Summary
A study conducted on patients awaiting heart treatment found that those waiting to find out whether they would need surgery were less likely to experience pain from their condition than those who knew what kind of treatment they would receive. Assuming that this uncertainty (waiting to find out whether they need surgery) is more stressful than knowing what lies ahead (knowing what treatment they need), it is reasonable to conclude that… (the right answer is the conclusion).
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Stress can reduce the pain of this heart condition.
A
stress sometimes reduces the amount of pain a heart patient experiences
Those with more stress (who were uncertain about their treatment) experienced less pain from their condition than those with less stress (who knew what treatment was ahead).
B
the pain experienced by heart patients is to some extent beneficial
Nothing in the stimulus supports the idea that pain is beneficial. You have to assume that more pain will bring less stress, which is net beneficial. But that requires too many unreasonable assumptions.
C
the severity of a heart patient’s condition is usually worsened by withholding information from the patient about the treatment that that patient will receive
This is antisupported. The stimulus suggests that withholding information would cause stress, thus *decreasing* a patient’s pain.
D
stress is probably an effect rather than a cause of reduced blood flow to the heart
There is not enough support to make a causal relationship between stress and blood flow to the heart.
E
heart patients suffering from reduced blood flow to the heart who are experiencing pain from the condition are more likely to require surgery than are such patients who are not experiencing pain
E: There is no information in the stimulus about what makes someone likely to require surgery. This requires a lot of assumptions to work.
Summarize Argument
The historian argues that the economist's explanation of the economic growth that occurred during the Industrial Revolution should not be accepted until historical evidence shows that a shift in values occurred before the revolution. This is because valid explanations must be grounded in factual evidence.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the historian’s claim that the economist's explanation of the economic growth that occurred during the Industrial Revolution should not be accepted until historical evidence shows that a shift in values occurred before the revolution: “no one should accept this explanation until historical evidence demonstrates that a change in values occurred prior to the Industrial Revolution.”
A
during the Industrial Revolution the productivity of the economy grew at a faster rate than the population
This is the phenomenon which the economist seeks to explain. It is not the historian’s overall conclusion.
B
the fact that the productivity of the economy grew at a faster rate than the population during the Industrial Revolution led to a dramatic improvement in living standards
This is context. It tells us the effects of the rapid growth that occurred during the Industrial Revolution, but not about the historian’s overall conclusion.
C
no one should accept the economist’s explanation until historical evidence demonstrates that a change in values occurred prior to the Industrial Revolution
This rephrases the conclusion.
D
the improvement in living standards that occurred during the Industrial Revolution was not due to the spread of a change in values
The historian is not arguing that the economist’s explanation is incorrect; the historian is arguing that there is insufficient evidence to accept the economist’s explanation.
E
values such as hard work and thrift did not become widespread prior to the Industrial Revolution
The historian does not make this argument. The historian’s argument is that there is insufficient evidence as to whether these values became widespread prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the donated trees are probably consistent with the master plan that calls for the planting of trees that are native to the area, except for those that grow very large. This is because the donated trees came from Three Rivers Nursery, which sells mostly native trees and shrubs.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the donated trees do not grow to be very large.
A
Some tree species that grow to be very large are consistent with the master plan.
This doesn’t help show that the donated trees don’t grow to be very large. It also doesn’t suggest that the donated trees are among the species that could be very large but also consistent with the plan.
B
Three Rivers Nursery sells cottonwood trees.
The stimulus says cottonwood trees are very large. So, this doesn’t help show the donated trees do not grow to be very large.
C
Many of the native species that Three Rivers Nursery sells are shrubs, not trees.
We’re talking about donated trees. So whether the nursery sells native shrubs has no impact.
D
Tree species that are not native to this area and that are consistent with the master plan are rare and hard to find.
We’re talking about donated trees. Whether other kinds of trees are hard to find has no impact on whether the trees that were already donated are consistent with the plan.
E
Three Rivers Nursery does not sell any tree species that grow to be very large.
This helps show that the donated trees, which came from the Three Rivers Nursery, do not grow to be very large. So, the trees won’t violate the plan due to being very large.