Summarize Argument
Notable Assumptions
As we can see from the question stem, the stimulus is not an argument, but a claim. All the wrong answer choices will act as premises, offering us evidence to believe the claim is true. The right answer choice will have either a weakening effect on the claim, or no effect at all.
A
The compensation paid to midlevel managers is greater when they supervise more workers.
This strengthens the argument. It provides a reason for why midlevel managers don’t want a smaller team—they would get paid less!
B
Midlevel managers have less work to do when their departments are overstaffed.
This strengthens the argument. It provides a reason for why midlevel managers don’t want a smaller team—the managers would have more work to do.
C
Staff morale and productivity often suffer when workers are laid off.
This strengthens the argument. It provides a reason for why midlevel managers don’t want a smaller team—staff morale and productivity would decline.
D
Departmental workloads at most large corporations increase and decrease significantly and unpredictably.
This strengthens the argument. It provides a reason for why midlevel managers don’t want a smaller team—they are wary of the workload increasing suddenly and having too few unemployees.
E
Many large corporations allow managers to offer early retirement as a means of reducing staff.
This does not affect the argument. The fact that managers may be able to offer staff early retirement to reduce staff does not affect the assertion that they are nevertheless unlikely to suggest a reduction in staff.
Summarize Argument
The editorialist concludes that the proposed tax increase would to more harm than good. This is because the tax increase would cause a number of economic problems for the country in question.
Notable Assumptions
In order for the tax increase to do more harm than good, the economic problems the tax increase would cause must outweigh whatever benefits the tax would bring. The author must therefore assume that the economic problems are of greater concern for the country than whatever environmental and/or economic problems the tax may offset.
A
The editorialist’s country’s budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus benefiting the economy.
Contrary to what the editorialist suggests, the tax would in fact benefit the country’s economy. This weakens her argument.
B
Higher gasoline prices tend to lead to a cleaner environment, because people do less nonessential driving.
Despite the economic problems the tax might bring, the environmental benefits will be substantial. For one thing, people will drive less and consequently have a cleaner environment.
C
The proposed tax increase would be larger for some energy sources than for others.
The editorialist never specifies which energy source the tax will impact most. We don’t care about how the tax is distributed—we care about its effects.
D
Higher gasoline prices will encourage people to carpool, which will reduce individual transportation costs.
Even though the tax may hurt people in one way, the editorialist overlooks a distinct benefit: transportation costs will be lower.
E
The government would use the increase in tax revenue to create many more jobs than would be lost in the energy production sector.
While the tax would harm one sector, others would benefit from the tax increase. Thus, the editorialist can’t draw a broad economic conclusion from the tax’s effects on one sector.
Summarize Argument
Renting a car from dealerships instead of national rental firms benefits local residents more than tourists. Residents can benefit from dealerships’ lower rates without dealing with the disadvantages tourists face.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there are no other significant perks to renting from a dealership that a tourist would enjoy that could potentially make renting from a dealership more worthwhile.
A
To encourage future business, many car dealerships drop off and pick up rental cars for local residents at no charge.
This strengthens the argument by providing an extra perk that dealerships offer to local residents. We already know why local residents like dealerships—this just makes it better.
B
Tourists renting cars from national rental firms almost never need to pay for taxi rides to or from the airport.
This strengthens the argument by providing another reason why renting from a dealership is less worthwhile for a tourist. If they rented from a dealership they’d have to pay for a taxi from the airport. Renting from a rental firm saves them this cost.
C
Travel agents generally are unable to inform tourists of which local car dealerships offer rentals.
This strengthens the argument by offering support for the premise that tourists must determine which dealerships offer rentals—travel agents are unable to provide information, and tourists must research it themselves.
D
Many local residents know of local car dealerships that offer low-priced rentals.
This strengthens the argument by providing another reason why dealerships are more worthwhile for local residents: they already know which dealerships offer cheap rentals.
E
For local residents, taxi rides to car dealerships from their homes or workplaces are usually no less expensive than taxi rides to national rental firms.
This weakens the argument by attacking the idea that tourists are more disadvantaged than local residents by the cost of commuting to pick up their rental car. (E) says local residents also face this issue, and that dealerships don’t actually benefit local residents in this way.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there are some days when both of the following occur: (1) the wind blows into Hillview from the east, and (2) the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels. This is based on the fact that there are some hot days on which the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels, and that there are some hot days on which the wind blows into Hillview from the east.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that some of the hot days on which the smog reaches unsafe levels are the same hot days on which the wind blows in from the east. This overlooks the possibility that the hot days on which the smog reaches unsafe levels are simply different days from the hot days on which the wind blows in the from east.
If “Some A are B” and “Some A are C,” we cannot conclude “Some B are C.” This is because B and C might not overlap within the set of A.
A
mistakes a condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog for a condition that necessarily accompanies unsafe levels of smog
The author does not assume that anything “necessarily accompanies” unsafe levels of smog. The author believes that some days with unsafe smog levels are days on days with the east wind, but that doesn’t imply unsafe smog is always accompanied by east wind.
B
fails to recognize that one set might have some members in common with each of two others even though those two other sets have no members in common with each other
The author fails to recognize that although the set of “hot days” has some days in common with the “unsafe smog days” and some in common with “east wind days,” the “unsafe smog days” and “east wind days” don’t have to have any days in common.
C
uses the key term “unsafe” in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion
The word “unsafe” does not take on different meanings in this argument. It means “not safe.”
D
contains a premise that is implausible unless the conclusion is presumed to be true
(D) describes circular reasoning, which isn’t what happens here. Accepting the premises does not require that we already accept there are some days with both unsafe smog and east wind.
E
infers a particular causal relation from a correlation that could be explained in a variety of other ways
The argument does not assert any causal relationships. The claim that there are some days that have both the east wind and unsafe smog does not assert that the east wind causes smog to be blown in or that the smog causes the east wind.
Labor representative: Social historians have shown conclusively that if workers strike when the working conditions at their jobs are poor, those conditions usually significantly improve after five years. Although workers in this industry are familiar with this fact, they nonetheless refuse to strike even though their working conditions are poor.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do workers in “this” industry, which has poor working conditions, refuse to strike even though they know it has been shown that when workers strike while their working conditions are poor their conditions usually improve greatly after five years?
Objective
The correct answer must help explain why the workers in the industry discussed in the stimulus refuse to strike. The correct answer will either address a reason why striking may not help the workers or why the workers can’t or don’t want to strike.
A
Until recently it was widely believed that strikes do not generally improve working conditions.
It doesn’t matter how recently people began believing that strikes improve working conditions. The workers in “this” industry are aware that striking could improve their working conditions after five years, so we want to know why they refuse to strike.
B
Most factories in this industry change ownership every two years.
The turnover rate of factory owners is irrelevant. We want to know why workers in “this” industry refuse to strike even though it has been shown that striking while working conditions are poor generally improves working conditions greatly after five years.
C
Working conditions in many other industries are worse than conditions in this industry.
We’re not concerned with other industries. We want to know why workers in “this” industry refuse to strike.
D
Workers typically plan to work in this industry only three years.
If (D) is true, then workers in “this” industry may not be striking because they don’t think they’ll realize any benefits from striking before leaving the industry.
E
Wages in this industry have increased each year.
Wages in “this” industry are irrelevant. Working conditions are poor, so we want to know why workers in “this” industry refuse to strike even though they know that striking while working conditions are poor tends to lead to better conditions after five years.