Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that a certain gene variant causes an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior. This is based on the fact that the author’s research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have that gene variant.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a correlation between the gene variant and impulsive behavior proves a causal relationship. The author also assumes that the cause of impulsive behavior in children also causes adult thrill-seeking behavior.
A
Many impulsive adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine.
The author never suggested every adult has the gene variant. So, the fact many impulsive adults aren’t unusually sensitive (and therefore might not have the gene variant) doesn’t undermine the author’s reasoning.
B
It is not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior.
This shows that the alleged correlation shown by the author’s research doesn’t reliably tell us about impulsive behavior. If we can’t be sure that the author’s research identified impulsive behavior, that reduces the support provided by the research for a causal relationship.
C
Children are often described by adults as engaging in thrill-seeking behavior simply because they act impulsively.
The argument is about alleged impulsive behavior in children and adult thrill-seeking behavior. Whether children’s behavior is called thrill-seeking doesn’t affect the potential cause of impulsive behavior or adult thrill-seeking behavior.
D
Many people exhibit behavioral tendencies as adults that they did not exhibit as children.
The author never suggested that every child with impulsive behavior grows up to exhibit adult thrill-seeking behavior. So, even if many adults end up not impulsive and not thrill-seeking, that doesn’t undermine the underlying correlation the author observed.
E
The gene variant studied by the scientist is correlated with other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior.
This suggests the gene variant might cause other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior. But it doesn’t suggest the gene variant might not cause thrill-seeking behavior. (E) could have weakened if the thrill-seeking was correlated with a different gene.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In this argument, the sociologist is arguing that one can support both political democracy and marketplace regulation. To support this, the sociologist cites the distinction between the private consumer, who makes individual decisions, and the public citizen, who makes decisions that consider a broader community. Because people are considering different factors in the market and the voting booth, support for market regulation and democratic sovereignty can coexist.
Identify Conclusion
The sociologist concludes that support for two ideas that some view as contradictory can coexist: “Supporters of political democracy can also support marketplace regulation.”
A
Voters think of themselves as members of a community, rather than as isolated individuals.
This idea is implied when the argument says that voters ask “What do we want?” However, this implication is not the main conclusion; it provides some support for the distinction made between voters and customers.
B
Unregulated markets are incompatible with democratic sovereignty.
Our conclusion discusses what ideas people can support; this answer says that two institutions/structures themselves (unregulated markets and democratic sovereignty) are (in)compatible. We are want to know that support for two ideas is compatible.
C
Where there is democratic sovereignty there should be unregulated markets.
This answer choice is the conclusion made by some economists; this is the claim that the sociologist’s conclusion works to refute.
D
Private consumers are primarily concerned with their own self-interest.
This idea is implied when the argument says that consumers ask “What do I want?” However, this implication is not the main conclusion; it provides some support for the distinction made between voters and customers.
E
Opposition to unregulated markets is consistent with support for democracy.
This is the conclusion of the argument. This answer is a paraphrase of the last sentence, which we identified as the main conclusion of the argument. The rest of sociologist’s argument works to provide support for this idea.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did nineteenth century French painting show a significantly higher degree of innovation than nineteenth century French sculpture?
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference between nineteenth century French painting and nineteenth century French sculpture. That difference must identify a reason French painting showed more innovation than French sculpture during the nineteenth century even though the French academy of art was a major funder of sculpture and painting.
A
In France in the nineteenth century, the French academy gave more of its financial support to painting than it did to sculpture.
The academy discouraged innovation in painting and sculpture, so painting receiving more money from the academy doesn’t explain why painting showed more innovation than sculpture.
B
The French academy in the nineteenth century financially supported a greater number of sculptors than painters, but individual painters received more support, on average, than individual sculptors.
The academy discouraged innovation in painting and sculpture. If, on average, individual painters received more support from the academy than individual sculptors, it doesn’t explain why painting showed more innovation than sculpture in the nineteenth century.
C
Because stone was so much more expensive than paint and canvas, far more unsponsored paintings were produced than were unsponsored sculptures in France during the nineteenth century.
(C) points out a difference between nineteenth century French painting and sculpture. Unsponsored painters probably cared less about the academy’s discouragement of innovation. More unsponsored paintings being produced would likely increase the odds of more innovative paintings.
D
Very few of the artists in France in the nineteenth century who produced sculptures also produced paintings.
It doesn’t matter how many artists produced both sculptures and paintings. We need to know why painting showed more innovation than sculpture in France in the nineteenth century.
E
Although the academy was the primary sponsor of sculpture and painting, the total amount of financial support that French sculptors and painters received from sponsors declined during the nineteenth century.
(E) gives us a similarity between nineteenth century French sculpture and painting, but we need a difference. Knowing that financial support for sculpture and painting declined doesn’t explain why painting showed more innovation than sculpture.