Summary
When uncontrollable factors such as lack of rain cause farmers’ wheat crops to fail, fertilizer dealers, seed dealers, truckers, and mechanics lose business. Moreover, fuel suppliers are unable to sell enough diesel to make a profit.
Notable Valid Inferences
Consequences arising from a lack of rain are not restricted to farmers alone.
A
If several of the businesses that sell to farmers do not prosper, it is because farming itself is not prospering.
Could be false. There could be other factors that cause these businesses to fail outside of farming itself.
B
If rainfall is below average, those businesses that profit from farmers’ purchases tend to lose money.
Could be false. We cannot conflate “lack of rain” with “below average” rain. Rainfall could be only slightly below average and not amount to a complete lack of rainfall. Moreover, we don’t have any information from the stimulus to determine what an average amount of rainfall is.
C
Farmers are not responsible for the consequences of a wheat crop’s failing if wheat growth has been affected by lack of rain.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus to infer who, if anyone, is responsible for these consequences.
D
A country’s dependence on agriculture can lead to major economic crises.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus to infer this causal relationship.
E
The consequences of a drought are not restricted to the drought’s impact on farm productivity.
Must be true. We know that the consequences of a drought are not restricted to just farmers because fertilizer and seed dealers, truckers, and mechanics lose business as well.
Summarize Argument
Successful writers should immediately destroy any recently completed manuscripts they decide not to publish. When these writers pass away, their heirs often publish works that the writers chose not to release during their lifetime. Many writers would prefer that unpublished manuscripts remain unpublished posthumously.
Notable Assumptions
The critic assumes that writers are confident in their preliminary evaluations of recently completed manuscripts—confident enough to destroy them immediately if they decide not to publish.
A
Some writers whose work becomes both popular and respected after they die received no literary recognition during their lifetimes.
This does not affect the argument. The literary critic argues that writers often have manuscripts they do not want published at all; the potential for posthumous success does not alter this stance.
B
Writers who achieve a certain degree of fame can expect that some of their personal correspondence will become publicly available after they die.
This does not affect the argument. The scope of the literary critic’s conclusion is limited to manuscripts and does not include personal correspondence.
C
Most successful writers’ judgments of their recently completed work is unnecessarily harsh and is often later revised.
This weakens the argument. It exploits the critic’s assumption that writers’ immediate evaluations of their manuscripts are reliable and that they won’t soon change their minds about the quality of their work, leading to regret over having destroyed them immediately.
D
Many posthumously published books would have been published by the author had the author lived.
This does not affect the argument. The critic does not claim that all manuscripts left behind by a deceased writer were deemed unworthy. Rather, the critic argues that writers should destroy unworthy manuscripts to prevent the publication of works they do not want released.
E
Some heirs of successful writers do not consider themselves qualified to judge the merits of a literary work.
This does not affect the argument. The critic claims that a successful writer’s heirs will often publish the writer’s works regardless of their merit. The heirs’ ability (or inability) to judge the quality of these works does not seem to influence their tendency to publish them.
Summarize Argument
This argument concludes that the government’s determination of an individual’s rights is not necessarily correct. This is supported through conditional logic: If the government’s view is correct, then people only have the moral rights that the government chooses to grant; if people only have the moral rights the government chooses to grant, then people do not have moral rights. Thus, the government’s view is not necessarily correct. This argument rests on the implied assumption that it is not true that people do not have moral rights.
Identify Conclusion
The argument concludes by saying the government may not be correct in its determination of an individual’s rights: “That does not mean that the government’s view is necessarily the correct view.”
A
Individuals have no rights at all unless the government says that they do.
This is the idea that the author is working to reject; the argument says that the government is not necessarily correct in its judgements of what an individual’s rights are.
B
What government officials and courts say an individual’s rights are may not be correct.
This is the main conclusion that is supported by the rest of the argument. With the implied premise that people do, in fact, have moral rights, answer B has support from the rest of the argument.
C
Individuals have rights unless the government says that they do not.
This answer says:
/rights→ /government granted
If we take the contrapositive, we get
government granted→ rights
The argument says that it is not necessarily true that the government is correct in its judgement of what people’s rights are, so this answer is not supported.
/rights→ /government granted
If we take the contrapositive, we get
government granted→ rights
The argument says that it is not necessarily true that the government is correct in its judgement of what people’s rights are, so this answer is not supported.
D
The police always agree with government officials and the courts about what an individual’s rights are.
As context, the argument tells us that the police will do what the government says. We don’t know if the police will agree. Further, the claim about the police serves as context.
E
One should always try to uphold one’s individual rights against the government’s view of what those rights are.
This answer provides a value judgement that is not supported by the argument. The argument does not tell us what individuals should do; instead, the argument is discussing whether or not the government is correct in its judgements.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that many historians who claim that they are objective are actually not objective. This is based on the fact that it’s easy to find examples of non-objective historical explanations.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author points to examples of non-objective explanations in order to show that the historians who say they are objective are actually not objective. But the author never establishes that the examples of non-objective explanations came from any of the historians who say they’re objective.
A
takes for granted that the model of objectivity offered by the natural sciences should apply in other fields
The author never suggests that scientific objectivity “should” apply in other fields. The author simply tries to show that certain historians are not objective. Whether they should or should not be objective is not something the author has an opinion about.
B
offers evidence that undermines rather than supports the conclusion it reaches
The fact there are examples of non-objective explanations doesn’t undermine the author’s conclusion. Although these examples don’t establish the conclusion, that doesn’t mean they tend to show that the conclusion is false.
C
fails to recognize that many historians employ methodologies that are intended to uncover and compensate for prejudices
Whether many historians use methods that are “intended” to compensate for prejudices doesn’t affect the author’s reasoning. The author has found examples of non-objective explanations. The issue is whether these come from the historians who say they’re objective.
D
takes for granted that some historical work that embodies prejudices is written by historians who purport to be objective
The author assumes that some of the non-objective explanations come from the historians who say they’re objective. We know this is an assumption, because if it weren’t true, then the author’s examples wouldn’t show that the historians who say they’re objective are non-objective.
E
fails to recognize that not all historical explanations embodying ideologies are false
Whether explantions that embody ideologies are false has no impact on the argument. Those explanations can still be non-objective, even if they’re not false.