Sandra: While precision is unobtainable in many areas of life, it is commonplace in others. Many scientific disciplines obtain extremely precise results, which should not be doubted merely because of their precision.
Speaker 1 Summary
Taylor concludes that we should be suspicious about the claim that 61% of info transferred during a conversation is communicated nonverbally. This is because that claim is mathematically precise, and we should be suspicious of all mathematically precise claims.
Speaker 2 Summary
Sandra asserts that many scientific disciplines can achieve extremely precise results, and that we should not be suspicious of these claims merely because of their mathematical precision.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether we should suspicious of all mathematically precise claims. Taylor thinks we should. Sandra thinks we shouldn’t.
A
Research might reveal that 61 percent of the information taken in during a conversation is communicated through nonverbal signals.
Sandra has no opinion. She doesn’t express an opinion about the specific claim made by researchers at the university. She only points out that there are some disciplines that can obtain precise results. Whether these researchers are part of those disciplines is unknown.
B
It is possible to determine whether 61 percent of the information taken in during a conversation is communicated through nonverbal signals.
Sandra has no opinion. She doesn’t express an opinion about the specific claim made by researchers at the university. She only points out that there are some disciplines that can obtain precise results. Whether these researchers are part of those disciplines is unknown.
C
The study of verbal and nonverbal communication is an area where one cannot expect great precision in one’s research results.
Sandra has no opinion. She doesn’t express an opinion about the specific claim made by researchers at the university. She only points out that there are some disciplines that can obtain precise results. Whether these researchers are part of those disciplines is unknown.
D
Some sciences can yield mathematically precise results that are not inherently suspect.
This is a point of disagreement. Taylor believes no mathematically precise claims can be established by science. Sandra believes some scientific disciplines can establish mathematically precise claims and that they shouldn’t be considered suspect merely because they’re precise.
E
If inherently suspect claims are usually false, then the majority of claims made by scientists are false as well.
Neither speaker has an opinion about the majority of scientists’ claims.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that our hospital should make protection of our clients’ confidentiality the highest priority. This is based on the fact that at a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts said that the most significant threat faced by large institutions like ours is unauthorized access to confidential data.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the opinion of computer experts on what is the most important threat to hospitals should have weight in what a hospital should prioritize. This is flawed because we have no reason to think that a computer expert’s opinion on hospital management is something worth following. Another way to frame the flaw is that the author assumes what computer experts said is true. But what they said is the most significant threat does not have to be in fact the most significant.
A
The argument confuses the causes of a problem with the appropriate solutions to that problem.
The argument proposes a potential solution (making confidentiality highest priority) for the alleged problem of unauthorized access to data. But there’s nothing confused about the relationship between the proposed solution and alleged problem.
B
The argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim.
The testimony is from “computer experts.” There’s no reason to believe these computer experts have expertise in hospital management. So, we have no reason to think what they claim is the most significant threat to hospitals is actually the most significant threat.
C
The argument assumes that a correlation between two phenomena is evidence that one is the cause of the other.
The premises do not establish a correlation, and the conclusion does not conclude or assume that there’s a causal relationship between two things. The premises merely describe what computer experts said at a conference.
D
The argument draws a general conclusion about a group based on data about an unrepresentative sample of that group.
The argument’s conclusion is not about a group. It’s about what one hospital should do (”we should make the protection...”). If you’re thinking the clients are the “group,” then (D) is still wrong because the premise doesn’t present a sample of clients.
E
The argument infers that a property belonging to large institutions belongs to all institutions.
The experts said that the most significant threat faced by “large universities and hospitals” is unauthorized access. The author assumes this comment is true about his hospital, but doesn’t assume that because it’s true about his hospital, it’s also true about all institutions.
Summary
The stimulus discusses the scientific process of testing hypotheses against observations and emphasizes that scientists can receive the most recognition from disproving widely accepted ideas. It mentions that it is unsurprising some scientists are skeptical of global warming predictions because challenging conventional wisdom can lead to recognition. However, it is remarkable that, despite many researchers working in climatology, very few find evidence against global warming.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
There is a major incentive to disprove global warming, but scientists have not found the evidence to credibly do so yet.
A
Most scientists who are reluctant to accept the global warming hypothesis are not acting in accordance with the accepted standards of scientific debate.
There is nothing in the stimulus about the “accepted standards of scientific debate.” It is also a very large assumption to speak on the actions of what “most scientists” in a certain subset believe.
B
Most researchers in climatology have substantial motive to find evidence that would discredit the global warming hypothesis.
The stimulus says that “nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom.” The presence of global warming is conventional wisdom in the scientific community, so it is not unreasonable to assume that there is a substantial motive to disprove it.
C
There is evidence that conclusively shows that the global warming hypothesis is true.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that very few scientists have found evidence to show that global warming is unlikely. Nothing says that it is “conclusively true.” Don’t let this answer choice tap into your assumptions!
D
Scientists who are skeptical about global warming have not offered any alternative hypotheses to explain climatological data.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus does not give concrete information on whether scientists have given *any* hypothesis to challenge global warming. The stimulus only says that few have found evidence that it is unlikely.
E
Research in global warming is primarily driven by a desire for recognition in the scientific community.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus implies that it is a factor, but not that it is the *primary* factor.
Summary
Advocates for electric cars claim that such cars will result in a decrease of environmental degradation caused by auto emissions. But the electricity to charge the batteries for such cars will come from nuclear or coal-fired power plants unless we dam more rivers. Each of these three power sources produce significant environmental damage.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Thus, the electric car will have worse environmental effects than the advocates for such cars claim.
A
will have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe
This answer is strongly supported. If any method of charging batteries for electric cars produce significant environmental damage, then the use of such cars will not result in a decrease of environmental degradation.
B
will probably remain less popular than other types of cars
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about the popularity of electric cars from the stimulus. Advocates only hypothesize that such cars would become more widely used.
C
requires that purely technical problems be solved before it can succeed
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus if the source of energy for charging electric car batteries is a purely technical problem.
D
will increase the total level of emissions rather than reduce it
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the total level of emissions will in fact increase. Rather, the author is suggesting that the decrease may not be as significant as what the advocates for electric cars claim.
E
will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus if there will not be a net decrease in environmental degradation. Rather, the author is suggesting that the decrease may not be as significant as what the advocates for electric cars claim.