Joyce: As more knowledge became available in previous centuries, the need for specialists to synthesize and explain it to nonspecialists increased. So computers will probably create a greater dependency on experts.
Speaker 1 Summary
Mary thinks that computers will make it easier for ordinary people to acquire knowledge with no need for experts. Why? Because people will have access to more information than ever before. Mary is assuming that greater access to information will lead to greater ability to acquire knowledge without involving experts.
Speaker 2 Summary
Joyce thinks that computers will increase people’s need for experts. Why? Because in the past, a greater availability of knowledge led to a greater need for experts to explain that knowledge to non-experts. Joyce is assuming that the same thing will happen with computers.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Mary and Joyce disagree about whether computers will decrease or increase the need for people to rely on experts to acquire knowledge.
A
computers will contribute only negligibly to the increasing dissemination of knowledge in society
Neither speaker makes any claim about the overall impact of computers on the dissemination of knowledge in society. Both Mary and Joyce limit their arguments to how experts will be involved.
B
computers will increase the need for ordinary people seeking knowledge to turn to experts
Mary disagrees with this: her argument is meant to establish that computers will decrease people’s need for experts. Joyce agrees with this: she uses history to claim that people’s need for experts will increase. This is the point of disagreement.
C
computers will make more information available to ordinary people
Mary states this as a premise, so clearly agrees. Joyce also seems to agree, though: her argument implies that computers will make more knowledge available to ordinary people. Joyce certainly doesn’t claim otherwise.
D
dependency on computers will increase with the increase of knowledge
Neither speaker talks about dependency on computers or how an increase of knowledge would affect such a dependency.
E
synthesizing knowledge and explaining it to ordinary people can be accomplished only by computer experts
Neither speaker says that only computer experts can synthesize and explain knowledge to ordinary people. Joyce indicates that there will be a need for experts to synthesize and explain, but doesn’t say that only experts can do this, and doesn’t specify computer experts.
Summarize Argument
The solicitor concludes that Loux probably would not have cared if Zembaty sold Stoke Farm to clear the estate’s debts. Why? Because Loux never said she wanted to keep the farm, the only one she owned, and Zembaty has a legal obligation to sell some of the estate in order to repay debts.
Notable Assumptions
The solicitor assumes there’s no other combination of assets less desirable to Loux’s grandson that could be sold to cover those debts instead. In addition, he assumes Loux would have no objection to Zembaty selling pieces of the estate to fulfill the legal obligation.
A
The estate’s debts could not have been cleared without selling the Stoke Farm.
This strengthens the argument because it implies that Zembaty has a legal obligation to sell the farm. The solicitor doesn’t suggest Loux would object to selling the farm simply because Zembaty is obligated to do so.
B
Loux repeatedly told her grandson that she would take care of him in her will.
This is irrelevant because Loux may still leave other assets to her grandson, other than the farm. This doesn’t suggest Loux’s grandson would oppose selling the farm.
C
Loux was well aware of the legal requirements the executor of her will would have to satisfy.
This strengthens the argument by implying Loux would not have opposed Zembaty selling some of her assets.
D
The Stoke Farm was the main cause of the estate’s debts.
Selling the farm may still help raise money to cover those debts, regardless of their origin. This doesn’t say the Stoke Farm has zero or negative financial value.
E
Loux’s grandson had repeatedly expressed his desire to own a farm.
This suggests the farm is more desirable to Loux’s grandson than her other assets, meaning Loux would likely object to its sale. It challenges the solicitor’s assumption that the farm is undesirable to Loux’s grandson.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The government official concludes that there is no easily achievable way to eliminate chronic food shortages in his country. To support this conclusion, he raises, then rejects, two possible solutions. First, he says that direct food shipments from other countries will weaken the country’s long-term agricultural self sufficiency because these food shipments would force local producers out of business. And secondly, foreign investments in long-term development projects would result in inflation, making food unaffordable and perpetuating the food shortages.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is a premise that rejects one of the potential solutions to the food shortages; in demonstrating that foreign investment will not easily solve the food shortage, this claim works to support the government official’s conclusion.
A
It supports the claim that the official’s country must someday be agriculturally self-sufficient.
The official does not claim that the country must become agriculturally self sufficient––this language is too strong; instead, he says that direct aid would undermine the possibility to of self-sufficiency. Also, the referenced text does not support the idea in this answer.
B
It supports the claim that there is no easy solution to the problem of chronic food shortages in the official’s country.
The claim in the question stem is a premise that supports the conclusion, so this answer is correct because it correctly identifies the conclusion.
C
It is supported by the claim that the official’s country must someday be agriculturally self-sufficient.
The claim in the question stem is a premise; it does not get support from any other part of the text.
D
It supports the claim that donations of food from other countries will not end the chronic food shortages in the official’s country.
The information about the results of food donation is separate from the information about the results of foreign investment; these are two separate premises that do not support each other. Instead, they both work to support the conclusion.
E
It is supported by the claim that food producers and suppliers in the official’s country may be forced out of business by donations of food from other countries.
Similar to answer C, this answer is wrong because the claim in the question text is a premise, so it does not receive support from any other part of the argument.
Summarize Argument
The doctor concludes that we should restructure the workday for the sake of scheduling flexibility. This is because most people are sleep deprived, and sleep deprivation is the root of many social ills.
Notable Assumptions
The doctor assumes that scheduling flexibility will help people be less sleep deprived. This means the doctor also believes that the current workday is responsible for sleep deprivation. The doctor also assumes that helping people be less sleep deprivation is a priority, hence why the workday should be restructured. She sees no countervailing downsides to doing so.
A
The primary cause of sleep deprivation is overwork.
The doctor doesn’t say people should work less hours. She says the workday should be restructured for flexibility.
B
Employees would get more sleep if they had greater latitude in scheduling their work hours.
Scheduling flexibility would allow workers to get more sleep. Thus, restructuring the workday would help people be less sleep deprived.
C
Individuals vary widely in the amount of sleep they require.
We don’t care. We’re trying strengthen the connection between scheduling flexibility and people being less sleep deprived.
D
More people would suffer from sleep deprivation today than did in the past if the average number of hours worked per week had not decreased.
The doctor doesn’t recommend increasing or decreasing the number of hours in the workweek. Nor do we care about historical trends in sleep deprivation.
E
The extent of one’s sleep deprivation is proportional to the length of one’s workday.
Like (A), the doctor never discusses how many hours people should work per day.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author asks us to agree that Hogan’s actions shouldn’t be condemned entirely, even though Hogan knowingly and intentionally injured Winters. What could support letting Hogan partially off the hook? Well, Hogan thought Winters was a robber, which the author thinks should lessen the degree to which we blame Hogan.
Identify Conclusion
The author’s conclusion is their opinion of Hogan’s blameworthiness: “Hogan’s actions [should] not be wholly condemned.”
A
Hogan should not be considered responsible for the injuries sustained by Winters.
This is stronger than what the argument claims. The author wants us to refrain from “wholly condemning” Hogan, but that doesn’t mean not holding him responsible at all.
B
The robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings should be considered to be as responsible for Winters’s injuries as Hogan.
The author never discusses whether the robber should be held responsible, let alone how the responsibility should be divided. This is just beyond the scope of the argument.
C
The actions of Hogan that seriously injured Winters are not completely blameworthy.
This accurately restates the conclusion. When asking us to agree that Hogan “not be fully condemned,” the author is trying to convince us that Hogan was not completely blameworthy. The argument then offers support for this claim, meaning it’s the conclusion.
D
Hogan thought that Winters was the person who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for the last few months.
This is stated in the argument but no support is offered, so it can’t be a conclusion. Instead, this statement is a premise to support the conclusion that Hogan wasn’t entirely to blame.
E
The actions of Hogan that seriously injured Winters were reprehensible, other things being equal.
This can be inferred from the argument, but it’s more of a contextual claim to explain why the author needs to convince us that Hogan shouldn’t be fully condemned. This idea is what the author argues against, or at least tries to qualify.
Jennifer: Indeed. In fact, a mildly drought-stressed plant will divert a small amount of its resources from normal growth to the development of pesticidal toxins, but abundantly watered plants will not.
Summarize Argument
Jennifer agrees with Peter’s claim that farmers should water plants just enough to ensure no substantial threat from lack of water. As evidence, she points out that mildly drought-stressed plants will develop pesticidal toxins, but abundantly watered plants will not.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Jennifer supports the judgment reached by Peter. She does this by presenting independent evidence which supports his conclusion. The fact mildly drought-stressed plants produce pesticidal toxins supports the judgment that farmers should only water crops just enough.
A
It offers information that supports each of the claims that Peter makes in his argument.
Jennifer’s comment does not support each of Peter’s claims. Jennifer’s comment is offered as directy support for Peter’s conclusion.
B
It supports Peter’s argument by supplying a premise without which Peter’s conclusion cannot properly be drawn.
Jennifer’s comment is not a necessary assumption that Peter’s argument relies on. Jennifer’s comment supports Peter’s conclusion, but it does not have to be necessary.
C
It supports Peter’s argument by offering an explanation of all of Peter’s premises.
Jennifer’s comment does not explain any of Peter’s premises. Jennifer’s comment is independent from Peter’s premises.
D
It supports one of Peter’s premises although it undermines Peter’s conclusion.
Jennifer’s comment does not support one of Peter’s premises. Jennifer’s comment is offered as support for Peter’s conclusion.
E
It supports the conclusion of Peter’s argument by offering independent grounds for that conclusion.
The conclusion Jennifer supports is that farmers should only water crops just enough to ensure no substantial threat from lack of water. Jennifer’s comment is independent support for this conclusion.
Jennifer: Indeed. In fact, a mildly drought-stressed plant will divert a small amount of its resources from normal growth to the development of pesticidal toxins, but abundantly watered plants will not.
Summarize Argument
Peter concludes that farmers should water their plants just enough to ensure there’s no threat to the yield or growth of the crops. This is because plants that are abundantly watered are susceptible to pests.
Notable Assumptions
In order for his recommended strategy to be sound, Peter assumes that mildly drought-stressed plants are not at greater risk than are the abundantly watered plants that insects eat. Were the opposite true, it would be preferable for farmers to water their crops and avoid the stress of drought at all costs.
A
The leaves of some crop plants are much larger, and therefore absorb more water, than the leaves of some other crop plants.
Peter thinks all these crops should be watered just enough to avoid being targeted by insects. We don’t care how much water it takes to get these crops to that point.
B
In industrialized nations there are more crops that are abundantly watered than there are crops grown under mild drought stress.
Peter thinks industrialized nations should switch their strategy.
C
Insect damage presents a greater threat to crop plants than does mild drought stress.
Plants can either be exposed to mild drought stress or insects. Insects are more damaging, so the alternative is a better option. This is what Peter argues.
D
Farmers are not always able to control the amount of water that their crops receive when, for instance, there are rainstorms in the areas where their crops are growing.
Peter argues for what farmers should do when watering their plants. We don’t care about rainstorms, which are totally out of farmers’ control.
E
Mexican bean beetles are more likely to feed on the leaves of slightly drought-stressed soybeans than oak lace bugs are to feed on the leaves of abundantly watered soybeans.
This is strangely specific. It’s an exception to a rule Peter gives us: insects are more likely to feed on abundantly watered plants. We can’t directly contradict that premise.