"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why does most of the movie industry’s total revenue come from low-budget movies when big-budget movies often gross two to three times their cost of production and marketing?
Objective
The correct answer must help to explain why the majority of the movie industry’s revenue comes from low-budget films when big-budget films often gross multiple times their cost of production and marketing. The answer must identify how low-budget movies can generate more revenue than big-budget movies even though low-budget movies gross very little money individually.
A
Big-budget movies need to sell many more tickets than do low-budget movies, just to recoup their production costs.
It doesn’t matter how many more tickets big-budget movies must sell than low-budget movies to achieve profitability. The stimulus confirmed that big-budget movies often gross two or three times the cost of their production and marketing, so (A) is irrelevant.
B
There are many more low-budget movies produced than there are big- and medium-budget movies.
If this is true, low-budget movies could generate the movie industry more revenue than big-budget movies even if individual big-budget movies tend to net more profit than individual low-budget movies. There would be more low-budget movies generating profit than big-budget movies.
C
The movie industry’s revenues, when adjusted for inflation, have declined sharply in the last 30 years.
It doesn’t matter if the movie industry’s overall revenues have decreased in the last 30 years. We’re only concerned with why most of the movie industry’s revenue comes from low-budget movies.
D
Big-budget movies, because of their elaborate special effects, cost more in insurance premiums than low-budget movies do.
It doesn’t matter how much big-budget movie insurance premiums cost compared to low-budget movie premiums. The stimulus confirmed that big-budget movies often gross two or three times the cost of their production and marketing, so (D) is irrelevant.
E
The more time a company spends on making a movie the more expensive the movie is.
The stimulus never discusses how long it takes to produce big-budget or low-budget movies. This information doesn’t help us.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Dr. Pagano hypothesizes that climate change has caused butterflies to move north. This is based on a correlation between the northern shift of butterflies and the northern shift of the climatic warm zone.
Notable Assumptions
Dr. Pagano assumes that butterflies will actively migrate towards warm zones. She also assumes that the butterflies in question had some reason for doing so, since she never mentions that their previous habitat was unsatisfactory.
A
Checkerspot butterfly colonies observed under laboratory conditions are critically affected by small temperature changes.
The butterflies are very sensitive to climate change. They thus expand their range north as northern climates become incrementally warmer.
B
Climate does not affect checkerspot butterflies themselves directly, but the plants they depend on thrive best in warm climates.
While the butterflies aren’t directly affected, their food source grows better in warmer climates. This explains why they’ve expanded their range north, where climates are warming.
C
Experimental evidence suggests that the checkerspot butterfly can adapt easily to a wide range of temperatures and geographic conditions.
This weakens the author’s argument. If the butterflies can adapt to many climates, then they’re not migrating north for the warm climate.
D
In recent years, abnormally low average temperatures have been correlated with a reduced checkerspot butterfly population.
This shows that butterflies are sensitive to temperature, which is necessary for the author’s argument.
E
Several studies have shown that several other species of butterfly closely related to the checkerspot butterfly survive only in warm climates.
These butterflies need warm climates. This explains why they’ve only expanded their range north once the climate has warmed.
Professor: The best users of a language are its great authors. However, these authors often use language in ways that are innovative and idiosyncratic, and are therefore less respectful of the strictures of proper usage than most of us are.
Summary
Great authors are the best users of a language. These authors use language in new and unique ways, and so use language in ways that conform less to proper usage rules than others.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Conforming to rules of proper language usage is not necessary to be a great author.
Innovative and unique uses of language are inconsistent with complete adherence to the rules of proper language usage.
A
People who want to become great writers should not imitate great authors’ use of language.
Unsupported. The way great authors use language might contribute to the quality of their writing. So, there’s no support for a recommendation not to copy great authors’ use of writing.
B
Writers who do not observe proper language usage risk developing a peculiar or idiosyncratic style.
Unsupported. The vast majority of failures to observe proper language usage may involve standard, common errors. Although great writers often have a unique style, this doesn’t mean such style results from failure to observe proper language usage.
C
Those most talented at using a language are not as likely as most other people to observe proper language usage.
Strongly supported. The stimulus tells us that the best users of a language are great authors, who often use language in new and unique ways, which means they do not respect proper language usage as much as most other people.
D
People who use an innovative or idiosyncratic writing style often incur criticism of their language usage.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t tell us whether new and unique writing styles incur criticism. The mere fact that such styles involve failure to observe proper language usage doesn’t imply that anyone criticizes the styles for the way they use language.
E
The standard for what constitutes proper language usage should be set by the best users of a language.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t support any prescriptive claim about how standards “should” (or should not) be set.
Summarize Argument
The argument concludes by saying that successful predictions of human behavior don’t necessarily mean that the behavior is understood. The argument provides the following conditional relationship:
Understanding human action→ Know its goal
The contrapositive of the relationship is:
/Know the goal of an action→ /Understand human action
When taken with the assumption that we don’t know the goal of an action when we predict it, we reach the conclusion that predicting human behavior does not come with an understanding of the behavior.
Understanding human action→ Know its goal
The contrapositive of the relationship is:
/Know the goal of an action→ /Understand human action
When taken with the assumption that we don’t know the goal of an action when we predict it, we reach the conclusion that predicting human behavior does not come with an understanding of the behavior.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that successfully predicting human behavior does not mean successfully understanding it: “Even successful predictions of human behavior do not provide an understanding of it.”
A
Successful predictions of human behavior do not constitute an understanding of that behavior.
This is the conclusion. Along with the assumption that we don’t know the goal of an action when we predict it, we come to the conclusion that successful predictions of behavior don’t necessarily mean understanding the behavior.
B
One cannot predict an instance of human behavior without an understanding of the agent’s purpose in engaging in that behavior.
/Understanding the agent’s purpose→/Predict the behavior
The contrapositive is:
Predict the behavior→Understand the agent’s purpose
This claim is a contradiction of the claims made in the argument, so it is not the conclusion.
The contrapositive is:
Predict the behavior→Understand the agent’s purpose
This claim is a contradiction of the claims made in the argument, so it is not the conclusion.
C
In some cases, but not in others, understanding an event consists in the ability to predict the occurrence of that event.
This conclusion is about human behavior, so this claim about understanding and predicting events is irrelevant to the argument. Further, this claim about understanding events sometimes being related to predicting an event is not supported by the information in the argument.
D
The goal of the physical sciences is to predict the order in which events will occur.
The information about the purpose of the physical sciences serves as context for the argument, so this is not the main conclusion.
E
The methods used to predict human behavior must involve reference to the psychological states of human agents.
The argument does not mention the psychological states of human agents, so this claim is not supported by the argument.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The phenomenon is that sickles found at one site had scratched blades, and sickles found at a second site did not. The author hypothesizes that the sickles from the first site were used to harvest grain, and the sickles from the second site were not. This is because sickle blades used to harvest grain always become scratched.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because the sickle blades found at the first site were scratched, they must have been used to harvest grain. In extension, the author assumes there is no other function for sickle blades that could have resulted in the scratches. In other words, the author assumes that harvesting grain is necessary for scratched sickle blades.
A
Some sickles that have not yet been found at the first site do not have scratched blades.
This does not affect the argument. The author’s hypothesis is only an explanation for “this evidence” (i.e., the blades that were actually found)—blades that were there but not found are outside the scope of the argument.
B
The scratches on the blades of the sickles found at the first site resulted from something other than harvesting grain.
This weakens the argument. It attacks the assumption that because the sickle blades at the first site had scratches, the scratches must have been from harvesting grain. Remember: harvesting grain is sufficient for scratched sickle blades, not necessary.
C
Sickles at both sites had ritual uses whether or not those sickles were used to harvest grain.
This does not affect the argument. (C) does not imply anything about whether the sickle blades from the first site were used to harvest grain in addition to serving ritual purposes.
D
At the second site tools other than sickles were used to harvest grain.
This does not affect the argument. We already know that the sickle blades at the second site were not used to harvest grain. It is reasonable to assume that other tools were used for harvesting, as the sickle blades were not.
E
The sickles found at the first site were made by the same people who made the sickles found at the second site.
This does not affect the argument. The argument is concerned with the function of the sickle blades, not with who made them.
Summarize Argument
Physiology is only part of pain perception. Why? The meaning one attaches to a wound can also affect pain perception. How do we know? A WWII study showed that civilians and soldiers attached different meanings to their pain, and civilians requested more pain medication.
Identify Argument Part
This is the conclusion of the argument. The study supports that there are psychological components to pain perception, which in turn supports that pain perception is only partly dependent on physiology.
A
It is an assumption on which the argument depends.
The claim is the argument - everything else supports it. It cannot be an assumption if it is the conclusion.
B
It undermines the argument’s main conclusion.
It does not undermine the conclusion - it is the conclusion. The rest of the stimulus is used to support the claim.
C
It summarizes a position that the argument is meant to discredit.
The argument is not discrediting this claim - it is supporting it. The rest of the stimulus acts as evidence.
D
It is information that the argument takes for granted.
The argument does not take this claim for granted - it supports it. There is evidence for why we should believe the claim.
E
It is the main conclusion of the argument.
This is accurate - it is the main argument in the stimulus. The rest of the argument acts as evidence to support it.