In order to determine automobile insurance premiums for a driver, insurance companies calculate various risk factors; as the risk factors increase, so does the premium. Certain factors, such as the driver’s age and past accident history, play an important role in these calculations. Yet these premiums should also increase with the frequency with which a person drives. After all, a person’s chance of being involved in a mishap increases in proportion to the number of times that person drives.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a person’s insurance premiums should increase as they drive more frequently. As support for this conclusion, the author cites the positive correlation between time spent driving and chance of being involved in an accident.

Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is the conclusion of the argument: that insurance premiums should increase as driving frequency increases.

A
a premise of the argument
The claim in the question stem does not provide support for any other part of the argument, so it is not a premise.
B
the conclusion of the argument
The claim in the question stem is the conclusion. It gets support from the final sentence in the stimulus, which is the premise; the two sentences that come before the claim in the question stem provide context.
C
evidence offered in support of one of the premises
The claim in the question stem is the conclusion; it is not offered in support of any other part of the argument.
D
an assertion phrased to preclude an anticipated objection
The claim in the question stem does not anticipate a potential objection.
E
a clarification of a key term in the argument
The claim in the question stem is a conclusion, not a clarification that supports another part of the argument.

1 comment

Essayist: Only happiness is intrinsically valuable; other things are valuable only insofar as they contribute to happiness. Some philosophers argue that the fact that we do not approve of a bad person’s being happy shows that we value happiness only when it is deserved. This supposedly shows that we find something besides happiness to be intrinsically valuable. But the happiness people deserve is determined by the amount of happiness they bring to others. Therefore, _______.

Summary

Only happiness is intrinsically valuable. Other things are valuable only if they contribute to happiness. Some philosophers say the fact that we don’t approve of a bad person being happy shows we only value happiness when it is deserved. They say this shows something other than happiness can have intrinsic value. But however much happiness people deserve is determined by how much they bring happiness to others.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The fact that we don’t approve of a bad person being happy is a product of the fact that happiness has intrinsic value.

A
the notion that people can be deserving of happiness is ultimately incoherent

This is unsupported because the author does not contest the idea that people can be deserving of happiness. The author is instead examining why we say some people don’t deserve happiness.

B
people do not actually value happiness as much as they think they do

This is unsupported because the author provides no means of addressing how much people value happiness or how much they think they value happiness.

C
the judgment that a person deserves to be happy is itself to be understood in terms of happiness

This is strongly supported because the author implies that whether someone deserves happiness is a product of how much happiness they bring to others.

D
the only way to be assured of happiness is to bring happiness to those who have done something to deserve it

This is unsupported because the author doesn’t tell us what happens if we bring happiness to someone who deserves it, nor does the author tell us how to guarantee our happiness.

E
a truly bad person cannot actually be very happy

This is unsupported because while the author implies that a bad person may not be bringing happiness to others, this wouldn’t necessarily prevent that person from experiencing happiness.


36 comments

Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a unique new product: an adjustable computer workstation. Three days later ErgoTech unveiled an almost identical product. The two companies claim that the similarities are coincidental and occurred because the designers independently reached the same solution to the same problem. The similarities are too fundamental to be mere coincidence, however. The two products not only look alike, but they also work alike. Both are oddly shaped with identically placed control panels with the same types of controls. Both allow the same types of adjustments and the same types of optional enhancements.

Summarize Argument
According to the author, the similarities between two products recently released by different companies are no coincidence, despite the companies’ claims to the contrary. The author supports this by explaining that the products look alike as well as working in the same way, as well as by giving some specific examples of suspicious similarities. This evidence is designed to show us that the products are too similar for it to be coincidental, thereby supporting the conclusion that it’s not a coincidence at all.

Identify Conclusion
The author’s conclusion is that the similarities between the two products “are too fundamental to be mere coincidence.”

A
the two products have many characteristics in common
This claim is used to support the conclusion that the similarities between the products are not coincidental, so it’s not the main conclusion itself.
B
ErgoTech must have copied the design of its new product from OCF’s design
The author never says this. We don’t get any detail about why the products are similar (who copied whom, or if the companies merely colluded), just a denial that it’s an accident.
C
the similarities between the two products are not coincidental
This is exactly what the author concludes. The argument as a whole supports the claim that the similarities are not a “mere coincidence” by giving examples of similarities too specific to have occurred accidentally.
D
product designers sometimes reach the same solution to a given problem without consulting each other
This is not stated in the argument. The author also argues against the claim that these companies independently developed such similar products, which this statement would support.
E
new products that at first appear to be unique are sometimes simply variations of other products
The author doesn’t say this. It’s also not relevant to the argument, because these products never seemed unique to begin with.

4 comments