The chances that tropical storms will develop in a given area increase whenever the temperature of a large body of water in that area exceeds 26 degrees Celsius to a depth of about 60 meters. If the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere continues to increase, the temperatures of all of the Earth’s waters will rise, with the result that the number of large bodies of water whose temperatures exceed 26 degrees Celsius to a depth of about 60 meters will eventually be greater than it is today.
Summary
If the temperature of a large body of water exceeds 26 degrees Celsius to a depth of about 60 meters, the chances increase that a tropical storm will develop. If the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere increases, all of Earth’s waters will rise, resulting in a greater number than today of large bodies of water where the temperature exceeds 26 degrees Celsius to a depth of 60 meters.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere increases, the likelihood that tropical storms develop in any given area on Earth will increase.
A
There are likely to be more tropical storms if the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere continues to increase.
This is strongly supported because we can connect the fact of more carbon dioxide increasing the likelihood of exceeding 26 degrees to a 60 meter depth with the fact of that temperature and depth combination resulting in a higher likelihood of tropical storms.
B
Tropical storms can occur only when the air temperature exceeds 26 degrees Celsius.
This is unsupported because we aren’t given any conditional statement saying that tropical storms only occur at this temperature range. Furthermore, the temperature range given refers to the water temperature, not the air temperature.
C
The number of large bodies of water whose temperatures exceed 26 degrees Celsius to a depth of about 60 meters is greater today than it ever was.
This is unsupported because we don’t know if there was ever a time in Earth’s history where carbon dioxide levels were higher than today, or if another factor besides carbon dioxide ever raised the temperatures of Earth’s waters in the past.
D
The ferocity of tropical storms does not depend on the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere.
This is unsupported because the stimulus only gives us information on the likelihood of tropical storms, not the severity of those storms.
E
Any increase in the temperatures of the Earth’s oceans would cause the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase as well.
This is unsupported because the stimulus indicates that the causality moves from carbon dioxide leading to higher ocean temperatures rather than the higher temperatures causing more carbon dioxide.
Tiya: But some manufacturing defects in automobiles become apparent only after several years of use.
A
It argues that Sam’s conclusion is correct, though not for the reasons Sam gives.
B
It provides evidence indicating that the survey results Sam relies on in his argument do not accurately characterize the attitudes of those surveyed.
C
It offers a consideration that undermines the support Sam offers for his conclusion.
D
It points out that Sam’s argument presupposes the truth of the conclusion Sam is defending.
E
It presents new information that implies that Sam’s conclusion is false.
Which one of the following can most reasonably be concluded on the basis of the information above?
This is a Most Strongly Supported question, because we’re looking for what can “most reasonably be concluded” on the basis of the stimulus.
All social systems are based upon a division of economic roles. The values of a social system are embodied in the prestige accorded to persons who fill various economic roles.
This sounds like the beginning of a sociology textbook. Social systems are divided into economic roles – food producer, teacher, scientist, delivery driver, LSAT instructor, etc. The values of a social system are reflected in the prestige that people in different roles have. For example, in our modern social system, a doctor has more prestige than a grocery store clerk. A lawyer has more prestige than an LSAT instructor, sadly. This says something about the values of our social system.
It is therefore unsurprising that, for any social system, the introduction of labor-saving technology that makes certain economic roles obsolete will tend to undermine the values in that social system.
Think about ChatGPT and developments in AI. These might make certain roles obsolete – copywriting, translating, even some roles involving legal analysis or medical diagnoses. And if these roles go away, apparently the values of the social system will be undermined. I’m not sure that’s a logically valid conclusion, but that doesn’t matter on a Most Strongly Supported question. We should just accept that, for any social system, if technology makes certain roles obsolete, that will undermine the social system’s values.
The stimulus doesn’t lead up to any particular conclusion, so let’s jump into the answers and look for something that is most strongly supported via process of elimination.
Answer Choice (A) Social systems will have unchanging values if they are shielded from technological advancement.
The stimulus doesn’t tell us what will happen if a society does not undergo technological change. We do know that if technological change makes certain roles obsolete, that will undermine values. But what happens if technological change doesn’t happen at all? We don’t know.
If you picked this answer, you’re likely falling for the oldest trick in the book: mixing up a sufficient condition and a necessary condition. Technological change that makes roles obsolete is sufficient to lead to a change in values. But that doesn’t mean technological change is necessary for a change in values. Values can change for other reasons, such as social movements or religions.
Answer Choice (B) No type of technology will fail to undermine the values in a social system.
The stimulus doesn’t suggest that every kind of technology will undermine values. We know that it’s possible for some technologies to undermine values (via making certain roles obsolete). But we cannot hastily generalize to the conclusion that all technologies will undermine values. For example, maybe there’s a new hi-tech glove developed that helps crack your knuckles more easily. That might not put anyone out of a job. And if it doesn’t, this tech won’t necessarily have an impact on social values.
Correct Answer Choice (C) A social system whose values are not susceptible to change would not be one in which technology can eliminate economic roles.
Short explanation: (C) is the contrapositive of a claim in the stimulus.
Long explanation: This is a tough correct answer, because it doesn’t sound like anything an actual person would ever say on the basis of the stimulus. In a timed situation, it’s easier to pick (C) through process of elimination than through complete understanding of why it’s supported.
Remember, the stimulus told us:
...for any social system, the introduction of labor-saving technology that makes certain economic roles obsolete will tend to undermine the values in that social system.
What if there is a society whose values can never be undermined by anything? I know it doesn’t make sense based on your understanding of real life societies. But just imagine it.
In this kind of society – where values can never be undermined – is it possible for technology to make economic roles obsolete? Well, if technology did come along that made certain roles obsolete, then according to the stimulus, that technology would tend to undermine the social system’s values. But we’re imagining a society where values can never be undermined. So it wouldn’t make sense for technology to be able to make roles obsolete in this society.
If it helps, you can break down the last sentence as a conditional statement:
In any society, if technology makes some economic roles obsolete, then the values of the society are sometimes undermined.
You can kick up the condition “in any society” to the domain – this is the set of things the conditional applies to: societies.
Domain: All societies
technology makes some economic roles obsolete → the values are sometimes undermined.
What’s the contrapositive of this? Switch both sides and negate:
Domain: All societies
the values cannot be undermined → technology cannot make economic roles obsolete.
This is why (C) is supported. If a society’s values can’t change, that means they can’t be undermined, which triggers the contrapositive. That means technology can’t eliminate economic roles in that society.
Answer Choice (D) A technologically advanced society will place little value on the prestige associated with an economic role.
This is very tempting. If you chose (D), you probably reasoned as follows: We know that labor-saving technology will render economic roles obsolete which in turn will undermine the values of that society. It follows that a technologically advanced society will have rendered much or even most of their economic roles obsolete. Hence, that society will have undermined much or even most of their values. Hence, that society will place little value on the prestige associated with an economic role.
That line of reasoning is faulty for too many reasons. I’ll just spotlight three.
First, it does not follow that a technologically advanced society will have rendered much or even most of their economic roles obsolete. A technologically advanced society surely will have rendered much or perhaps most of their previous economic roles obsolete. But new roles will arise. For example, our society has rendered the hard labor associated with farming mostly obsolete which has allowed new roles (climate scientists; rocket engineers; AI programmers) to arise.
Second, focus on the phrase “little value.” We know that technological change can undermine a society’s values, if that change makes certain roles obsolete. But the stimulus doesn’t suggest anything about an absolute amount of value such as “little” or “a lot” or “low” or “high.” Perhaps a technologically advanced society places less value on one thing – let’s say, physical strength – and more value on another – typing speed. And a change in technology, if it eliminates economic roles, might increase or decrease the value associated with physical strength or typing speed. But we don’t have enough to say this society places “little” value on physical strength or any other thing.
A third issue with this answer is that it refers to a society placing value on prestige. But the stimulus only stated that the values of a social system are “embodied in the prestige” of various roles. Having the values of society reflected in the prestige of a particular role such as a doctor or lawyer is unrelated to the idea of valuing prestige itself. For example, a society in which doctors are highly prestigious reflects the society’s valuing of saving lives, healing wounds, delivering babies, etc. But that doesn’t mean this society places value on prestige. Prestige is just the byproduct of a society’s values.
Answer Choice (E) A technological innovation that is implemented in a social system foreign to the one in which it was developed will tend to undermine the foreign social system.
This is tempting based on our own sense of what has often happened in history. When Europeans brought guns and steel armor to the New World, that changed Native American societies. But the stimulus never suggests anything about what happens when we bring technology into a foreign social system. Will technology automatically make certain jobs obsolete in a foreign social system? We don’t know.
Many technological innovations may simply fit neatly into an existing social system, even if that social system is foreign to the one in which that innovation was developed. For example, if we discover alien technology that allows us to fall asleep 5 minutes faster every day, that wouldn’t necessarily change much about our society. No one’s job is threatened by this technology, and we could easily integrate the technology into our daily lives without significant change. The mere fact that this sleep-aiding technology was developed in an alien society does not mean that it will undermine our own social system.
If a social system cannot change, then there is no possibility for there to be labor-saving technology.
A
Social systems will have unchanging values if they are shielded from technological advancement.
B
No type of technology will fail to undermine the values in a social system.
C
A social system whose values are not susceptible to change would not be one in which technology can eliminate economic roles.
D
A technologically advanced society will place little value on the prestige associated with an economic role.
E
A technological innovation that is implemented in a social system foreign to the one in which it was developed will tend to undermine the foreign social system.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?
This is a Main Conclusion question.
More women than men suffer from Alzheimer’s disease–a disease that is most commonly contracted by elderly persons.
More women than men suffer from Alzheimer’s. That seems to be an interesting fact – a phenomenon.
This discrepancy has often been attributed to women’s longer life span…
The next line gives us another person’s position: “this discrepancy,” which is referring to the fact more women than men have Alzheimer’s, is attributed to (or in other words, caused by) women’s longer life span.
Before you keep reading, let’s take time to digest. Alzheimer’s is mainly in older people, and women have more Alzheimer’s than men. One possible explanation for this is the fact that women live longer – so you’d naturally expect more women to have Alzheimer’s, since that’s a disease of older people.
… but this theory may be wrong.
But wait! The author swoops in with “this theory may be wrong.” That’s a disagreement with other people’s position, which means it’s likely to be the author’s conclusion. What does “this” refer to? It’s referring to the hypothesis that the reason there are more women than men with Alzheimer’s is that women live longer. The author’s saying, “No, that’s not the reason.”
Make sure to be precise about translating the author’s conclusion. They’re not saying that Alzheimer’s isn’t found more in women. They’re agreeing that it is found more in women. But they’re disagreeing with the explanation. The author’s saying, “There must be some other reasons besides women living longer that explains why more women than men have Alzheimer’s.” Why should we believe this? Let’s keep reading.
A recent study has shown that prescribing estrogen to women after menopause, when estrogen production in the body decreases, may prevent them from developing the disease. Men’s supply of testosterone may help safeguard them against Alzheimer’s disease because much of it is converted by the body to estrogen, and testosterone levels stay relatively stable into old age.
We’re told about a recent study that has shown that giving estrogen to women after menopause helps prevent them from developing Alzheimer’s. In addition, we know that men’s supply of testosterone can help prevent Alzheimer’s, since testosterone is turned into estrogen as men age. These two points are giving us some evidence that estrogen may be a potential cause of less Alzheimer’s.
That description of estrogen and its potential effect in preventing Alzheimer’s is offered as a premise for why the hypothesis in the first half might be wrong. The reason more women than men have Alzheimer’s might not be women’s longer lifespan, because it could have something to do with estrogen.
Since we’re looking for the Main Conclusion, let’s look for something along the lines of “Women’s longer lifespan might not be the reason there are more women than men who have Alzheimer’s.”
Correct Answer Choice (A) A decrease in estrogen, rather than longer life span, may explain the higher occurrence of Alzheimer’s disease in women relative to men.
This is a good example of how the correct answer to a Main Conclusion Question can bring in some element of the reasoning. We were looking for something that said the longer life span explanation might be wrong. This answer does say that, but also brings in the hypothesis that the author was suggesting might be the true explanation. This ends up being the best answer, because there’s nothing else that simply states that the longer life span explanation might be wrong.
Answer Choice (B) As one gets older, one’s chances of developing Alzheimer’s disease increase.
This answer has nothing to do with the author’s opinion about the longer life span theory, so we can eliminate it. In addition, (B) isn’t supported by the stimulus. We don’t know that there’s an increasing tendency to develop Alzheimer’s. All we know is that Alzheimer’s is most commonly contracted by old people. But maybe the rate of Alzheimer’s just flattens out after a certain age; it doesn’t need to keep increasing.
Answer Choice (C) Women who go through menopause earlier in life than do most other women have an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
Again, we know the conclusion has to do with suggesting the longer life span theory might be wrong. This answer has nothing to do with that. In addition, (C) is not supported by the stimulus. We know that women who go through menopause start producing less estrogen than they did before. But that doesn’t mean the subset of women who go through menopause earlier in life than most others automatically have increased risk of Alzheimer’s. Maybe the people who go through menopause earlier than most others tend to be the ones who start off with the most estrogen production, and so naturally tend to get less Alzheimer’s than most others? We just have no idea what’s true about this group of women.
Answer Choice (D) The conversion of testosterone into estrogen may help safeguard men from Alzheimer’s disease.
This is a tempting answer choice, because it’s something the author agrees with – this was part of the reasoning of the argument. But it was provided as support for the conclusion that the longer life span theory might be wrong. If you picked this answer, then you are saying that the last sentence of the stimulus contains the conclusion. But where would the statement “this theory may be wrong” fit into the argument if you believe the last sentence is the conclusion? It would have no place, because that comment on the longer life span theory being wrong doesn’t help prove anything about estrogen and testosterone. That’s how we can tell the last sentence is not the main conclusion of the argument.
Answer Choice (E) Testosterone is necessary for preventing Alzheimer’s disease in older men.
As with the other wrong answers (B), (C), and (D), this one also doesn’t say anything about how the longer life span theory might be wrong. So it doesn’t capture the author’s conclusion, which was about that theory. And, like (B) and (C), (E) is not supported by the stimulus. We know testosterone “may help safeguard” against Alzheimer’s, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessary to prevent Alzheimer’s in men. Something can be helpful without being necessary.