Inez: The book we are reading, The Nature of Matter, is mistitled. A title should summarize the content of the whole book, but nearly half of this book is devoted to discussing a different, albeit closely related subject: energy.
Antonio: I do not think that the author erred; according to modern physics, matter and energy are two facets of the same phenomenon.
Summary
Inez says that the book The Nature of Matter should have a different title. Why? Because almost half the book is about energy, and Inez thinks a title should summarize the entire book.
Antonio thinks that the title The Nature of Matter is actually fine, because modern physics considers matter and energy to be part of the same phenomenon.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The conversation supports these inferences:
Inez thinks that the book’s title doesn’t summarize the entire book.
Inez thinks that if the book’s title mentions matter, it should also mention energy.
Antonio either thinks that the book’s title does summarize the entire book, or that summarizing the entire book is not necessary for a good book title.
Inez and Antonio disagree about whether the book is correctly titled.
A
Inez believes that the book should be called The Nature of Energy.
This is not supported. Inez says that a book’s title should summarize the entire book, but more than half of this book is about matter. Thus, replacing “Matter” with “Energy” in the title would just make the problem worse—then it would summarize less than half of the book.
B
Antonio believes that there are no differences between matter and energy.
This is not supported. Antonio calls matter and energy “two facets of the same phenomenon,” which indicates that they are different: they’re different facets. Just because they’re part of the same phenomenon, doesn’t mean they have no differences.
C
Inez and Antonio disagree on whether matter and energy are related.
This is not supported. Inez and Antonio both feel that matter and energy are related. Inez calls them “closely related,” while Antonio explains that they’re two parts of the same phenomenon—meaning they must be related.
D
Inez and Antonio disagree about the overall value of the book.
This is not supported. Neither Inez nor Antonio actually indicates their thoughts on the overall value of the book. They’re just discussing whether or not they like the title.
E
Inez believes that the book’s title should not mention matter without mentioning energy.
This is strongly supported. Inez’s complaint is that the book’s title doesn’t summarize the book’s whole contents: the book discusses both matter and energy, while the title only mentions matter. Including matter but not energy is what makes it an insufficient summary.
In a cold climate, it’s difficult to raise orange trees.
In most of a certain country, it’s easy to grow cacti or easy to raise orange trees.
A
Half of the country is both humid and cold.
B
Most of the country is hot.
C
Some parts of the country are neither cold nor humid.
D
It is not possible to raise cacti in the country.
E
Most parts of the country are humid.
A
contains a premise that cannot possibly be true
B
takes for granted that technology beneficial to society as a whole cannot be commercially viable
C
fails to consider the possibility that actions motivated by a desire for personal gain often do not result in personal gain
D
takes for granted that an action is unlikely to produce a certain outcome unless it is motivated by a desire to produce that outcome
E
draws a conclusion about the practical consequences of people’s actions on the basis of theoretical views about what people should or should not do
Arjun: I disagree! For example, unauthorized use of medical records systems in hospitals could damage data systems on which human lives depend, and therefore computer crimes also cause physical harm to people.