Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the switch to synthetic piano keys won’t do much to stop the killing of elephants for their ivory. This is because piano makers have never been major consumers of ivory.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that only major consumers can help stop the killing of elephants for their ivory. This means that the synthetic ivory won’t be able to replace real ivory used in other industries.
A
Most people who play the piano but are not concert pianists can nonetheless easily distinguish between the new synthetic ivory and inferior ivory substitutes.
We don’t care what average piano players can do. We already know the new synthetic ivory is superior.
B
The new synthetic ivory can be manufactured to resemble in color and surface texture any of the various types of natural ivory that have commercial uses.
This suggests the synthetic ivory could make a difference in the global ivory trade. We’re trying to strengthen the opposite claim.
C
Other natural products such as bone or tortoise shell have not proven to be acceptable substitutes for natural ivory in piano keys.
We don’t care what else could be a substitute for ivory. We care about how the new synthetic ivory will factor into the global ivory trade.
D
The most common use for natural ivory is in ornamental carvings, which are prized not only for the quality of their workmanship but also for the authenticity of their materials.
The most common use for natural ivory is in an industry that cares about authentic ivory. Thus, synthetic ivory won’t make a difference in that industry, which suggests synthetic ivory won’t have a major impact on the global ivory trade.
E
It costs significantly less to produce the new synthetic ivory than it does to produce any of the ivory substitutes that scientists had developed previously.
We don’t care about the cost. We also don’t know how much the new synthetic ivory costs versus real ivory.
Summary
European music has had a strong influence throughout the world, and it is a sophisticated achievement.
One reason for this is that the original function of the music gradually became an aspect of its style, but didn’t define the music.
For example, dance music can stand independent of dance, and sacred music can stand independent of religion.
European music has so much internal coherence that it doesn’t depend on anything besides the music itself.
One reason for this is that the original function of the music gradually became an aspect of its style, but didn’t define the music.
For example, dance music can stand independent of dance, and sacred music can stand independent of religion.
European music has so much internal coherence that it doesn’t depend on anything besides the music itself.
Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference to draw here. I’d rely on process of elimination to identify what must be false.
A
African music has had a more powerful impact on the world than European music has had.
Could be true. We’re never told European music has had the most powerful impact on the world. So it could be true that another kind of music had a more powerful impact.
B
European military and economic expansionism partially explains the global influence of European music.
Could be true. We were told about one reason European music has been so influential. So there can be other reasons, too.
C
The original functions of many types of Chinese music are no longer their defining forces.
Could be true. Perhaps Chinese music is also influential and sophisticated because the original function of the music isn’t a defining force.
D
Music that is unintelligible when it is presented independently of its original function tends to be the most sophisticated music.
Incompatible. We were told that one of the reasons European music is sophisticated is that it can stand apart from its original function. So it doesn’t make sense for the music unable to stand apart from original function to tend to be the most sophisticated.
E
Some works of art lose their appeal when they are presented to serve a function other than their original one.
Could be true. Some works might lose their appeal when they’re presented to serve a function other than the original. European music, however, is different from these works.
Cora: To ask this question, you must be making a mistaken assumption: that typing speed was to be maximized. The real danger with early typewriters was that operators would hit successive keys too quickly, thereby crashing typebars into each other, bending connecting wires, and so on. So the idea was to slow the operator down by making the most common letter sequences awkward to type.
Bernard: This is surely not right! These technological limitations have long since vanished, yet the keyboard is still as it was then.
Summarize Argument
Bernard concludes that the standard typewriter keyboard could not have been designed to slow the typer down. This is because the technological limitations that could lead to problems from fast typing are no longer around, but the keyboard design is still the same.
Notable Assumptions
Bernard assumes that the standard keyboard would be changed to allow for faster typing once the technological limitations around when the keyboard was originally designed are no longer present. (Maybe there are strong reasons that the keyboard wouldn’t be changed, even if we don’t need to slow people down anymore.)
A
Typewriters and word-processing equipment are typically sold to people who have learned to use the standard keyboard and who, therefore, demand it in equipment they buy.
This is a reason the keyboard design wouldn’t change, even when the technological limits are no longer present. People grew up with the slower-typing design and still want it today. This is why the fact people still use the design today doesn’t undermine Cora’s explanation.
B
Typewriters have been superseded in most offices by word-processing equipment, which has inherited the standard keyboard from typewriters.
Bernard believes the fact people still use the same design shows that the design couldn’t have been intended to slow people down. (B) simply affirms that the same design is used today, which we already knew. But it doesn’t suggest why the same design is used today, unlike (A).
C
The standard keyboard allows skilled operators to achieve considerable typing speeds, though it makes acquiring such skills relatively difficult.
Pointing out that the design still allows fast typing doesn’t engage with Bernard’s reasoning. We want to show how the design could have been intended to slow people down, despite the fact we still use the design today.
D
A person who has learned one keyboard layout can readily learn to use a second one in place of the first, but only with difficulty learn to use a second one alongside the first.
This supports Bernard’s reasoning. After all, why aren’t people changing to a faster layout if we don’t need to slow people down anymore? Bernard’s suggestion is that the lack of change implies slowing people down couldn’t be the original purpose of the design.
E
It is now possible to construct typewriters and word-processing equipment in which a single keyboard can accommodate two or even more different keyboard layouts, each accessible to the operator at will.
This supports Bernard’s reasoning. If the keyboard can be changed to accommodate a different layout, then why hasn’t the keyboard changed if it was originally intended to slow people down? To Bernard, the lack of change implies the original purpose wasn’t to slow down typing.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author claims that the current theory about earthquakes doesn’t fully explain the results we observe when earthquakes happen. This is supported by an example of the theory not matching reality. The theory predicts that earthquakes should generate a lot of heat, but in practice no earthquake-related temperature increases have been observed. That does sound mysterious.
Identify Conclusion
The author’s conclusion is that the current theory still leaves at least one aspect of earthquakes “mysterious” in that the theory’s predictions don’t quite match the actual data.
A
No increases in temperature have been detected following earthquakes.
The argument states this claim as a fact, and does not provide any support for it, which means it’s not a conclusion. Instead, this is used to support the conclusion that the current theory is incomplete.
B
The current theory does not fully explain earthquake data.
This is exactly what the author is trying to say. The conclusion that the theory leaves something “mysterious” just means that it doesn’t fully explain observed data. The discussion of temperature supports this with a concrete example.
C
No one will ever be sure what the true cause of earthquakes is.
This is not stated in the argument. The author never claims that earthquakes are impossible to understand, just that the current theory isn’t 100% perfectly complete.
D
Earthquakes produce enormous amounts of heat that have so far gone undetected.
This is not stated in the argument. The author only establishes that a mystery exists, but does not suggest any possible explanations for what might resolve the mystery.
E
Contrary to the current theory, earthquakes are not caused by adjoining plates of rock sliding past one another.
This is not stated in the argument. The author never claims that the current theory is fundamentally incorrect, just that it still needs improvement to explain every aspect of earthquake data.