Sam: Mountain lions, a protected species, are preying on bighorn sheep, another protected species. We must let nature take its course and hope the bighorns survive.

Meli: Nonsense. We must do what we can to ensure the survival of the bighorn, even if that means limiting the mountain lion population.

Speaker 1 Summary

Sam doesn’t make an argument, instead just claiming without support that humans should not intervene when one protected species (mountain lions) is preying on another protected species (bighorn sheep).

Speaker 2 Summary

Meli states the opinion that humans should ensure bighorn sheep survive, even if that requires taking action against mountain lions. This also isn’t an argument, because Meli doesn’t offer any support.

Objective

We need to find a point of disagreement between Sam and Meli. The two disagree about whether or not humans should intervene to protect bighorn sheep from mountain lions.

A
Humans should not intervene to protect bighorn sheep from mountain lions.

Sam agrees with this, but Meli disagrees, meaning that this is the point of disagreement. Sam states that humans should “let nature take its course,” meaning not intervene, while Meli says that humans should take action to protect the sheep.

B
The preservation of a species as a whole is more important than the loss of a few individuals.

Neither speaker offers an opinion. Sam and Meli’s discussion is about what role people should take in a specific predator-prey dynamic, not about overall principles of species preservation.

C
The preservation of a predatory species is easier to ensure than the preservation of the species preyed upon.

Neither speaker talks about this. Firstly, neither Sam nor Meli discusses which species is easier to preserve between mountain lions and bighorn sheep. Second, they also never discuss general principles applicable to all species.

D
Any measures to limit the mountain lion population would likely push the species to extinction.

Neither speaker makes this claim. Only Meli talks about potentially taking measures to limit the mountain lion population, but never mentions a risk or likelihood of extinction.

E
If the population of mountain lions is not limited, the bighorn sheep species will not survive.

Neither speaker claims this. Meli is the only speaker who mentions limiting the mountain lion population, but even that is only meant as a potential measure that could be taken, not as a necessary step to saving bighorn sheep.


4 comments

Parent: Pushing very young children into rigorous study in an effort to make our nation more competitive does more harm than good. Curricula for these young students must address their special developmental needs, and while rigorous work in secondary school makes sense, the same approach in the early years of primary school produces only short-term gains and may cause young children to burn out on schoolwork. Using very young students as pawns in the race to make the nation economically competitive is unfair and may ultimately work against us.

Summary

Rigorous schoolwork in secondary school makes sense.

Making young children do rigorous schoolwork in order to make the country more competitive does more harm than good; it’s unfair and may backfire.

Rigorous schoolwork in primary school only produces short-term gains and can lead to burnout.

Schoolwork for young children must address their developmental needs.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

Rigorous schoolwork in primary school does not address young children’s developmental needs.

A
For our nation to be competitive, our secondary school curriculum must include more rigorous study than it now does.

Unsupported. The parent never gives a condition that’s necessary for making the nation competitive. Also, while she says that rigorous schoolwork in secondary school makes sense, she doesn’t imply that it should be more rigorous than it is now.

B
The developmental needs of secondary school students are not now being addressed in our high schools.

Unsupported. The parent says that rigorous schoolwork in secondary school makes sense, but she never mentions whether secondary school students’ developmental needs are being addressed.

C
Our country can be competitive only if the developmental needs of all our students can be met.

Unsupported. The parent never gives a necessary condition for making the nation competitive. She says that schoolwork must address the developmental needs of young children, but doesn’t imply that this will then make the country competitive.

D
A curriculum of rigorous study does not adequately address the developmental needs of primary school students.

Very strongly supported. Schoolwork for young children must address their developmental needs, but rigorous schoolwork does more harm than good, leads to burnout, and only produces short-term gains. So we can infer that it doesn’t address young children’s developmental needs.

E
Unless our nation encourages more rigorous study in the early years of primary school, we cannot be economically competitive.

Unsupported. The parent never gives a necessary condition for making the nation competitive. She says it’s unfair to make young children do rigorous schoolwork in order to make the nation competitive; she never says that this is necessary for making it competitive.


4 comments

Economic growth accelerates business demand for the development of new technologies. Businesses supplying these new technologies are relatively few, while those wishing to buy them are many. Yet an acceleration of technological change can cause suppliers as well as buyers of new technologies to fail.

Summary
Economic growth causes demand for the development of new technology. Businesses that produce new technology are few, while businesses wishing to buy new technology are many. However, an acceleration of changes within technology can cause the producers and buyers of new technology to fail.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Businesses that produce new technology can sometimes fail during periods of economic growth.

A
Businesses supplying new technologies are more likely to prosper in times of accelerated technological change than other businesses.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what “other businesses” are being referred to here in this answer. There could be a type of business that benefits from these economic conditions more so than producers of new technology.
B
Businesses that supply new technologies may not always benefit from economic growth.
This answer is strongly supported. Since we know that economic growth causes increased demand for new technology, and rapidly developing new technology can cause buyers and producers to fail, these businesses may not benefit from economic growth.
C
The development of new technologies may accelerate economic growth in general.
This answer is unsupported. We know from the stimulus that economic growth can cause demand for developing new technologies, but we don’t know if the reverse of this relationship is also true.
D
Businesses that adopt new technologies are most likely to prosper in a period of general economic growth.
This answer is unsupported. Saying that these businesses are “most likely” to proper is too strong. We don’t know which businesses are being compared in this answer.
E
Economic growth increases business failures.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether it’s a fact that economic growth will cause businesses to fail. We only know that economic growth can increase the risk of some businesses to fail.

6 comments

Energy analyst: During this record-breaking heat wave, air conditioner use has overloaded the region’s electrical power grid, resulting in frequent power blackouts throughout the region. For this reason, residents have been asked to cut back voluntarily on air conditioner use in their homes. But even if this request is heeded, blackouts will probably occur unless the heat wave abates.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why will cutting back on home air conditioning not be enough to avoid blackouts when air conditioning is the cause of those blackouts?

Objective

A hypothesis resolving this discrepancy will provide a reason for blackouts caused by air conditioning to continue even when residents cut back in their homes. It will introduce new information about the electric grid during the heat wave or identify a source of air conditioning other than people’s homes.

A
Air-conditioning is not the only significant drain on the electrical system in the area.

This does not explain why the heat wave will lead to blackouts. There is no indication the heat wave will make these other drainages any worse.

B
Most air-conditioning in the region is used to cool businesses and factories.

This explains why blackouts will continue. Even if residents cut back in their homes, businesses and factories will use enough air conditioning to cause strain on the electric grid.

C
Most air-conditioning systems could be made more energy efficient by implementing simple design modifications.

This does not state that residents will make such modifications. It suggests a way to reduce the chance of blackouts, but does not state that failure to make those modifications will worsen air conditioning’s effect on the electric grid.

D
Residents of the region are not likely to reduce their air conditioner use voluntarily during particularly hot weather.

This implies residents are unlikely to cut back, but gives no reason blackouts might continue if they do. The author states blackouts will continue even if residents do reduce their usage as asked.

E
The heat wave is expected to abate in the near future.

This implies the situation is unlikely to unfold, without addressing the discrepancy that would occur. It gives no reason for air conditioning to cause blackouts in the event the heat wave continues and residents cut back.


35 comments

Long-term and short-term relaxation training are two common forms of treatment for individuals experiencing problematic levels of anxiety. Yet studies show that on average, regardless of which form of treatment one receives, symptoms of anxiety decrease to a normal level within the short-term-training time period. Thus, for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is unwarranted.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people don’t need the long-term relaxation training. This is because studies show that anxiety is reduced to normal levels within the short-term-training time period.

Notable Assumptions
Base solely on the fact anxiety is reduced to normal levels during short-term training, the author concludes short-term training is adequate for most people. This means the author assumes most people either don’t need whatever benefits the long-term training provides, or that the long-term training provides no such benefits.

A
A decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention by a mental health professional.
We’re comparing between short-term and long-term relaxation training. We don’t care what happens when people get no treatment at all.
B
Short-term relaxation training conducted by a more experienced practitioner can be more expensive than long-term training conducted by a less experienced practitioner.
The author makes a general claim about how effective both types of training are. We don’t care about exceptional circumstances (differences between practitioners).
C
Recipients of long-term training are much less likely than recipients of short-term training to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety.
Short-term training lacks an important benefit of long-term training. Many people may want or need to reduce their likelihood of returning to high anxiety levels, so the long-term training offers a clear advantage.
D
The fact that an individual thinks that a treatment will reduce his or her anxiety tends, in and of itself, to reduce the individual’s anxiety.
We have no idea what people think these treatments will do.
E
Short-term relaxation training involves the teaching of a wider variety of anxiety-combating relaxation techniques than does long-term training.
We have no idea if teaching a variety of techniques makes a treatment less effective. The study cited suggests it doesn’t.

5 comments

Editorial: Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising persuades people that they need certain consumer goods when they merely desire them. However, this accusation rests on a fuzzy distinction, that between wants and needs. In life, it is often impossible to determine whether something is merely desirable or whether it is essential to one’s happiness.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Critics complain that advertising tricks people into confusing wants with needs, but this complaint relies on making the difficult distinction between wants and needs. In reality, it can be nearly impossible to determine whether something is merely a want or a genuine need.

Identify Conclusion
Critics' complaints about advertising require making a distinction between wants and needs, which is almost impossible.

A
The claim that advertising persuades people that they need things that they merely want rests on a fuzzy distinction.
This is a good summary of the editorial’s argument. The editorial contends that the claim made by critics of consumerism—that advertising tricks people into confusing wants with needs—“rests on a fuzzy distinction” because wants and needs are almost impossible to distinguish.
B
Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising attempts to blur people’s ability to distinguish between wants and needs.
This sentence provides context for the stimulus. It introduces the position that advertising causes confusion between wants and needs, setting the stage for the editorial’s counterargument that distinguishing between wants and needs is not as clear-cut as critics suggest.
C
There is nothing wrong with advertising that tries to persuade people that they need certain consumer goods.
The editorial does not make this argument because the editorial does not judge advertising itself. Instead, the editorial critiques the reasoning of consumerism’s critics, particularly the critics’ assumption that it is possible to distinguish between wants and needs clearly.
D
Many critics of consumerism fail to realize that certain things are essential to human happiness.
This is not a flaw in the critics’ reasoning that the editorial addresses. The editorial challenges the assumption that it is possible to clearly distinguish between wants and needs, not whether critics recognize the existence of needs or things “essential to human happiness.”
E
Critics of consumerism often use fuzzy distinctions to support their claims.
The stimulus only offers one example of critics using fuzzy distinctions, so we cannot conclude that critics “often” do this. Since the stimulus doesn’t fully support this claim, it cannot be the main conclusion.

1 comment

People who browse the web for medical information often cannot discriminate between scientifically valid information and quackery. Much of the quackery is particularly appealing to readers with no medical background because it is usually written more clearly than scientific papers. Thus, people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good.

Summary
The author concludes that people who rely on the web when tring to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good. Why?
Because those people can’t distinguish between what’s scientifically valid and scientifically invalid.

Notable Assumptions
Notice that the idea of “doing themselves more harm than good” is a new concept that isn’t mentioned in the premise. So we know the author must assume something about what leads to someone doing themselves more harm than good.
To go further, we can anticipate a more specific connection taking the author from the premise to the conclusion. The author thinks that people who cannot discriminate between scientifically valid information and scientifically invalid information are likely to do themselves more harm than good. Or, in other words, in order to avoid being more likely to do more harm than good when relying on the web to diagnose oneself, one must be able to distinguish between scientifically valid and invalid information.

A
People who browse the web for medical information typically do so in an attempt to diagnose their medical conditions.
Not necessary, because even if this isn’t typical, the argument applies to those people who do rely on the web to diagnose their medical conditions, however rare those people might be.
B
People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.
Necessary, because if it were not true — if people can rely on something besides scientifically valid information and still be unlikely to do themselves more harm than good — then the fact people can’t distinguish between scientifically valid and invalid information wouldn’t matter. Under the negation of (B), people who sometimes rely in invalid info because they can’t tell that it’s invalid won’t necessarily be likely to do themselves more harm than good.
C
People who have sufficient medical knowledge to discriminate between scientifically valid information and quackery will do themselves no harm if they rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions.
Not necessary, because the argument concerns what happens to people who CANNOT distinguish between valid and invalid info. The author doesn’t need to think that people who CAN distinguish will do no harm to themselves by relying on the web.
D
Many people who browse the web assume that information is not scientifically valid unless it is clearly written.
The argument concerns people who rely on the web when trying to diagnose their medical conditions. But many people may browse the web who don’t rely on the web for diagnosis; the author doesn’t have to assume anything about those people.
E
People attempting to diagnose their medical conditions will do themselves more harm than good only if they rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid information.
The author believes that relying on the web for diagnosis when you can’t distinguish between scientifically valid and invalid info will make it likely that you’ll do yourself more harm than good. But the author doesn’t assume this kind of reliance is necessary to harm yourself. We might harm ourselves in other ways. This answer would be better if we replaced “only if” with “if.”

48 comments

When adults toss balls to very young children they generally try to toss them as slowly as possible to compensate for the children’s developing coordination. But recent studies show that despite their developing coordination, children actually have an easier time catching balls that are thrown at a faster speed.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do children find it easier to catch balls when they are thrown faster?

Objective
Any hypothesis explaining this phenomenon must state a difference between balls thrown slowly and balls thrown at high speeds. This difference must result in children more easily catching balls thrown at high speeds.

A
Balls thrown at a faster speed, unlike balls thrown at a slower speed, trigger regions in the brain that control the tracking of objects for self-defense.
This explains why children have an easier time catching faster balls. Because the high speed triggers different regions in the brain, they catch fast balls using a different mechanism than they use to catch slow balls.
B
Balls that are tossed more slowly tend to have a higher arc that makes it less likely that the ball will be obscured by the body of the adult tossing it.
This deepens the mystery. If balls tossed slowly are less likely to be obscured, children should catch them more easily.
C
Adults generally find it easier to catch balls that are thrown slowly than balls that are thrown at a faster speed.
This refers to adults, not children. It is not implied that the catching abilities of adults are aligned with or opposite those of children.
D
Children are able to toss balls back to the adults with more accuracy when they throw fast than when they throw the ball back more slowly.
This refers only to children’s ability to throw balls accurately, not to catch them. It does not explain why children find balls easier to catch when they are coming in faster.
E
There is a limit to how fast the balls can be tossed to the children before the children start to have more difficulty in catching them.
This limit does not explain why children more easily catch faster balls in general. It introduces a separate phenomenon at higher speeds, without explaining the phenomenon at hand.

4 comments

Like a genetic profile, a functional magnetic-resonance image (fMRI) of the brain can contain information that a patient wishes to keep private. An fMRI of a brain also contains enough information about a patient’s skull to create a recognizable image of that patient’s face. A genetic profile can be linked to a patient only by referring to labels or records.

Summary
A functional magnetic-resonance image (fMRI) is similar to a genetic profile because it can contain information a patient wishes to keep private. An fMRI also contains enough information to create a recognizable image of a patient’s face. On the other hand, someone’s genetic profile can be linked to them only through labels or records.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
fMRIs can identify patients in a way that genetic profiles do not.

A
It is not important that medical providers apply labels to fMRIs of patients’ brains.
There is no support for whether it is important for medical providers to apply/not apply labels to fMRIs of patients' brains. You have to make this assumption.
B
An fMRI has the potential to compromise patient privacy in circumstances in which a genetic profile would not.
The stimulus says that an fMRI can reveal an image of a patient’s face while a genetic profile does not. This has the potential to compromise patient privacy in differing circumstances.
C
In most cases patients cannot be reasonably sure that the information in a genetic profile will be kept private.
There is no information about the safety of data in genetic profiles, so it is unreasonable to contend that most patients cannot be sure that their information is kept private.
D
Most of the information contained in an fMRI of a person’s brain is also contained in that person’s genetic profile.
This comparative statement is not supported. There are no details about how much information overlaps between an fMRI and genetic profile.
E
Patients are more concerned about threats to privacy posed by fMRIs than they are about those posed by genetic profiles.
This is an unreasonable assumption to make. The passage does not compare the level of concern patients feel about the privacy threats posed by fMRIs vs. genetic profiles. It is unclear whether patients even know about the potential privacy risks.

6 comments