Summarize Argument
Heavier cans of fruit or vegetables from different companies may not actually contain more food. Some cans might have less food despite being heavier because the fruits and vegetables are packed in water, which can make up more than half the weight. Since some canning companies might add more water than others, heavier cans might not contain more food.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the consumer advocate’s warning that heavier cans of fruit or vegetables may not actually contain more food.
A
The heavier of two cans of fruit or vegetables does not necessarily contain more food than the lighter of the two cans contains.
This accurately states the consumer advocate's main conclusion. Since packing companies can add more water to their cans, a heavier can of fruit or vegetables doesn’t always have more food than a lighter one. The heavier can might just have much more water than the lighter can.
B
The weight of the water in a can of fruit or vegetables can be more than half the total weight of the can’s contents.
This is a premise. The statement that water can make up more than half the weight of a can of fruit or vegetables helps readers understand the consumer advocate's conclusion that heavier cans don't always contain more food—they might just have more water.
C
Nothing stops unscrupulous canning companies from including more water per can than others include.
This is a premise. The claim that "nothing stops unscrupulous canning companies from including more water per can" supports the consumer advocate's conclusion that heavier cans do not always contain more food. The extra weight could just be from more water, not more food.
D
Some canning companies include less food in cans of a given weight than others include.
This is a necessary assumption of the consumer advocate’s argument. The advocate assumes that some canning companies might add more water and, therefore, less food to their cans. If this assumption is true, then a heavier can could have less food than another can of the same weight.
E
The heavier of two cans of fruits or vegetables may include more water than the lighter of the two cans contains.
This is a necessary assumption of the consumer advocate’s argument. The argument relies on the assumption that a heavier can may include more water—and therefore less food—than a lighter can. If this is true, then a heavier can doesn’t necessarily contain more food.
Summary
A group of 3-year-olds who new the numbers 1 through 10 were trying to learn their phone numbers. Initially no child could remember his or her number. But after a teacher taught each child a song that contained his or her phone number, the children could remember the phone number.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The song the teacher taught probably helped each child remember his or her number.
A string of numbers might be easier to remember if they are part of a song.
A string of numbers might be easier to remember if they are part of a song.
A
There are some things that children cannot learn without the aid of songs.
Unsupported. Although the song likely helped the children remember their numbers, that doesn’t mean the song was required in order for them to remember. Maybe the children also could have remembered the numbers through a special game or special cartoon.
B
Familiarity with a concept is not always sufficient for knowing the words used to express it.
Unsupported. The children knew the numbers 1 through 10. There’s no evidence that they didn’t know the words to express these numbers. They had trouble remembering a specific string of numbers; not with the words that express those numbers.
C
Mnemonic devices such as songs are better than any other method for memorizing numbers.
Unsupported. The song likely helped them remember their phone numbers. But we don’t get a comparison to other memory methods. Maybe seeing the number in a special cartoon would have been more effective.
D
Children can learn to count without understanding the meaning of numbers.
Unsupported. Failing to remember a string of numbers does not imply inability to understand the meaning of numbers. We don’t have any evidence the children didn’t understand the meaning of “three.” They just had trouble remembering the order of several numbers put together.
E
Songs are useful in helping children remember the order in which familiar words occur.
Strongly supported. Children were familiar with individual numbers, but had trouble remembering a string of numbers. They were able to remember the string after learning a song containing that string of numbers. Doesn’t guarantee causation, but it is evidence the song helped.
Summary
The author concludes that literary critics should NOT try (strive) to be value-neutral in their literary criticism. This is based on the fact that literary criticism cannot be completely value-neutral.
If you didn’t understand the conclusion in the way described above, then you probably didn’t translate what it means for the theorists to be “mistaken about what is an appropriate goal for literary criticism.” The first sentence said the theorists argue that striving to be value-neutral was an appropriate goal. If those theorists are mistaken, that means striving to be value-neutral is NOT an appropriate goal.
If you didn’t understand the conclusion in the way described above, then you probably didn’t translate what it means for the theorists to be “mistaken about what is an appropriate goal for literary criticism.” The first sentence said the theorists argue that striving to be value-neutral was an appropriate goal. If those theorists are mistaken, that means striving to be value-neutral is NOT an appropriate goal.
Missing Connection
Does the fact that literary critics can’t be value-neutral prove that they shouldn’t TRY to be value-neutral? No. Why shouldn’t we strive for the impossible? To make the argument valid, we want to establish that if something can’t be done, then literary critics shouldn’t try to do it.
A
Any critic who is able to help readers make their own judgments about literary works’ merits should strive to produce value-neutral criticism.
(A) supports a conclusion that certain critics SHOULD try to produce value-neutral criticism. But we want to establish that critics should NOT try to produce value-neutral criticism.
B
If it is impossible to produce completely value-neutral literary criticism, then critics should not even try to be value-neutral.
(B) gets us from the premise to the conclusion. If, as the premise establishes, it’s impossible to produce completely value-neutral criticism, then the conclusion must be true — critics shouldn’t try to be value-neutral.
C
Critics are more likely to provide criticisms of the works they like than to provide criticisms of the works they dislike.
(C) doesn’t establish that critics shouldn’t try to do something. Learning about what critics are more likely to do doesn’t establish what they should not do.
D
The less readers understand the meaning of a literary work, the less capable they will be of evaluating that work’s merits.
(D) doesn’t establish that critics shouldn’t try to do something. What readers understand or are capable of might relate to the theorists’ support for their own view. But it doesn’t connect the author’s premise to the conclusion.
E
Critics who try to avoid rendering value judgments about the works they consider tend to influence readers’ judgments less than other critics do.
(E) doesn’t establish that critics shouldn’t try to do something. Whether and how critics influence readers’ judgments might have some relationship to the theorists’ support for their view. But it doesn’t connect the author’s premise to the conclusion.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that susnpot activity is probably a causal factor in the size of hare populations. This is because the hare population cycle between larger and smaller sizes is correlated with the regular cycle of sunspot activity.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the correlation between sunspot activity and hare population cycles isn’t just coincidence.
A
Reproduction in predator populations increases when sunspot activity indirectly affects hormonal processes associated with reproduction.
This strengthens by providing a potential causal mechanism between sunspots and hare populations. The sunspots might affect predator populations, and the predator populations would in turn affect hare populations.
B
Local weather patterns that can affect species’ population changes can occur both in the presence of sunspot activity and in its absence.
This doesn’t strengthen because it doesn’t provide any reason to think the sunspot activity has any causal relationship with hare populations. We have no reason to think these weather patterns are correlated with sunspots.
C
Brighter light during sunspot activity subtly but significantly improves the ability of predators to detect and capture hares.
This strengthens by providing a causal mechanism between sunspots and hare populations. The sunspots can affect predator ability to hunt, which in turn affects hare populations.
D
The variation from cycle to cycle in the magnitude of the highs and lows in snowshoe hare populations is highly correlated with variations from cycle to cycle in the intensity of highs and lows in sunspot activity.
This strengthens by strengthening the correlation between sunspots and hare populations. Not only are these two things generally correlated, but (D) now tells us that the specific degree of population increase/decrease is correlated with the degree of sunspot intensity.
E
Sunspot activity is correlated with increases and decreases in the nutritional value of vegetation eaten by the hares.
This strengthens by providing a potential causal mechanism. Sunspots may have an effect on the nutritional value of vegetation, which in turn can affect hare populations that eat the vegetation.
Science teacher: In any nation, a flourishing national scientific community is essential to a successful economy. For such a community to flourish requires that many young people become excited enough about science that they resolve to become professional scientists. Good communication between scientists and the public is necessary to spark that excitement.
Summary
If a nation has a successful economy, it must have a flourishing national scientific community. If the nation has a flourishing national community, it needs to have many young people who are excited enough about science to want to become scientists. If this excitement exists, there must be good communication between scientists and the public.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Successful economy -> flourishing scientific community -> young people excited - > good communication between scientists and the public.
You can make any valid inference along this chain.
A
If scientists communicate with the public, many young people will become excited enough about science to resolve to become professional scientists.
Scientists communicating with the public is not a sufficient condition that can trigger any valid inferences. If you got this wrong, practice conditional indicators, mapping, and following lawgic chains.
B
The extent to which a national scientific community flourishes depends principally on the number of young people who become excited enough about science to resolve to become professional scientists.
While young people's excitement about science is necessary for a national scientific community to flourish, there is no evidence that *the number* of these students is principally important.
C
No nation can have a successful economy unless at some point scientists have communicated well with the public.
This is supported because it is a valid inference on the formal logic chain (Successful economy -> good communication). If you struggled to map this, practice mapping with two conditional indicators.
D
It is essential to any nation’s economy that most of the young people in that nation who are excited about science become professional scientists.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that many young people need to be excited about science, not “most.”
E
An essential component of success in any scientific endeavor is good communication between the scientists involved in that endeavor and the public.
This is not supported because the stimulus never gives conditions for the success of any scientific endeavor.