Summarize Argument
The author concludes that watching too much TV leads people to overestimate risks. Her evidence is a study showing a positive correlation between people who watch more TV than average and people who believe they’ll be victims of natural disasters.
Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the author concludes that watching too much TV causes people to overestimate risks. She thus assumes the opposite isn’t true (i.e. worrying about risks causes people to watch more TV), or that overestimating risks and watching TV aren’t jointly caused by some third factor. She also assumes that people who believe they’ll be victims of natural disasters believe the same about other risks the world presents. For example, if these people were less inclined to believe they’ll be the victims of violent crime, then the study wouldn’t help the author’s argument.
A
Many people overestimate the dangers that the world poses to them, regardless of the amount of television they watch.
Even if most people overestimate risk, watching too much TV might still be something that leads people to overestimate risk.
B
A person is less likely to live in an area that is prone to natural disasters if that person watches an above-average amount of television than if that person watches a below-average amount of television.
This seems to strengthen the author’s argument. People who watch lots of TV are less likely than average to be at risk of suffering a natural disaster, yet they believe themselves to be more at risk than average.
C
People who watch a below-average amount of television tend to have a fairly accurate idea of the likelihood that they will be victims of a natural disaster.
We don’t care about people who don’t watch much TV. We already know they’re less likely than people who watch lots of TV to believe they’ll be the victims of natural disasters.
D
People who are well informed about the risks posed by natural disasters tend to have become well informed in some way other than by watching television.
We don’t care about people who accurately estimate the risk posed by natural disasters. We need to weaken the link between watching lots of TV and overestimating risk.
E
A person is more likely to watch an above-average amount of television if that person lives in an area that is prone to natural disasters than if that person lives in an area that is not.
People who watch lots of TV have good reason to worry about natural disasters: they’re more likely than most people to live in areas prone to natural disasters. Thus, they might not be overestimating the risk of natural disasters at all.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if Earth’s atmosphere becomes significantly warmer, heavy downpours are likely to become more frequent. This is supported by a causal chain. A warm atmosphere leads to faster evaporation, which leads to rain clouds forming more quickly. A warm atmosphere also leads to more moisture in the atmosphere, which makes clouds larger. The larger, more quickly forming rain clouds result in heavier downpours. This is how heavy downpours are more likely if the atmosphere gets warmer.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is offered as support for the conclusion. It’s part of the causal chain that shows how a warmer atmosphere can lead to more frequent heavy downpours.
A
It is the only conclusion in the argument.
The referenced text is not a conclusion. It’s a premise offered to support the conclusion.
B
It is the conclusion of the argument as a whole but is not the only explicitly stated conclusion in the argument.
The referenced text is not a conclusion. It’s a premise offered to support the conclusion.
C
It is a statement that the argument is intended to support but is not the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
The referenced text is not supported by any other statement. It’s a premise offered to support the conclusion.
D
It is used to support the only conclusion in the argument.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. It is part of the causal chain that is offered to support the conclusion in the first sentence.
E
It provides a causal explanation of the phenomenon described by the conclusion of the argument as a whole, but it is not intended to provide support for that conclusion.
The referenced text does provide support for the conclusion.
Summarize Argument
Anthropologists overrate the usefulness of field studies because they underestimate how much their presence influences the community they’re studying.
Identify Conclusion
Anthropologists overrate the usefulness of field studies: “the usefulness of field studies tends to be overrated by anthropologists.”
A
Anthropologists tend to overestimate the value of field studies.
This rephrases the conclusion.
B
In a field study, the researcher lives within the community being studied.
This is context. It explains what a field study is, which is a key concept in the overall argument.
C
Field studies have been a central feature of anthropological research for a long time.
This is context. It provides background on what a field study is.
D
Most anthropologists know that when they live within a community being studied, the community is affected at least somewhat.
This is context. It provides background for the premise that anthropologists underestimate how much they affect the community they are studying.
E
Most anthropologists underestimate how much of an effect the researcher’s presence has on a community being studied.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that the usefulness of field studies is overrated by anthropologists.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people who hold insurance politics with other companies besides Popelka can save hundreds of dollars by switching to Popelka. This is based on the fact that a survey of new Popelka policyholders reported savings of, on average, $250 per year as a result of switching to Popelka.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the new Popelka policyholders (the ones who had switched from other insurance companies) are representative of people who hold insurance policies with other companies. This overlooks the possibility that the ones who switched to Popelka are the ones who had the opportunity to save money by switching. The people who haven’t switched yet might be people who can’t save by switching.
A
It overlooks the possibility that at least some of the new Popelka Auto Insurance policyholders surveyed reported that they saved little or no money when they switched their auto insurance coverage to Popelka.
The survey reports savings “on average.” An average recognizes the possibility of outliers. So some people might not have saved money by switching; this doesn’t change the fact that new policyholders on average did save $250 per year.
B
It takes for granted that the new Popelka Auto Insurance policyholders pay no less for their auto insurance, on average, than do people who have held Popelka Auto Insurance policies for a longer period of time.
The argument doesn’t compare how much new policyholders pay with how much longer, non-new policyholders pay.
C
It fails to address adequately the possibility that switching to another insurance company would enable many auto insurance policyholders to save even more money than they would save by switching to Popelka.
The conclusion isn’t that switching to Popelka will help people save the most compared to switching to other companies. The conclusion is only that switching to Popelka will help people save money. Whether switches to other companies save more has no impact on the argument.
D
It takes for granted that few if any of the Popelka Auto Insurance policyholders surveyed underestimated how much they saved when they switched their auto insurance coverage to Popelka.
The argument’s reasoning isn’t based on the estimates of policyholders before they made the switch. Maybe everyone underestimated how much they’d save and found that they ended up saving more than expected; this wouldn’t undermine the argument.
E
It fails to address adequately the possibility that people capable of saving hundreds of dollars by switching their auto insurance coverage to Popelka are disproportionately represented among the new Popelka auto insurance policyholders.
This possibility shows that the savings achieved by the new Popelka policyholders might not be achievable by most people who are with other companies. The survey’s results are based on a sample that can save more, on average, than other people would save by switching.
Summary
Drug companies often send gifts to physicians when marketing their products. Most physicians believe that their choices when prescribing drugs are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts. However, most physicians also believe most other physicians’ prescription choices are influenced by such gifts.
Notable Valid Inferences
Some physicians incorrectly believe either that their choices are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts or that most other physicians’ choices are influenced by such gifts.
A
Physicians who do not accept gifts from drug companies are less likely to prescribe unnecessary drugs than those who do accept such gifts.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about the likelihood of physicians prescribing unnecessary drugs to make this comparison.
B
Most physicians believe that drug companies should adopt new guidelines that regulate their practices in sending gifts to physicians.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about what most physicians believe in regards to drug companies’ guidelines.
C
Some physicians are mistaken either about the degree to which they are influenced by gifts from drug companies or about the degree to which such gifts influence other physicians.
Must be true. If most physicians believe both that they are not influenced by gifts and that most other physicians are influenced by gifts, then there must be some overlap between the groups and some physicians must hold a mistaken belief.
D
Some physicians who admit that their own choices when prescribing drugs are influenced by drug companies’ gifts believe that other physicians’ prescription choices are influenced to a greater degree by such gifts.
Could be false. The stimulus is restricted to physicians that believe their own choices are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about physicians who admit their choices are influenced by these gifts.
E
All physicians who admit that their own choices when prescribing drugs are influenced by drug companies’ gifts believe that most other physicians’ prescription choices are also influenced by such gifts.
Could be false. The stimulus is restricted to physicians that believe their own choices are not influenced by drug companies’ gifts. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about physicians who admit their choices are influenced by these gifts.