A
generalizes inappropriately from an unrepresentative sample of residents of Groverhill
B
fails to consider whether any residents of Groverhill visit physicians who are not located in Groverhill
C
overlooks the possibility that residents of Groverhill visited their physicians more than once during the year for the same condition
D
fails to provide any evidence to support the claim that the residents of Groverhill have an unusually high occurrence of severe headaches
E
takes for granted that every resident of Groverhill who suffers from severe headaches would consult a physician about this condition
Economist: In free market systems, the primary responsibility of corporate executives is to determine a nation’s industrial technology, the pattern of work organization, location of industry, and resource allocation. They also are the decision makers, though subject to significant consumer control, on what is to be produced and in what quantities. In short, a large category of major decisions is turned over to business executives. Thus, business executives have become public officials.
Summarize Argument
The economist concludes that business executives have become public officials. She supports this by saying that business executives are responsible for key decisions like industrial technology, work organization, industry location, and resource allocation. They also decide what and how much to produce, although consumers have some influence.
Notable Assumptions
In order for business executives to be considered public officials, the economist must assume that the “large category of major decisions” that they are responsible for is sufficient for making someone a public official. In other words, she must assume that, just because business executives make these decisions, they are public officials.
A
Most of the decisions made by business executives in free market systems are made by the government in countries with centrally planned economies.
The economist’s argument only addresses business executives in free market systems. So the decision-making in countries with centrally planned economies is not relevant.
B
Making decisions about patterns of work organization, resource allocation, and location of industry is not the core of a public official’s job.
This weakens the economist’s argument by pointing out her key assumption. She assumes that making the decisions mentioned is a sufficient reason to call someone a public official. But if these decisions aren’t the core of a public official’s job, her argument falls apart.
C
The salaries of business executives are commensurate with the salaries of high-ranking public officials.
It doesn’t matter that business executives and high-ranking public officials have similar salaries. We’re only concerned with the decisions made by business executives and whether those decisions make them public officials.
D
What a country produces and in what quantities is not always completely controlled by corporate executives.
We already know that decisions about a country’s production, though made by business executives, are “subject to significant consumer control.” The question is whether making decisions about these things means that business executives are public officials.
E
Public officials and business executives often cooperate in making decisions of national importance.
Whether public officials and business executives work together in making decisions is irrelevant. We need to know if making these decisions is enough reason to say that business executives are public officials.
Tamika: Many people have been duped by the claims of those who market certain questionable medical products. Their susceptibility is easy to explain: most people yearn for easy solutions to complex medical problems but don’t have the medical knowledge necessary to see through the sellers’ fraudulent claims. However, the same explanation cannot be given for a recent trend among medical professionals toward a susceptibility to fraudulent claims. They, of course, have no lack of medical knowledge.
Summarize Argument
Tamika implicitly concludes that there must be some other explanation for why medical professionals fall for fraudulent marketing claims about medical products. She supports this by saying that the explanation for why many people fall for such claims is that they lack necessary medical knowledge. However, this explanation doesn't apply to medical professionals because they have plenty of medical knowledge.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Tamika argues that one explanation— lacking medical knowledge— cannot be used to account for two groups’ similar behavior. As evidence, she points out that the two groups are dissimilar in relevant ways: while many people who believe fraudulent medical claims lack medical knowledge, medical professionals who fall for these claims have plenty of medical knowledge.
A
showing by analogy that medical professionals should not be susceptible to the fraudulent claims of those who market certain medical products
Tamika never suggests that medical professionals shouldn’t be susceptible to these fraudulent claims. She simply states that the explanation that people who fall for such claims lack medical knowledge does not account for the medical professionals’ susceptibility.
B
arguing against a hypothesis by showing that the hypothesis cannot account for the behavior of everyone
Tamika never argues against the hypothesis that people who fall for the fraudulent claims lack medical knowledge. She just argues that, while the hypothesis explains the susceptibility of many people to such claims, it doesn’t explain the susceptibility of medical professionals.
C
explaining the susceptibility of medical professionals to the fraudulent claims of those marketing certain medical products by casting doubt on the expertise of the professionals
Tamika doesn’t cast doubt on the expertise of the medical professionals. In fact, she explicitly says that they “have no lack of medical knowledge.”
D
arguing that since two groups are disanalogous in important respects, there must be different explanations for their similar behavior
Tamika argues that since two groups (”many people” and medical professionals) are disanalogous in important respects (one group lacks medical knowledge and the other has plenty), there must be different explanations for their similar susceptibility to fraudulent medical claims.
E
arguing that an explanation should be accepted in spite of apparent evidence against it
Tamika argues that the explanation that people lack medical knowledge “cannot be given” to account for medical professionals’ susceptibility to fraudulent claims. She argues that this explanation cannot be accepted because of clear evidence against it.
Any good garden compost may appropriately be used for soil drainage and fertility. The best compost is 40 to 60 percent organic matter and is dark brown in color. However, compost that emits a strong ammonia smell should not be used for drainage and fertility, for that smell means that the organic matter has not sufficiently decomposed.
Summary
The best compost is dark brown and is made of 40-60% organic matter, but any good compost can be used for soil drainage and fertility. However, if it smells strongly of ammonia, that means that the organic matter in the compost hasn’t sufficiently decomposed and the compost should not be used for drainage and fertility.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The decomposition of a compost’s organic material is an important factor in that compost’s usefulness.
If compost cannot be used for soil drainage or fertility, it is not good compost.
If compost smells strongly of ammonia, it is not good compost.
A
Compost that is 80 percent organic matter has probably not decomposed sufficiently.
Unsupported. The stimulus does not draw any connection between the percentage of the compost’s organic matter and its rate of decomposition. It only tells us that a compost that smells like ammonia has not sufficiently decomposed.
B
If compost is less than 40 percent organic matter and is not dark brown in color, then it will make soil less fertile and will worsen soil drainage.
Unsupported. We know that the compost described in this answer choice is not the best compost. However, we do not know that compost that is not the best will actually worsen or harm the soil.
C
If compost is 50 percent organic matter and that organic matter is sufficiently decomposed, then the compost is good.
Unsupported. Neither characteristic is sufficient for good compost. The stimulus doesn't suggest that 50% organic matter is sufficient to be the best compost, and being sufficiently decomposed is a necessary condition for good compost—not a sufficient condition.
D
In the best garden compost, the organic matter is completely decomposed.
Unsupported. The stimulus suggests nothing about completely decomposed organic matter. In any good compost, and therefore in the best compost, any organic matter must be merely sufficiently decomposed.
E
Compost that is dark brown in color and emits a strong ammonia smell is not good garden compost.
Strongly supported. If compost emits a strong ammonia smell, it should not be used for soil drainage or fertility. If compost should not be used for soil drainage or fertility, it is not good compost. So if compost emits a strong ammonia smell, it is not good compost.