Summary
The author concludes that the recent biography of Shakespeare does not explain what is most interesting about him. This is based on the fact that the biography doesn’t explain what made Shakespeare different from his contemporaries.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts that the biography doesn’t explain what’s “most interesting” about Shakespeare. But the premise doesn’t tell us anything about the concept of what’s “most interesting” about Shakespeare. All that the premise establishes is that the biography doesn’t explain what made Shakespeare different from his contemporaries. The missing link is the assumption that what made Shakespeare different from his contemporaries IS the most interesting thing about Shakespeare.
A
There is no way to know what made Shakespeare different from his contemporaries.
(A) doesn’t tell us what’s most interesting about Shakespeare. So if the premise also doesn’t say anything about what’s most interesting, (A) can’t establish the conclusion.
B
The life of the average man in Elizabethan England is uninteresting.
(B) doesn’t tell us what’s most interesting about Shakespeare. So if the premise also doesn’t say anything about what’s most interesting, (B) can’t establish the conclusion. The fact the average person was uninteresting has nothing to do with what’s most interesting about Shakespeare.
C
Shakespeare was very different from the other men of his time.
(C) doesn’t tell us what’s most interesting about Shakespeare. So if the premise also doesn’t say anything about what’s most interesting, (C) can’t establish the conclusion. The fact Shakespeare was very different from other men does not imply that what made him different was the most interesting thing about him.
D
A biography should always focus on what makes its subject distinctive.
What a biography should do tells us nothing about whether this particular biography does or does not explain what’s most interesting about Shakespeare.
E
What is most interesting about Shakespeare is what made him different from his contemporaries.
We know from the premise that the biography doesn’t explain what made him different from his contemporaries. (A) establishes that what made him different is the most interesting thing about him. So the biography doesn’t explain the most interesting thing about him.
The result of attempting to whip cream in a blender is a thick, velvety substance rather than fluffy whipped cream. This is because a blender’s container does not let in enough air to whip cream effectively. Although using a special whipping-cream attachment in a blender can help somewhat, it cannot fully compensate for the container’s poor air intake.
Summary
Whipping cream in a blender results in a thick, velvety substance rather than fluffy whipped cream. This is because a blender’s container does not let in enough air to whip cream effectively. Using a special whipping-cream attachment in a blender can help somewhat, but it cannot fully compensate for the container’s poor air intake.
Notable Valid Inferences
Using a whipping-cream attachment in a blender is not sufficient to whip cream effectively.
A
Cream that has been whipped ineffectively generally becomes a thick, velvety substance rather than fluffy whipped cream.
Could be false. It is possible that cream that has been whipped ineffectively can become a substance that is not thick and velvety. We only know that cream specifically whipped in a blender becomes thick and velvety.
B
The use of a special whipping-cream attachment in a blender does not suffice to whip cream completely effectively.
Must be true. The stimulus tells that although this special attachment can help, the attachment cannot fully compensate for the container’s lack of air intake. Therefore, the special attachment is not sufficient to whip cream completely effectively.
C
When attempting to whip cream in a blender, using a special whipping-cream attachment always produces a fluffier result than could be obtained without using such an attachment.
Could be false. To claim that the attachment always produces a fluffier result is too extreme. The stimulus only tells us that the attachment can help somewhat.
D
The use of a special whipping-cream attachment in a blender can reduce the total amount of air required to whip cream effectively in that blender.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus that suggests how the attachment functions. We only know that the attachment cannot fully compensate for the container, but we do not know in what ways the attachment actually compensates.
E
The use of a blender, with or without any special attachments, is not the most common way to attempt to produce whipped cream.
Could be false. To claim this is not the most common way is too extreme. It is possible that using a blender is the most common way, it’s just an ineffective way according to the stimulus.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that there is good reason to regard as false the view that life evolved outside of Earth and drifted to Earth on spores. This is based on the fact that proponents of this view have not offered positive support for their view. Rather, they offer only arguments against the view that life evolved on Earth.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the proponents’ failure to provide evidence for their theory constitutes a reason to think their view is false. This overlooks the fact that their view can be true, despite the proponents’ failure to offer evidence for it.
A
concludes, simply because there is no evidence in favor of a hypothesis, that there is evidence against that hypothesis
The author thinks the fact proponents haven’t offered evidence in favor of their view constitutes a reason to think their view is false.
B
fails to justify its claim that the view being criticized is inherently implausible
The author doesn’t claim that the proponents’ view is “inherently” implausible. The author’s reasoning is based on the fact proponents haven’t offered evidence for it.
C
reasons that a hypothesis is false simply because there is another hypothesis that is equally likely to be true
The author doesn’t point out another hypothesis that is “equally likely” to be true.
D
attempts to derive a conclusion from premises that contradict it
The author’s premises do not contradict the conclusion. The premises establish that the proponents haven’t offered evidence for their view. This doesn’t contradict the claim that the proponents’ view is false.
E
grants the truth of claims that are made by the advocates of the hypothesis but that do nothing to strengthen the astronomer’s own argument
The author doesn’t accept the claims of the proponents as true. He simply describes those claims in the first half of the stimulus. But the author then rejects the proponents’ hypothesis because they haven’t offered positive evidence for it.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a new technology that derives an oil from sewage sludge makes it possible that we can turn away from nuclear power and move towards environment-friendly energy. His support is that this sewage-sludge oil can be used to generate power
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the oil derived from sewage sludge, along with the myriad alternatives listed, would in fact be able to replace nuclear power. He also assumes that doing so would in fact result in less environmental damage than nuclear power does, which means he believes the process of extracting and storing oil from sewage sludge isn’t as environmentally taxing as nuclear power. Finally, the author assumes that relying on sewage sludge isn’t as much of a danger as nuclear power.
A
whether the current methods of disposing of sewage sludge by dumping do environmental damage
If the current method of disposing of sewage sludge is environmentally harmful, then a process relying on sewage sludge would be environmentally harmful. This would weaken the author’s argument that sewage-sludge oil will be environmentally beneficial versus nuclear power.
B
whether the processes that are used to turn sewage into clean water and sewage sludge have been improved in recent decades
Irrelevant. We don’t care if sewage sludge and water are being properly separated. We’re interested in whether an oil extracted from sewage sludge can in fact help replace nuclear power.
C
whether the cost of producing and using oil from sewage sludge would be economically sustainable
If producing and using an oil from sewage sludge isn’t economically sustainable, then that oil certainly won’t replace nuclear power. If it is economically sustainable, then the author’s argument in favor of that oil is strengthened.
D
whether the burning of oil from sewage sludge would, in contrast to nuclear power production, produce gases that would have a harmful warming effect on climate worldwide
If burning that oil did produce harmful gases—an effect that nuclear power production doesn’t have—then the author’s claim that the sewage-sludge oil offers an environmentally-friendly alternative to nuclear power is seriously undermined.
E
whether waste products that would be produced in deriving oil from sewage sludge and burning it would be as dangerous as those produced by the mining and use of nuclear fuel
If such products were produced, then sewage-sludge oil would seem to have one of the same problems the author cites about nuclear power: danger to humans.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do trees of the rarest species in tropical forests survive longer than trees of the most common species, which reproduce the most?
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference between the rarest and most common species of trees in tropical forests. That difference must result in the trees of the rarest species surviving longer, either because of some quality or adaptation that is present among rare tree species, or because of overpopulation among common tree species.
A
The species of trees that is most common in a forest thrives there because it is best suited to the local climate.
This may help to explain why the common trees reproduce the most, but it doesn’t help to explain why the rarest trees survive longer. If the common trees are “best suited to the local climate,” shouldn’t they survive longer than the rarest trees?
B
Older trees tend to reproduce the least.
This doesn’t give us a key difference between the common species and the rarest species. Instead it gives us a similarity: that older trees of any species reproduce the least. We still don’t know why the rarest trees live longer while the common trees reproduce the most.
C
The study tracked preexisting tree species but did not introduce any new species to the tropical forests.
The fact that no new species were introduced doesn’t affect the study’s findings: the most common species reproduces the most, while the rarest species lives longer. We still need a key difference between rare and common species to explain these results.
D
The survival of the trees of the rarer species enables tropical forests to recover more easily from moderate destruction.
The positive effect of the rare trees doesn’t explain why they live longer. Presumably, the common trees also have positive effects on the forest. But we still don’t know why trees of the rarest species live longer than those of the most common species.
E
The trees of the common species have more competition for the resources they need than do the trees of the rare species.
This highlights a key difference between rare and common species that helps explain the study’s results. Common species face more competition for resources, which limits their lifespan, while trees of rare species, with less competition, tend to survive longer.