Summary
If any work of art exploits some of the musical characteristics of language, then it is a poem. A novel does not usually exploit the musical characteristics of language, but it may be a work of art. A symphony rarely involves language, but it may exploit the musical characteristics of sounds. A limerick is not art, but it may exploit some musical characteristics of language.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If a novel is a work of art and exploits some of the musical characteristics of language, then it is a poem.
A
If a creation is neither a poem, nor a novel, nor a symphony, then it is not a work of art.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if a work of art must either be a poem, novel, or a symphony.
B
An example of so-called blank verse, which does not rhyme, is not really a poem.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what types of works, if any, are not poems. We only know from the stimulus a sufficient condition for a work being a poem.
C
If a novel exploits meter and rhyme while standing as a work of art, then it is both a novel and a poem.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that a work of art that exploits at least some of the musical characteristics of language are poems. Meter and rhyme are musical characteristics of language.
D
Limericks constitute a nonartistic type of poetry.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what conditions are sufficient for a work to be a nonartistic type of poetry.
E
If a symphony does not exploit the musical characteristics of sound, then it is not a work of art.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know that if a symphony is a work of art, that it must exploit the musical characteristics of sound. We only know that symphonies rarely involve language and sometimes exploit the musical characteristics of sound.
Summarize Argument
The president claims the Planning Board's estimate that businesses are leaving the region at a rate of four per week is an exaggeration. He supports this by saying that since there were never more than about a thousand businesses in the region, and no new businesses have moved in over the last ten years, they would have all disappeared by now if that estimate were accurate.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The president assumes that the Planning Board’s estimate has been the case for a long period of time. But just because business are leaving the region at a rate of four per week doesn’t mean that they have been leaving at this rate for many months or years. If business only started leaving at this rate very recently, the president’s argument falls apart.
A
focuses on what is going out of a system while ignoring the issue of what is coming into the system
The president doesn’t ignore the issue of what’s coming into the system. In fact, he explicitly states that “almost no new businesses have moved into our region or started up here over the last ten years.”
B
confuses a claim about a rate of change within a system with a claim about the absolute size of the system
The argument addresses a claim about the rate of change and a claim about the absolute size of the system, but the president doesn’t confuse these claims. Instead, he uses a claim about absolute size to refute the claim about the rate of change.
C
argues against a position simply by showing that the position serves the interest of the Planning Board
The president never claims that the Planning Board’s estimate serves their own interest.
D
treats a claim about what is currently the case as if it were a claim about what has been the case for an extended period
The president treats the claim that businesses are currently leaving the region at a rate of four per week as if it has been the case for an extended period of time. But perhaps businesses only began leaving at that rate very recently. If so, the president’s argument falls apart.
E
attacks what was offered as an estimate on the ground that it is not precise
The president never attacks the precision of the Planning Board’s estimate. Instead, he claims that the estimate is exaggerated.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that experiencing an earthquake can cause people to dream about earthquakes. This is based on a study where students in California who had experienced an earthquake later dreamed about earthquakes, while students in Ontario who hadn’t experienced an earthquake didn’t dream about earthquakes.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the students in California hadn’t dreamed about earthquakes before experiencing one. If that were the case, then the connection between experiencing an earthquake and dreaming about earthquakes would be tenuous.
A
Before the California earthquake, no more of the students in California than of those in Ontario recorded dreams about earthquakes.
Since the students in California were no more likely to dream about earthquakes before the earthquake struck, the earthquake seems to have caused the dreams. This strengthens the causal relationship.
B
The students in California were members of a class studying dreams and dream recollection, but the students in Ontario were not.
This weakens the author’s argument. Perhaps the students in Ontario didn’t remember their earthquake dreams because they hadn’t studied dream recollection.
C
Before they started keeping records of their dreams, many of the students in California had experienced at least one earthquake.
We don’t care about other earthquakes. We know that the students dreamed of earthquakes after the one that struck, and we’re trying to strengthen the causal relationship between those dreams and that earthquake.
D
The students in Ontario reported having more dreams overall, per student, than the students in California did.
We don’t care about overall dreams. We know the students in Ontario didn’t dream about earthquakes.
E
The students in Ontario who reported having dreams about earthquakes recorded the dreams as having occurred after the California earthquake.
Perhaps those students heard about the earthquake and dreamed about it. The fact remains that the vast majority of students in Ontario didn’t dream about earthquakes.
Summary
One of the most challenging problems in historiography is dating an event when sources offer conflicting information. Historians should minimize the number of these sources by eliminating less credible ones. Once this happens, historians should try to determine independently which of the sources is most likely to be right, although they are sometimes unsuccessful.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
There are some events that historians have not reliably dated.
A
We have no plausible chronology of most of the events for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date.
This is too broad to support. There is not enough support to contend that we have no plausible chronology of “most” disputed events. The stimulus says that historians were unable to successfully date *some* events.
B
Some of the events for which there are conflicting chronologies and for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date cannot be dated reliably by historians.
The stimulus says that historians “on occasion unsuccessfully” try to determine the date for an event after minimizing competing sources. This implies that there are at least some events that cannot be dated reliably.
C
Attaching a reliable date to any event requires determining which of several conflicting chronologies is most likely to be true.
This is too broad to support. The stimulus only concerns dates where the usual sources offer conflicting information, not “any event.”
D
Determining independently of the usual sources which of several conflicting chronologies is more likely to be right is an ineffective way of dating events.
This is antisupported. The stimulus suggests this method to date events.
E
The soundest approach to dating an event for which the usual sources give conflicting chronologies is to undermine the credibility of as many of these sources as possible.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus says that this is *an* approach, not that this is the *soundest* or best approach. Be wary of these strong words in answer choices! They can sometimes be supported, but make sure to double-check the stimulus for the support.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it’s surprising airports are expanding their passenger terminals. This is because air traffic volume is down, and airport expansion can only be justified by increased air traffic volume.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that airports can’t plan ahead for increased air traffic later on. If airports were simply taking the lull in air traffic as an opportunity to make expansions for later, then the author’s argument would be seriously weakened.
A
It is generally more difficult to finance major construction projects when the economy is in a period of decline.
We have no idea if the economy is currently in decline.
B
Low volume in passenger air travel permits airport expansion with relatively little inconvenience to the public.
Airports are taking the opportunity to expand without disrupting people using the airports. This explains why they’ve decided to undertake those expansions at the present moment.
C
A rise in fuel costs that is expected in the near future will drive up the cost of all forms of transportation, including airline travel.
We don’t care about transportation costs. We care about airport expansions.
D
When passenger volume begins to grow again after a period of decline, most airlines can, initially, absorb the increase without adding new routes or new planes.
Irrelevant. We care about expansions.
E
A sustained decline in passenger travel could lead to the failure of many airlines and the absorption of their routes by those airlines that survive.
Irrelevant. We care about expansions.