Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it is unlikely that disease will be eradicated. As support for this conclusion, the author states that most diseases are caused by prolific microorganisms that respond to medicines by quickly evolving immunities while maintaining their ability to infect and kill humans. In other words, a byproduct of the use of medicines is the evolution of potentially harmful microorganisms.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is the main conclusion of the argument.
A
It is a conclusion that is claimed to follow from the premise that microorganisms are too numerous for medicines to eliminate entirely.
While (A) correctly identifies the claim in the question stem as a conclusion, the conclusion does not follow from the premise that microorganisms are too numerous for medicines to eliminate them entirely. Rather, the problem is that microorganisms quickly evolve immunities.
B
It is a conclusion for which a description of the responses of microorganisms to the medicines designed to cure the diseases they cause is offered as support.
(B) correctly identifies the claim in the question stem as the conclusion, and shows the correct relationship between the conclusion and the support. It is the response of microorganisms to medicines––their ability to evolve immunities––that supports the conclusion.
C
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that most disease-causing microorganisms are able to evolve immunities to medicines while retaining their ability to infect humans.
The claim in the question stem is the conclusion, not a premise.
D
It is a generalization used to predict the response of microorganisms to the medicines humans use to kill them.
The claim in the question stem is the conclusion; it is not a generalization. Further, the claim in the question stem is a claim about the existence of disease in the world, not a prediction about how microorganisms respond to medicine.
E
It is a conclusion that is claimed to follow from the premise that most microorganisms are immune to medicines designed to kill them.
(E) does correctly identify the claim in the question stem as a conclusion. However, the problem with medicines isn’t that the microorganisms that they are designed to kill are immune to them; instead, the problem with medicines is that microorganisms respond by becoming immune.
Summarize Argument
The argument claims that Claudette is probably a classical pianist. This is because most classical pianists recognize Schumann's works, and Claudette happens to also recognize them. Further, most people who aren’t classical pianists would not have recognized them.
Identify and Describe Flaw
These two ‘most’ relationships only tell us how likely someone may be to recognize or not recognize Schumann’s works. They say nothing about how likely someone is to be a classical pianist. It’s entirely possible that most people who recognize her works aren’t classical pianists. The argument’s flaw lies in the mistaken assumption that, among everyone in the world who recognizes Schumann's works, most of them are classical pianists. This flaw amounts to the author interpreting a ‘most’ relationship in the wrong direction.
A
ignores the possibility that Claudette is more familiar with the works of other composers of music for piano
This is irrelevant. The argument claims that she’s probably a classical pianist because she recognizes Schumann’s works. This claim is unaffected by how many other works she does or doesn’t recognize.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that people who have not heard of Clara Schumann do not recognize her works
This is irrelevant. Whether these other people recognize Schumann or not has no bearing on whether Claudette is likely to be a classical pianist.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that classical pianists cannot also play other musical instruments
The argument doesn’t presume this, and even if it were to, it wouldn’t matter. Whether classical pianists play other instruments or not is irrelevant to whether Claudette is likely to be one.
D
relies for its plausibility on the vagueness of the term “classical”
The term “classical” is not vague since it consistently refers to a specific kind of pianist.
E
ignores the possibility that the majority of people who recognize many of Clara Schumann’s works are not classical pianists
This describes the fact that while most classical pianists may recognize Schumann’s works, many other kinds of people may recognize them as well. Claudette could easily be one of those other people who recognize the works without being a classical pianist.
Summarize Argument
The physician concludes that Jones did not swallow the chemical in question. As support, the physician references the following relationship:
Jones swallowed the chemical→mineral deficiency in blood→ skin inflammation
Jones’s skin was not inflamed, so the physician said that he did not swallow the chemical.
Jones swallowed the chemical→mineral deficiency in blood→ skin inflammation
Jones’s skin was not inflamed, so the physician said that he did not swallow the chemical.
Notable Assumptions
The physician assumes that there wouldn’t be any delay in the reactions. If there is any delay in the effects of either the chemical or the mineral deficiency, it could be the case that an insufficient amount of time had passed for Jones’s skin to become inflamed. If this is the case, Jones’s clear skin would be because not enough time had passed, not because he didn’t swallow the chemical.
A
Jones did not know that the chemical was dangerous.
The argument is based on the effects of consuming the chemical; these effects would occur regardless of whether Jones knew about the dangers.
B
Jones had suffered inflammation of the skin in the past.
We care about skin inflammation because it could be an indicator of whether or not Jones consumed the chemical; for the sake of the argument, we don’t care about skin inflammation that occurred independent of Jones’s potential consumption of the chemical.
C
It takes 48 hours for the chemical to bring about deficiency of the mineral in the blood.
This weakens the argument because it gives an alternate explanation for Jones’s clear skin. Jones’s skin could be clear because 48 hours hadn’t yet passed, not because he didn’t consume the chemical. Not enough time would have passed for the physician to make her conclusion.
D
Jones often worked with the chemical.
The argument is about whether or not Jones consumed the chemical in this specific instance; Jones’s history of working with the chemical is not relevant to the physician’s argument.
E
Deficiency in minerals other than the mineral in question can cause inflammation of the skin.
The physician’s argument is based on the fact that Jones’s skin is NOT inflamed, so other potential causes of skin inflammation are not relevant here.
Summary
The electrification of musical instruments has enabled musicians to play at increased volume. Because individual musicians can play with increased volume, the average number of musicians per band has decreased. However, the number of musicians who play popular music professionally has increased because of electrification.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Because of electrification of musical instruments, the total number of professional bands has increased.
A
The number of amateur musicians who play popular music has decreased.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about amateur musicians from the stimulus. The stimulus is limited to professional musicians.
B
Most professional musicians are able to play both electric and nonelectric instruments.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about nonelectric instruments from the stimulus. The stimulus is limited to electrified instruments.
C
The number of professional musicians in some bands has increased.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus tells us that the average number of musicians per band has decreased.
D
The total number of professional bands has increased as a result of electrification.
This answer is strongly supported. If the average number of musicians per band decreased at the same time the total number of musicians increased, then it must be that the total number of bands has also increased.
E
Many professional musicians play in more than one band.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus anything about the ability to play in more than one band.