Objection: Decisions on energy use are best left to the operation of the market.
Summarize Argument
The conclusion we’re focusing on is the objection that energy use should be decided by the market, not government regulation. Why? The only support we’re given is that efficient use of fossil energy would benefit the nation as well as the global environment.
Notable Assumptions
A
It would be unrealistic to expect society to make the changes necessary to achieve maximum energy efficiency all at once.
This does not undermine the objection, because it doesn’t help us determine whether the market or the government is more able to improve energy efficiency. That’s what we need to find out, regardless of whether or not we can maximize efficiency immediately.
B
There are products, such as automobiles, that consume energy at a sufficient rate that persons who purchase and use them will become conscious of any unusual energy inefficiency in comparison with other products in the same class.
Like (D), this does not undermine the objection. In fact, at least for products like cars, it strengthens the objection by explaining how market incentives (i.e. the cost of fuel) could improve energy efficiency. For any other products, we still just don’t know.
C
Whenever a new mode of generating energy, such as a new fuel, is introduced, a number of support systems, such as a fuel-distribution system, must be created or adapted.
This does not undermine the objection. Based on the stimulus, we have no reason to believe that new types of energy are in question at all. Even if they were, this still doesn’t help us decide if the market or the government will most improve efficiency. So, this is irrelevant.
D
When energy prices rise, consumers of energy tend to look for new ways to increase energy efficiency, such as by adding insulation to their houses.
This does not undermine the objection. Instead, like (B), it strengthens the claim that market incentives will lead to greater energy efficiency. This is an even better strengthen answer than (B), because it’s not limited to only certain products. So clearly, it doesn’t weaken.
E
Often the purchaser of a product, such as a landlord buying an appliance, chooses on the basis of purchase price because the purchaser is not the person who will pay for energy used by the product.
This undermines the objection by showing that market incentives of which product to buy often have nothing to do with energy efficiency. This indicates that the market may not effectively improve energy efficiency, thus weakening the objection.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that colic in infants is probably not caused by certain antibodies found in cow’s milk. Why not? Because lots of infants who only drink breast milk, and so are never exposed to cow’s milk, also get colic.
Notable Assumptions
The author is assuming that infants who drink only breast milk are not exposed to the same antibodies which are found in cow’s milk. The author is also assuming that if colic were caused by the antibodies in question, it couldn’t also be separately caused by another factor.
A
A study involving 500 sets of twins has found that if one infant has colic, its twin will probably also have colic.
This does not weaken the argument. Whether or not there’s a genetic factor to colic is irrelevant to whether the antibodies in cow’s milk can cause colic. Plus, this doesn’t even establish a genetic factor without more context about colic rates outside of twins.
B
Symptoms of colic generally disappear as infants grow older, whether the infants have been fed breast milk exclusively or have been fed infant formula containing cow’s milk.
This does not weaken the argument. Whether or not colic goes away as children grow up has no bearing on what the initial cause of colic could be. This has nothing to do with any possible link between colic and cow’s milk antibodies.
C
In a study of 5,000 infants who were fed only infant formula containing cow’s milk, over 4,000 of the infants never displayed any symptoms of colic.
This does not weaken the argument. Undermining the link between cow’s milk and colic would strengthen, not weaken. We also don’t know the overall likelihood of an infant getting colic, and without context these numbers don’t actually mean much either way.
D
When mothers of infants that are fed only breast milk eliminate cow’s milk and all products made from cow’s milk from their own diets, any colic symptoms that their infants have manifested quickly disappear.
This weakens the argument. Now we have a link between cow’s milk and colic, even in infants who only drink breast milk. This undermines the support provided to the author’s conclusion that cow’s milk antibodies probably do not cause colic.
E
Infants that are fed breast milk develop mature digestive systems at an earlier age than do those that are fed infant formulas, and infants with mature digestive systems are better able to tolerate certain proteins and antibodies found in cow’s milk.
This does not weaken the argument. It doesn’t matter if the infants who are only fed breast milk can tolerate cow’s milk or not: they’re not drinking cow’s milk, but they’re still getting colic. This doesn’t interfere with the link between the author’s evidence and hypothesis.
Relevant lessons: Referential phrasing | Modifiers and embedded clauses | Conditional logic | Advanced logic | Must be true questions
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
If the price paid for beans increases, then there will be a decrease in overall profitability.
If the Coffee Shoppe increases its prices, then there will be a decrease in overall profitability.
If the price paid for beans increases, the Coffee Shoppe will either sell non-coffee products or coffee sales will decrease.
A
If the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability decreases, the price it pays for coffee beans will have continued to increase.
This could be false. Decrease in overall profitability is a necessary condition of the price increase of coffee beans. (A) confuses the necessary and sufficient conditions.
B
If the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability decreases, either it will have begun selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will have decreased.
This could be false. As shown in the diagram, selling non-coffee products and decreasing coffee sales are both sufficient conditions of a decrease in overall profitability. (B) mixes up the relationship and treats these sufficient conditions as necessary conditions.
C
The Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability will decrease if the price it pays for coffee beans continues to increase.
This must be true. As shown below, by chaining the conditional claims, we see that overall profitability decrease is a necessary condition of an increase in the price paid for beans.
D
The price it pays for coffee beans cannot decrease without the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability also decreasing.
This could be false. (D) can be translated to say “decrease in price of coffee beans→ decrease in overall profitability.” The stimulus says that if the price of coffee beans increases, then there will be a decrease in overall profitability, which is not what (D) says.
E
Either the price it pays for coffee beans will continue to increase or the Coffee Shoppe’s coffee sales will increase.
This could be false. (E) can be translated to say “/increase in price of beans→increase in coffee sales.” This is not an inference that can be drawn from the conditional chain.
Relevant lessons: Referential phrasing | Modifiers and embedded clauses | Conditional logic | Advanced logic | Must be true questions