Summarize Argument
The administrator concludes that the university must reduce faculty salaries. Why? Because the university must save money. He suggests two ways it could achieve this: reducing faculty salaries or eliminating faculty positions. The university won’t eliminate faculty positions.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of creating a false dichotomy. The administrator presents two options for the university reduce its budget—reducing salaries and firing staff. However, he gives no reason to believe that these are the only two options. Perhaps the university could save money by spending less on student dining or facilities maintenance.
Consequently, we can’t conclude that not choosing one of the administrator’s options means that we have to choose the other one.
Consequently, we can’t conclude that not choosing one of the administrator’s options means that we have to choose the other one.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that more money would be saved by reducing faculty salaries than would be saved by eliminating faculty positions
The administrator never compares the savings from reduced salaries vs. layoffs, so this can’t be the flaw.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that the budget cannot be reduced unless faculty positions are eliminated or faculty salaries are reduced
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of creating a false dichotomy. The administrator commits it by treating elimination of faculty positions or reduction of faculty salaries as the only two options, without justification.
C
ignores the possibility that, though budget cuts will be needed, they will not need to be as high as 15 percent
The administrator never suggests that 15 percent of the budget needs to be cut: the 15 percent figure was for the decline in revenue.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that some faculty members will leave their jobs rather than accept a reduced salary
The administrator never presumes anything about faculty members’ decision-making, so this can’t be the flaw.
E
ignores the possibility that the budget could be reduced by eliminating some faculty positions and reducing the remaining faculty members’ salaries
The administrator directly states that no faculty positions will be eliminated, so ignoring this option is not a flaw.
Summary
The author concludes that both consciously and unconsciously inhibiting of displays of emotion causes a sharp rise in heart rate.
What makes the author think this?
Repressors (those who unconsciously inhibit displays of emotion) show sharp increases in heart rate in emotion-provoking situations.
Nonrepressors who consciously inhibit their display of emotion also experience sharp increases in heart rate in emotion-provoking situations.
What makes the author think this?
Repressors (those who unconsciously inhibit displays of emotion) show sharp increases in heart rate in emotion-provoking situations.
Nonrepressors who consciously inhibit their display of emotion also experience sharp increases in heart rate in emotion-provoking situations.
Notable Assumptions
We have correlations between inhibiting emotions and a sharp increase in heart rate among the repressors and nonrepressors. The author assumes the reason for these correlations is that inhibiting emotions causes the heart rate increase.
But are there other explanations? Couldn’t the true cause of the heart rate increase by the emotion-provoking situation itself? The author is assuming that the emotion-provoking situation is not the true cause of the sharp increase in heart rate among both the repressors and nonrepressors.
But are there other explanations? Couldn’t the true cause of the heart rate increase by the emotion-provoking situation itself? The author is assuming that the emotion-provoking situation is not the true cause of the sharp increase in heart rate among both the repressors and nonrepressors.
A
Encountering an emotion-provoking situation is not sufficient to cause nonrepressors’ heart rates to rise sharply.
Necessary, because if it were not true — if an emotion-provoking situation IS enough to cause nonrepressors’ heart rates to rise sharply — then the premise concerning nonrepressors no longer provides support to the conclusion. There would be an alternate explanation available for the nonrepressors situation, weakening the argument. So the author must assume (A).
B
Nonrepressors can inhibit facial and bodily displays of emotion as well as repressors do.
Whether each group repressed equally as well or one was better at inhibiting than the other is irrelevant, because we know that both repressors and nonrepressors inhibited emotion. Also, the argument doesn’t specify “facial and bodily” displays of emotion; there’s no reason to think the author must assume anything about specific displays.
C
Despite their outward calm, repressors normally feel even more excited than do nonrepressors in an emotion-provoking situation.
Not necessary, because even if both groups are equally excited, that doesn’t undermine the author’s reasoning, which is based on the correlation observed between inhibiting emotions and a sharp heart rate increase.
D
People who are ordinarily very emotional can refrain from feeling strong emotions when experimenters ask them to do so.
We don’t know whether any of the nonrepressors were “ordinarily very emotional,” so there’s no reason to think the author must assume that very emotional people can refrain from feeling strong emotions. Also, the nonrepressors were asked to inhibit their display of emotion; that’s different from not feeling emotion.
E
In situations that do not tend to provoke emotions, the average heart rate of repressors is the same as that of nonrepressors.
Not necessary, because even if each group started with different average heart rate, we still know that each group experienced a sharp increase in heart rate. The argument isn’t based on a comparison of the repressors’ heart rate vs. the nonrepressors’ heart rate. It’s based on a comparison, within each group, of their heart rate before inhibiting and their heart rate after inhibiting.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the collapse of Egypt’s old kingdom was caused by a climate catastrophe rather than social upheaval. This is because ocean sediments imply a drought at the time Egypt’s old kingdom collapsed, and such a catastrophe was responsible for the subsequent social problems.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the collapse of Egypt’s old kingdom should be attributed to the first cause rather than the most direct cause. While social upheaval did indeed lead to the collapse of Egypt’s old kingdom, drought caused social upheaval. The author believes this means drought is really the cause of the old kingdom’s collapse.
A
Historically, most civilizations have succumbed to internal strife rather than external factors.
According to the author, Egypt’s old kingdom succumbed to external factors. We don’t care what happened with most civilizations.
B
The social problems in Egypt’s old kingdom at the time of its collapse were serious enough to have caused the collapse.
The author claims the drought caused the social problems. We need to strengthen the claim that the drought, and not the social problems themselves, is really to blame for Egypt’s old kingdom collapsing.
C
At the time of the collapse of the old kingdom, several isolated but well-established civilizations near Egypt underwent sudden declines.
When Egypt’s old kingdom declined, several other civilizations declined independently. This suggests there was some common factor to all these declines: the drought.
D
Egyptian records recovered from the time of the collapse explicitly refer to the deteriorating conditions of the society.
We already know there were social problems.
E
Shortly after the collapse of the old kingdom, Egypt was thrust into a civil war that lasted most of the next two centuries.
We don’t care what happened after the collapse of the old kingdom. We need to strengthen the claim that drought caused the collapse.
It has been a staple of drama to feature an innocent young protagonist, eager to make a mark on the world, who is stymied by an indifferent or hostile society. Since the playwrights of such works wished the audience to empathize with the protagonist, historians do not regard these plays as serious revelations of what the societies presented in the plays were really like.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Drama playwrights were motivated to have audiences empathize with their protagonists when those protagonists were obstructed by society. In view of these motivations, why do historians think that such plays are non-serious, unrealistic, or unreliable portrayals of those societies?
Objective
The correct answer will support the historians’ viewpoint. It will offer some reason why a playwright’s desire to garner empathy for her protagonist would lead that playwright to portray society in a way that historians find unreliable.
A
The historians believe that playwrights tend to be more critical of their own societies than of other societies.
How critical a playwright might be of any given society says nothing about whether that playwright portrays society in a reliable way. Because (A) does not address how playwrights portray society or the reliability of those portrayals, it cannot be the right answer.
B
The historians believe that playwrights tend to exaggerate the weaknesses of a society for the sake of dramatic effect.
This explains why historians regard dramas as unreliable portrayals of a society. They believe that drama playwrights exaggerate society’s weaknesses. If society’s weaknesses are overstated, then that portrayal of society is at least somewhat less realistic or reliable.
C
The historians believe that plays tend to provide useful information about the time and society in which they were written.
This doesn’t provide a reason for historians to not regard dramas as serious revelations. If anything, this just magnifies the core question—if historians believe plays provide useful info about society, why are they so skeptical of dramas?
D
The historians believe that plays often contain serious revelations of what the societies presented in those plays were like.
This doesn’t provide a reason for historians to not regard dramas as serious revelations. If anything, this just magnifies the core question—if historians believe plays often contain serious revelations, why are they so skeptical of dramas?
E
The historians believe that only the most popular plays within a society accurately portray that society.
We don’t know how popular the types of plays discussed in the stimulus were, so (E) cannot help explain the historians’ viewpoint on those plays.