Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician Pierre de Fermat died in 1665 without leaving behind any written proof for a theorem that he claimed nonetheless to have proved. Probably this alleged theorem simply cannot be proved, since—as the article points out—no one else has been able to prove it. Therefore it is likely that Fermat was either lying or else mistaken when he made his claim.
Laura: Your encyclopedia is out of date. Recently someone has in fact proved Fermat’s theorem. And since the theorem is provable, your claim—that Fermat was lying or mistaken—clearly is wrong.
A
It purports to establish its conclusion by making a claim that, if true, would actually contradict that conclusion.
Laura’s premise doesn't support her conclusion well, but it doesn’t contradict her conclusion.
B
It mistakenly assumes that the quality of a person’s character can legitimately be taken to guarantee the accuracy of the claims that person has made.
Laura doesn’t make any claims or assumptions about the quality of Fermat’s character or how his character affects the accuracy of his claims.
C
It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.
In order for Laura’s conclusion— that Fermat was neither lying nor mistaken about proving the theorem— to follow, it is necessary that the theorem is actually provable. But the theorem being provable does not ensure that this conclusion follows.
D
It uses the term “provable” without defining it.
It’s true that Laura never defines the term “provable,” but this isn’t an error in her argument. She doesn’t need to define the term.
E
It fails to distinguish between a true claim that has mistakenly been believed to be false and a false claim that has mistakenly been believed to be true.
Laura doesn’t mention either of these kinds of claims, nor does she fail to distinguish between them. Joseph mistakenly believes a true claim— that the theorem is provable— to be false, but this doesn’t describe an error in Laura’s argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a family business is a family’s surest road to financial prosperity. This is based on the fact that in a business whose owners and employees are all part of a family, the employees can be paid exceptionally low wages. This allow general operating expenses to be lower than they would be for non-family business, which makes profits higher.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that paying family members exceptionally low wages is something that might undermine a family’s financial prosperity. Although profits might be higher for the family, if family members get lower wages, that might counteract the higher profits and leave the family in no better an economic position.
A
ignores the fact that businesses that achieve high levels of customer satisfaction are often profitable even if they pay high wages
The author never assumed that businesses that pay high wages can’t be profitable. His position is simply that paying exceptionally low wages can help a business become more profitable than it otherwise would be.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that businesses that pay the lowest wages have the lowest general operating expenses and thus the highest profits
This is too extreme. The author does assume that paying low wages leads to lower expenses and higher profits, but that doesn’t mean the business that pays the “lowest” wages has the “lowest” expenses or the “highest” profits.
C
ignores the fact that in a family business, paying family members low wages may itself reduce the family’s prosperity
The author overlooks the fact that paying family members exceptionally low wages might reduce family prosperity, which might cancel out whatever extra profits can be gained in a family business. The overall $ brought in might not be higher if you pay family low wages.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that family members are willing to work for low wages in a family business because they believe that doing so promotes the family’s prosperity
The author doesn’t make any assumptions about employees’ intentions. Maybe they are willing to work for low wages because otherwise they’ll be punished by their parents? The author doesn’t have to think they want to make money for the family.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that only businesses with low general operating expenses can succeed
The author doesn’t take a position on whether only businesses with low general operating expenses can succeed. Maybe other kinds of businesses can succeed, too, but just not as easily or as much.
Summary
Poppy petals attract pollinating insects. When a poppy flower is pollinated, a substance is released that causes the petals to wilt in one to two days. If a flower is not pollinated then if the plant can nourish the petals, they will remain fresh for a week or more and the substance is not released. Cutting an unpollinated poppy flower from the plant causes the same substance to be released that is released by pollination.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Cutting a poppy flower from the plant can cause it to wilt even if it was not pollinated.
A
Pollinating insects are not attracted to wilted poppy flowers.
This is unsupported because the stimulus fails to provide us with any indication of what pollinating insects are drawn to or how the wilting flowers affect pollinators’ behavior.
B
Even if cut poppies are given all necessary nutrients, their petals will tend to wilt within a few days.
This is strongly supported because cutting poppy flowers triggers the release of the substance that causes wilting in pollinated flowers. Since the substance causes wilting in one to two days, we can expect this same outcome.
C
Flowers of all plants release the substance that causes wilting when they are cut, although the amount released may vary.
This is unsupported because the stimulus only discusses poppy plants, so we don’t know if other plants have this same substance.
D
The pollen on pollinated poppy flowers prevents their petals from absorbing the nutrients carried to them by their stems.
This is unsupported because the stimulus states nothing about the relationship between pollination and nutrients. Even though the petals wilt after pollination, they may still receive nutrients.
E
Poppy plants are unable to draw nutrients from soil or water after the substance that causes wilting has been released.
This is unsupported because while we know that poppy seeds wilt after the substance is released, they may still be drawing nutrients from the soil. We don’t know the connection between wilting and nutrients.