Zachary: The term “fresco” refers to paint that has been applied to wet plaster. Once dried, a fresco indelibly preserves the paint that a painter has applied in this way. Unfortunately, additions known to have been made by later painters have obscured the original fresco work done by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. Therefore, in order to restore Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel paintings to the appearance that Michelangelo intended them to have, everything except the original fresco work must be stripped away.

Stephen: But it was extremely common for painters of Michelangelo’s era to add painted details to their own fresco work after the frescos had dried.

Summary

Zachary: Fresco refers to paint applied to wet plaster. Fresco will preserve the paint as applied by the painter. Later painters made additions to Michelangelo’s fresco in the Sistine Chapel. To restore the Sistine Chapel’s paintings to Michelangelo’s intentions, all but the original fresco must be removed.

Stephen: Painters around Michelangelo’s era commonly added paint to their own work after the original fresco had dried.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Stripping away all of the additions to the original fresco may also strip away additions Michelangelo made to his own work. Removing all of these additions may make the work less in line with Michelangelo’s intentions.

A
It is impossible to distinguish the later painted additions made to Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel paintings from the original fresco work.

This is unsupported because the authors leave out information regarding the noticeable differences between Michelangelo’s work and additions made by later artists.

B
Stripping away everything except Michelangelo’s original fresco work from the Sistine Chapel paintings would be unlikely to restore them to the appearance Michelangelo intended them to have.

This is strongly supported because stripping away everything but the original fresco may result in some of Michelangelo’s own intended additions also being removed.

C
The painted details that painters of Michelangelo’s era added to their own fresco work were not an integral part of the completed paintings’ overall design.

This is unsupported because the stimulus avoids offering information on the components of a work’s design or the impact that additional details have on design.

D
None of the painters of Michelangelo’s era who made additions to the Sistine Chapel paintings was an important artist in his or her own right.

This is unsupported because the painters who made additions may themselves have been important artists. The stimulus does not specify who made additions to the Sistine Chapel paintings.

E
Michelangelo was rarely satisfied with the appearance of his finished works.

This is unsupported because we don’t know how often Michelangelo made additions to his entire body of works or whether or not those additions reflect dissatisfaction with the original work.


42 comments

Critic: Many popular psychological theories are poor theories in that they are inelegant and do not help to dispel the mystery that surrounds our psyche. However, this is not really important. The theories produce the right results: therapeutically, they tend to have greater success than their more scientific rivals.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The critic believes that it doesn’t really matter that some popular psychological theories are inelegant and don’t demystify the mind. To support this, the critic explains that these popular theories tend to give better results in therapy than the more elegant, more explanatory theories. This indicates that the popular theories have practical merit, thus supporting the critic’s conclusion that their inelegance isn’t important.

Identify Argument Part
The statement about relative therapeutic success is used to support the conclusion that the inelegance of some popular theories is not especially important. In other words, this statement helps to rebut a criticism of some popular theories.

A
It is used to disprove evidence against these theories.
Like (C) and (E), the argument doesn’t do this. The critic never attempts to disprove the claims made against the popular theories. Instead, the argument is about focusing on a different aspect: practicality rather than scientific merit.
B
It is used to override some considerations against these theories.
This is a good description of the role played by the claim about relative therapeutic success. The critic uses this claim as evidence that the criticism isn’t important, and that the considerations against the popular theories should be overridden by their therapeutic value.
C
It is used to suggest that popular psychological theories are actually better scientific explanations than are their rivals.
Like (A) and (E), no part of the argument does this; the critic never disputes that the popular theories are scientifically weaker. Instead, the argument redirects the focus from scientific merit to practical merit.
D
It is used to illustrate what the critic takes to be the most important aspect of scientific theories.
There’s nothing in the argument about what the critic takes to be the most important aspect of scientific theories, especially not in an absolute sense among all possible aspects. Nothing in the argument tells us this.
E
It is used to suggest that the popular theories may not be as devoid of explanatory power as one may be led to believe.
Like (A) and (C), this isn’t something that the argument suggests. The critic never tries to debate the popular theories’ lack of explanatory power.

22 comments

Science journalist: Brown dwarfs are celestial objects with more mass than planets but less mass than stars. They are identified by their mass and whether or not lithium is present in their atmospheres. Stars at least as massive as the Sun have lithium remaining in their atmospheres because the mixing of elements in their internal nuclear furnaces is incomplete. Stars with less mass than the Sun have no lithium because the element has been fully mixed into their nuclear furnaces and consumed. A brown dwarf does not have a fully functional nuclear furnace and so its lithium cannot be consumed.

Summary

Brown dwarfs are more massive than planets but less massive than stars. They are identified by their mass and whether or not lithium is present in their atmospheres. A brown dwarf’s lithium cannot be consumed because they do not have a functional nuclear furnace.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

If a celestial object does not have lithium in its atmosphere, then it is not a brown dwarf.

A
Any celestial object without lithium in its atmosphere is a star with less mass than the Sun.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus that any celestial object without lithium must be a star. We only know from the stimulus that some stars do have lithium in their atmospheres.

B
Any celestial object with lithium in its atmosphere has a nuclear furnace that has incompletely mixed the object’s elements.

This answer is unsupported. We know that this is true of stars at least as massive as the sun, but saying this is true of any celestial object is too strong.

C
No celestial object that has no lithium in its atmosphere is a brown dwarf.

This answer is strongly supported. We know that brown dwarf’s must have lithium in their atmospheres because it cannot be consumed by a nuclear furnace.

D
No celestial object with lithium in its atmosphere has less mass than the Sun.

This answer is unsupported. This is the reverse relationship from the stimulus. The stimulus tells us that if a star is at least as massive as the sun, then there is lithium in that star’s atmosphere.

E
No celestial object less massive than a brown dwarf has lithium in its atmosphere.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about celestial objects with less mass than brown dwarfs from the stimulus. The stimulus is limited to brown dwarfs and celestial objects with greater mass.


207 comments

Asthmagon was long considered the most effective of the drugs known as beta-2 agonists, designed to alleviate asthma attacks. However, studies conducted in Rhiago between 1981 and 1987 revealed that nearly one out of every five of the asthma patients under observation who took asthmagon suffered serious side effects after taking the drug. Citing this statistic, some doctors argue that asthmagon should be banned as an anti-asthma drug.

Summarize Argument
Some doctors argue that asthmagon should be banned for asthma patients. Their support is that 20% of asthma patients suffered serious side effects from asthmagon during studies.

Notable Assumptions
The doctors assume that asthmagon should be banned based on its side effects. This means that they believe the serious side effects outweigh any potential benefits that asthmagon affords asthma patients. The doctors also assume that asthmagon hasn’t changed as a drug since these studies were undertaken, and that the studies weren’t compromised by some external factor.

A
In Rhiago, where asthmagon had been the most widely prescribed of the beta-2 agonists, the number of asthma deaths increased between 1981 and 1987.
If asthma deaths increased in an area where asthmagon was prescribed, that suggests the drug isn’t working all that well. This certainly doesn’t weaken the claim that asthmagon should be banned.
B
Many of the patients under observation to whom asthmagon was administered had not previously taken a beta-2 agonist.
Regardless of what the patients had previously taken, asthmagon had serious side effects. That alone, at least for the doctors, is enough to ban it. This doesn’t weaken that claim.
C
Despite the growing concern about the drug, many physicians in Rhiago still prescribe asthmagon to asthma sufferers.
We don’t care what doctors do. We care about whether or not asthmagon should be banned because of its side effects.
D
Among the patients observed, only those who had very high cholesterol counts suffered side effects after taking asthmagon.
Asthmagon does cause side effects, but only for a certain subset of patients. It doesn’t follow to ban asthmagon for everyone, which is what the doctors are recommending.
E
Asthmagon increases the severity of asthma attacks in some people because the drug can cause damage to heart tissues.
This is yet another reason to ban asthmagon. We’re looking for an answer that weakens the doctors’ stance.

33 comments

Letter to the editor: After Baerton’s factory closed, there was a sharp increase in the number of claims filed for job-related injury compensation by the factory’s former employees. Hence there is reason to believe that most of those who filed for compensation after the factory closed were just out to gain benefits they did not deserve, and filed only to help them weather their job loss.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the factory’s former employees filed for benefits to help weather unemployment, rather than for legitimate injury-related reasons. He supports this stance by pointing to the increase in injury claims made after the factory closed, compared to while the factory was open.

Notable Assumptions
Based on a correlation between injury claims and employment status, the author assumes the latter is causing the former. The author also assumes that former employees don’t have legitimate injuries they withheld making claims for until after their employment came to an end. And the author assumes that nothing happened shortly before the factory closed that would’ve caused a legitimate increase in injury claims.

A
Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearing loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.
Since workers can’t file for compensation until after their employment ends, it makes sense claims went up after the factory closed. This certainly weakens.
B
In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.
Employees were afraid to file injury claims, since the ones who did lost their jobs. This explains the sharp increase in claims once the factory shut down.
C
Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.
If most workers file for compensation right away, then why did all these employees wait until after the factory closed? This doesn’t give us nearly enough information to weaken the author’s argument.
D
Workers who incur partial disabilities due to injuries on the job often do not file for compensation because they would have to stop working to receive compensation but cannot afford to live on that compensation alone.
Workers chose not to file injury claims since they would’ve had to have stopped working. Once the factory was closed, they were free to file those claims since they no longer had jobs to protect.
E
Workers who are aware that they will soon be laid off from a job often become depressed, making them more prone to job-related injuries.
Workers actually sustained more workplace injuries shortly before the factory closed, hence why they filed more claims.

73 comments