Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author argues that plastic use in a certain nation is actually less harmful to the environment than the use of paper products. This is supported by the claim that a given amount of trash does about the same amount of harm, whether plastic or paper. Additionally, a recent study found that the nation produces more paper trash than plastic trash.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion that the argument supports is the author’s statement that “the current use of plastics actually does less harm to the environment nationwide than that of paper products.”
A
plastics constitute a smaller proportion of the nation’s total trash than do paper products
This statement is used in the argument to support the claim that paper trash is currently more harmful than plastic trash, and is not supported by anything else. That makes this a premise.
B
the ratio of weight to volume is the same for plastic trash as it is for paper trash
The author never discusses the ratio of weight to volume for any kind of trash. All we know is that plastic trash has a smaller weight and volume than paper trash, not the ratios.
C
popular opinion regards the use of paper products as less harmful to the environment than the use of products made from plastic
The author’s mention of popular opinion just adds context and flavor to the argument. Nothing in the argument is meant to support a claim about popular opinion, so this can’t be the main conclusion.
D
contrary to popular opinion, a shift away from the use of paper products to the use of plastics would benefit the environment nationwide
The author never makes any claims about how potential changes in product use would impact the environment. The argument is purely about what’s going on right now.
E
at this time more harm is being done to the environment nationwide by the use of paper than by the use of plastics
This accurately restates the conclusion. The rest of the argument supports the author’s statement that plastic trash is currently less harmful than paper trash; or in other words, that paper trash is more harmful right now.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes paper products currently hurt the country’s environment more than plastic products. Why? Because paper trash and plastic trash do roughly the same damage, but there’s more paper trash out there, by weight and by volume.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s nothing else about plastic or paper that makes plastic products more harmful to the environment. This means assuming that plastic does no more harm than paper over a given product’s entire life cycle, including before it becomes garbage.
A
A given weight of paper product may increase in volume after manufacture and before being discarded as trash.
This doesn’t affect the argument. It doesn’t say paper does more or less harm—or exists in greater or lesser amounts—at earlier stages of its life cycle than plastic does.
B
According to popular opinion, volume is a more important consideration than weight in predicting the impact of a given quantity of trash on the environment.
This doesn’t affect the argument. The study found more paper than plastic by weight and by volume, so the conclusion is supported equally whether this is true or false.
C
The sum of damage caused to the environment by paper trash and by plastic trash is greater than that caused by any other sort of trash that was studied.
This doesn’t affect the argument. The author compares paper and plastic trash to each other, not to other types of trash.
D
The production of any paper product is more harmful to the environment than is the production of an equal weight or volume of any plastic.
This is another reason paper usage does more damage to the environment than plastic usage. It rules out the possibility that plastic products do more harm to the environment during manufacturing than paper products do.
E
The proportion of plastic trash to paper trash varies from one part of the country to another.
This is accounted for in the study described, so it doesn’t affect the argument. The study examined “representative areas” across the country—differences between those areas do not imply the study was flawed.
Michiko: But the idea of the modern Olympics is to showcase the world’s finest athletes, regardless of their backgrounds or resources. Hence, professionals should be allowed to compete.
Summarize Argument
Juan argues that allowing professional athletes to compete alongside amateurs in the Olympics violates the games’ essential spirit of fairness. This is because professionals usually have access to more resources than amateurs. Juan claims that amateurs are thus unlikely to ever seriously challenge the professionals against whom they compete.
Notable Assumptions
Juan assumes that a significant number of amateur athletes would be more able to challenge professional athletes if they had access to more financial and material resources. In other words, he assumes that amateurs’ current lack of resources hinders their performance.
A
In general, amateur athletes tend to outnumber professional athletes in the modern Olympics.
This does not weaken Juan’s argument. First, if there are more amateurs and they still rarely challenge professionals, that just strengthens the appearance of inequality. Second, this doesn’t address the question of how much resources actually make a difference.
B
In certain events in the modern Olympics the best few competitors are amateurs; in certain other events the best few competitors are professionals.
This does not weaken Juan’s argument. Juan only talks about events where amateurs and professionals compete—we don’t know if that includes events where amateurs win. Also, even if amateurs sometimes beat professionals, that doesn’t rebut an argument about general trends.
C
The concept of “amateur” and “professional” athletics would have been unfamiliar to the ancient Greeks on whose games the modern Olympics are based.
This does not weaken Juan’s argument. The argument is specifically about the modern Olympic games (in other words, its domain is limited). This means that observations about the ancient Olympics are irrelevant.
D
In the modern Olympics there has been no noticeable correlation between the financial or material resources expended on the training of individual athletes and the eventual performance of those athletes.
This weakens Juan’s argument. If there’s no correlation between athletes’ access to resources and their performance, then Juan’s assumption that amateurs’ lack of resources hinders their performance is undermined. That removes support from the conclusion (i.e. weakens).
E
Many amateur athletes who take part in international competitions receive no financial or material support from the governments of the countries that the amateurs represent.
This does not weaken Juan’s argument. It just affirms Juan’s claim that amateurs have less access to resources than professionals, and doesn’t challenge the assumption that resources make a difference to athletic performance.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Sheila rejects other’s claims that adding color to a movie originally filmed in black and white damages the integrity of the original film and instead concludes the integrity of these original films is not damaged. As evidence, Sheila points out that nobody argues film adaptations of novels or short stories similarly damage the integrity of the book or story. Just as film adaptations are new works that stand on their own, colorized film is a new work that should be judged on its own merit.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Sheila counters a position held by others. She does this by presenting an analogous argument with an obviously false conclusion: nobody argues we should not create film adaptations because doing so would erode the value of the original story.
A
It appeals to an analogy between similar cases.
The analogy is between colorized films and film adaptations of written works.
B
It offers a counterexample to a general principle.
The argument pertaining to film adaptations is not a counterexample, it is an analogous argument.
C
It appeals to popular opinion on the matter at issue.
Sheila does not appeal to popular opinion. She does not conclude that colorized film does not damage the integrity of the original black and white film just because most people believe it does not damage the integrity.
D
It distinguishes facts from value judgments.
Sheila does not address a value judgment.
E
It draws an inference from a general principle and a set of facts.
Sheila does not draw an inference.
The increasing complexity of scientific inquiry has led to a proliferation of multiauthored technical articles. Reports of clinical trials involving patients from several hospitals are usually coauthored by physicians from each participating hospital. Likewise, physics papers reporting results from experiments using subsystems developed at various laboratories generally have authors from each laboratory.
Summary
The increasing complexity of scientific inquiry has caused a proliferation of multiauthored technical articles. Reports of clinical trials with patients from several hospitals are usually coauthored by physicians from each hospital. Physics papers reporting results from experiments using subsystems developed at several laboratories usually have authors from each laboratory.
Notable Valid Inferences
Most reports of clinical trials with patients from several hospitals are coauthored.
Most physics papers reporting results from experiments using subsystems developed at several laboratories are coauthored.
A
Clinical trials involving patients from several hospitals are never conducted solely by physicians from just one hospital.
Could be false. To say that these clinical trials are never conducted by a sole physician is too extreme. We know that these trials are usually conducted by multiple physicians, but this does not mean that all of them are.
B
Most reports of clinical trials involving patients from several hospitals have multiple authors.
Must be true. We know that most of these reports have multiple authors because the stimulus tells us that usually these reports are coauthored by physicians from each participating hospital.
C
When a technical article has multiple authors, they are usually from several different institutions.
Could be false. The information in the stimulus is restricted to certain clinical trials and physics papers. Applying this idea to all technical articles generally is too extreme.
D
Physics papers authored by researchers from multiple laboratories usually report results from experiments using subsystems developed at each laboratory.
Could be false. This answer choice reverses the relationship in the stimulus. The stimulus tells us that usually physics papers about experiments using subsystems developed at each laboratory have authors from each laboratory.
E
Most technical articles are authored solely by the researchers who conducted the experiments these articles report.
Could be false. The information in the stimulus is restricted to certain clinical trials and physics papers. Applying this idea to all technical articles generally is too extreme.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author takes on a claim by vegetarians that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat. The author presents a hypothetical that would make it unclear if the second reason is actually individually sufficient. If eating meat is essential to good health, it becomes unclear if empathy for other conscious creatures is a sufficient reason to not eat meat.
Identify Argument Part
This is a hypothetical premise used to demonstrate that it is not clear if an aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures is a sufficient reason to stop eating meat.
A
It is used to disprove the vegetarian position that we should not eat meat.
This inaccurately identifies the position being disputed. The author is weakening the idea that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat, not that we should avoid meat.
B
It is used to show that the two types of reasons cited in favor of vegetarianism are independent.
The supposition actually shows that the two types of reasons are somewhat dependent. The second reason doesn’t hold up as well if the first reason is failed. Therefore, they are interconnected.
C
It is used to disprove the claim that a vegetarian diet is healthy.
The author is presenting a hypothetical premise, not actually disputing the health of vegetarianism.
D
It is used to weaken the claim that the consciousness of animals is a sufficient reason for not eating meat.
By presenting this supposition, the individual strength of this reason for not eating meat is weakened. It shows that this reason may not be completely sufficient.
E
It is used to show that there is no sufficient reason for not eating meat.
The author is weakening one of two potentially sufficient reasons. The first reason remains sufficient in this argument.