Aerobics instructor: Compared to many forms of exercise, kickboxing aerobics is highly risky. Overextending when kicking often leads to hip, knee, or lower-back injuries. Such overextension is very likely to occur when beginners try to match the high kicks of more skilled practitioners.

Summary

Compared to some other forms of exercise, kickboxing aerobics is highly risky. Overextending while kicking can cause hip, knee, or lower-back injuries. Overextension usually happens when beginners try to match the high kicks of skilled kickboxers.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

To reduce a person’s risk of injuries caused by overextension, that person should avoid overextending while kicking.

A
Skilled practitioners of kickboxing aerobics are unlikely to experience injuries from overextending while kicking.

This answer is unsupported. The aerobics instructor does not give us any information about the likelihood of skilled practitioners experiencing injuries.

B
To reduce the risk of injuries, beginners at kickboxing aerobics should avoid trying to match the high kicks of more skilled practitioners.

This answer is strongly supported. Since we know overextension can cause injury, then students should avoid overextending to reduce their risk of injury. An absent or reduced cause can lead to an absent or reduced effect.

C
Beginners at kickboxing aerobics will not experience injuries if they avoid trying to match the high kicks of more skilled practitioners.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if overextending while kicking is the only cause of injury to beginners. It is possible that beginners could experience injury some other way.

D
Kickboxing aerobics is more risky than forms of aerobic exercise that do not involve high kicks.

This answer is unsupported. We know that kickboxing aerobics is more risky than many forms of exercise, but we don’t know whether this comparison is to other forms that do not involve high kicks.

E
Most beginners at kickboxing aerobics experience injuries from trying to match the high kicks of more skilled practitioners.

This answer is unsupported. We do not know whether most beginners will for a fact overextend while kicking.


17 comments

A large company has been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices. The penalty imposed on the company will probably have little if any effect on its behavior. Still, the trial was worthwhile, since it provided useful information about the company’s practices. After all, this information has emboldened the company’s direct competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior toward customers and competitors.

Summarize Argument
The trial of a large company was valuable despite the likely ineffectiveness of the penalty. The trial was valuable because it revealed information about the company’s practices. This new information empowered the company’s competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to moderate its unfair behavior.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the contention that the trial was worthwhile because it revealed information about the company, which led to positive outcomes.

A
Even if the company had not been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices, the trial probably would have had some effect on the company’s behavior.
This is not an argument made in the stimulus. The author does not speculate on what would have happened had the company not been convicted. While the author might agree with this claim, it is not part of the argument presented and therefore cannot be the main conclusion.
B
The light shed on the company’s practices by the trial has emboldened its competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior.
This premise supports the sub-conclusion that the trial “provided useful information.” It specifies that the trial exposed the company’s practices and explains the value of this revelation: it empowered competitors, alerted rivals, and forced the company to change its behavior.
C
The penalty imposed on the company will likely have little or no effect on its behavior.
This is part of the stimulus’s context. This sentence explains why some may consider the trial a waste of time—because its penalty is unlikely to affect the company’s behavior—and sets the stage for the author to explain why the trial was valuable despite the ineffective penalty.
D
The company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices was worthwhile.
This answer restates the main conclusion (“the trial was worthwhile”) with context that describes the trial (“the company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices”). The subsequent claims support this conclusion by explaining why the trial was valuable.
E
The penalty imposed on the company in the trial should have been larger.
This is not an argument made in the stimulus. The author argues that the penalty was inadequate to change the company’s behavior but does not claim the penalty should have been larger. While the author might agree, it is not part of the argument and cannot be the main conclusion.

3 comments

In a recent study of arthritis, researchers tried but failed to find any correlation between pain intensity and any of those features of the weather—humidity, temperature swings, barometric pressure—usually cited by arthritis sufferers as the cause of their increased pain. Those arthritis sufferers in the study who were convinced of the existence of such a correlation gave widely varying accounts of the time delay between the occurrence of what they believed to be the relevant feature of the weather and the increased intensity of the pain. Thus, this study _______.

Summary
The stimulus discusses a study where researchers tried and failed to find any correlation between pain intensity in arthritis sufferers and various weather features (humidity, temperature swings, barometric pressure). Arthritis sufferers in the study who believed in such a correlation gave widely varying accounts of the time delay between the weather change and the increased pain.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
There is no correlation between weather features and pain intensity.

A
indicates that the weather affects some arthritis sufferers more quickly than it does other arthritis sufferers
This is too strong to support. There is no indication that the weather impacts pain intensity at all, much less that it impacts some more quickly than others.
B
indicates that arthritis sufferers’ beliefs about the causes of the pain they feel may affect their assessment of the intensity of that pain
This is a tricky answer choice, but it is too strong to support. You have to make an assumption that the arthritis sufferers are correct. There is no support that the beliefs about their pain impact the assessment of that pain.
C
suggests that arthritis sufferers are imagining the correlation they assert to exist
The argument's premises (that there is no correlation and widely varying accounts) support the conclusion that this perceived correlation is imaginary. Remember, your job is to complete THIS argument, not provide assumptions to lead to another conclusion.
D
suggests that some people are more susceptible to weather-induced arthritis pain than are others
The stimulus says that there is no correlation.
E
suggests that the scientific investigation of possible links between weather and arthritis pain is impossible
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that there is no correlation, not that such correlation is impossible.

74 comments

Sociologist: A recent study of 5,000 individuals found, on the basis of a physical exam, that more than 25 percent of people older than 65 were malnourished, though only 12 percent of the people in this age group fell below government poverty standards. In contrast, a greater percentage of the people 65 or younger fell below poverty standards than were found in the study to be malnourished.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

People older than 65 are more likely to be malnourished than live in poverty, yet people younger than 65 are more likely to live in poverty than be malnourished.

Objective

The correct answer must offer an unsatisfactory hypothesis, one that fails to explain the differences between age groups. Every wrong answer, meanwhile, will resolve this discrepancy by stating a difference between people older than 65 and people younger than 65. This difference will result in a greater proportion of the older group being malnourished, a greater proportion of the younger group living in poverty, or both.

A
Doctors are less likely to correctly diagnose and treat malnutrition in their patients who are over 65 than in their younger patients.

This would explain the discrepancy. Younger people are more likely to live in poverty than be malnourished because they are more likely to receive treatment for malnourishment than older people.

B
People over 65 are more likely to take medications that increase their need for certain nutrients than are people 65 or younger.

This would explain the discrepancy. If people over 65 are more likely to need additional nutrients, their relative undernourishment is unsurprising.

C
People over 65 are more likely to suffer from loss of appetite due to medication than are people 65 or younger.

This would explain the discrepancy. If people over 65 are more likely to lose their appetite, they are likely to eat less and therefore be relatively undernourished.

D
People 65 or younger are no more likely to fall below government poverty standards than are people over 65.

This is a similarity between the groups and cannot explain their different outcomes. If people in both groups are equally likely to live in poverty, then people over 65 are more than twice as likely to be malnourished as people under 65, which is unexplained.

E
People 65 or younger are less likely to have medical conditions that interfere with their digestion than are people over 65.

This would explain the discrepancy. Younger people are more likely to have healthy digestion, making them more likely to fully absorb the nutrients in their food and thus less likely to be malnourished.


19 comments