a claim about why something is the case by supplying an alternative explanation
The claim the author questions is the claim that physicians do not prescribe drugs because their medical effectiveness is in serious doubt. The alternative explanation is physicians cannot prescribe herbs because herbs and their medicinal uses cannot be patented.
B
attacking the validity of the data on which a competing claim is based
The competing claim is not supported by any data in the stimulus. The author does not address any data that would support this claim.
C
revealing an inconsistency in the reasoning used to develop an opposing position
The author does not address the reasoning used by others to reach the opposing position. The author only states the opposing claim as a matter of fact.
D
identifying all plausible explanations for why something is the case and arguing that all but one of them can be eliminated
The author does not identify all plausible explanations. We cannot assume that all plausible explanations have been identified just because the author argues for one she thinks is the most plausible.
E
testing a theory by determining the degree to which a specific situation conforms to the predictions of that theory
The author does not test any theory. The argument the author lays out is stated generally and theoretically.
Summary
The ozone layer entirely filters out some wavelengths of light but lets others through. Dangers associated with holes in the ozone layer are well documented. However, one danger that is not talked about enough is that these holes could lead to severe eye damage for some species.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Some wavelengths of light that could damage eyesight are more likely to reach the earth when there are holes in the ozone layer.
A
All wavelengths of sunlight that can cause eye damage are filtered out by the ozone layer, where it is intact.
This answer is unsupported. To say “all” wavelengths are filtered out is too strong here. We only know that the ozone layer filters out some wavelengths but not others. Additionally, we don’t know whether the filtered wavelengths are the same ones that could cause eye damage.
B
Few species of animals live on a part of the earth’s surface that is not threatened by holes in the ozone layer.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t have any information in the stimulus to determine where any species live.
C
Some species of animals have eyes that will not suffer any damage when exposed to unfiltered sunlight.
This answer is unsupported. To say that “some” species could suffer severe eye damage when exposed to unfiltered sunlight does not imply that there are some species that will not suffer any damage. “Some”, in this case, could mean “all.”
D
A single wavelength of sunlight can cause severe damage to the eyes of most species of animals.
This answer is unsupported. To say a “single wavelength” causes the damage is too strong. We know that there are wavelengths that cause damage, but we don’t know from the stimulus if it is one wavelength in particular.
E
Some wavelengths of sunlight that cause eye damage are more likely to reach the earth’s surface where there are holes in the ozone layer than where there are not.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that the ozone layer filters out some wavelengths. If there are holes in this layer, that makes it more likely that damaging wavelengths will not be filtered and cause eye damage.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes a government’s social policies can’t be determined using only general principles of justice. Why not? Because defending any policy—such as provisions for the elderly—on the grounds of social justice eventually requires invoking arbitrary choices or circumstances specific to that policy.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s no other policy, besides those mentioned, that can be determined by general principle without relying on arbitrary choices or specific circumstances. In addition, he assumes there’s no general principle of justice that’s capable of fully determining a policy about provisions for the elderly.
A
Although two socialist states each adhered to the same electoral principles, one had a different type of machine for counting ballots in public elections than the other did.
This concerns electoral principles and policies, not principles of justice and social policies. Since the author’s principle refers only to social policies, this example is irrelevant.
B
Two democratic industrial states, both subscribing to capitalistic economic principles, differed markedly in the respective proportions of land they devoted to forestry.
This example concerns land distribution, not social policies. There’s no indication the states’ social policies are the reason they devote different amounts of land to forestry.
C
Although each adhered to its own principles, a democracy and a monarchy each had the same distribution of wealth in its population.
This gets the desired structure backward. It refers to states with different principles but similar outcomes, whereas the author argues states with similar principles will have different policy details.
D
Two states founded on and adhering to similar principles of justice had different requirements that had to be met in order to be eligible for government-subsidized day care.
This is an example of the point argued by the author. It shows two states with similar principles of justice can have social policies with different details.
E
Two societies based on different principles of justice, each adhering to its own principles, had the same unemployment benefits.
This gets the desired structure backward. It refers to states with different principles of justice but similar policies, whereas the author argues states with similar principles of justice will have differences in their policies.