Summary
Storytelling appears to be part of every culture. Studies of stories from various diverse cultures across different time periods show that these cultures’ stories have certain common themes (creation, tribal origin, for example) and common types (fables and tales involving animals with human personalities, for example).
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Cultures have something in common that might cause them to develop stories about certain themes or of certain types.
A
Storytellers routinely borrow themes from other cultures.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t provide any evidence that cultures were in contact with each other or influenced each other’s stories or themes. The fact common themes arose in different cultures from widely separate time periods instead suggests that those themes may have arisen independently in each culture.
B
Storytellers have long understood that the narrative is a universal aspect of human culture.
Unsupported. Although stories are universal, we don’t have evidence that the storytellers themselves were aware that stories are universal. There’s no suggestion that a storyteller from ancient Greece, for example, knew that people in other parts of the world told stories.
C
Certain human concerns and interests arise in all of the world’s cultures.
Most strongly supported. The stimulus tells us that among diverse cultures across widely separate time periods, there are stories with common themes. This is evidence that human cultures are interested in certain topics (such as the creation of the world).
D
Storytelling was no less important in ancient cultures than it is in modern cultures.
Unsupported. Although we know all cultures told and tell stories, there’s no evidence of the comparative importance placed upon stories. Modern cultures might find storytelling more important than ancient cultures did.
E
The best way to understand a culture is to understand what motivates its storytellers.
Unsupported. Although we can probably infer that the themes that arise in a culture’s stories give us some insight into that culture, we don’t know whether this is the best way to understand the culture. The stimulus doesn’t compare this way of understanding to any other way.
Summarize Argument
The science journalist concludes that life has likely evolved on Europa, a moon of Jupiter. This is based on the claim that there is probably liquid water on Europa, and liquid water is necessary for life to evolve.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The science journalist confuses necessary and sufficient conditions, a cookie-cutter flaw. If liquid water is present on Europa, that would fulfill a necessary condition for life to evolve. However, liquid water might not be sufficient for life to evolve. Other factors might also be necessary, like the right temperature or geological conditions.
A
takes for granted that if a condition would be necessary for the evolution of life as we know it, then such life could not have evolved anywhere that this condition does not hold
This is an accurate description of the meaning of a “necessary condition,” and doesn’t constitute a flaw in the argument.
B
fails to address adequately the possibility that there are conditions necessary for the evolution of life in addition to the presence of liquid water
The argument takes the likely presence of one necessary condition (water) as making it likely that life has evolved on Europa. This overlooks the possibility that other factors are also necessary, and water, while necessary for life, is not sufficient.
C
takes for granted that life is likely to be present on Europa if, but only if, life evolved on Europa
The journalist is only talking about the likelihood of life evolving on Europa, not claiming that this is the only way for life to be present on Europa (for example, life could have migrated from somewhere else).
D
overlooks the possibility that there could be unfamiliar forms of life that have evolved without the presence of liquid water
The journalist isn’t claiming that the evolution of some unknown form of life on Europa would be impossible without water, only that water is necessary for “life as we know it.”
E
takes for granted that no conditions on Europa other than the supposed presence of liquid water could have accounted for the data transmitted by the spacecraft
The journalist isn’t claiming that liquid water is definitely present on Europa, only that it is the most likely explanation for the transmitted data.
Summary
A bacterial species will develop greater resistance within a few years to any antibiotics used against it. The only exception to this inevitable development of greater resistance is when the antibiotics eliminates the bacterial species completely. But, no single antibiotic now on the market can eliminate bacterial species X completely.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If any single antibiotic currently on the market is used against bacterial species X, the species will develop greater resistance against that antibiotic.
A
It is unlikely that any antibiotic can be developed that will completely eliminate bacterial species X.
Unsupported. The stimulus tells us about antibiotics currently on the market. We don’t know about future antibiotics and their ability to kill bacterial species X completely.
B
If any antibiotic now on the market is used against bacterial species X, that species will develop greater resistance to it within a few years.
Strongly supported. We know no antibiotic currently on the market can kill X completely. So, if used against X, X will develop a resistance against that currently-on-the-market antibiotic.
C
The only way of completely eliminating bacterial species X is by a combination of two or more antibiotics now on the market.
Unsupported. We don’t know that this is the only way. Maybe another way is to develop a new antibiotic that can kill X completely. The stimulus doesn’t suggest this can’t be done.
D
Bacterial species X will inevitably become more virulent in the course of time.
Unsupported. The stimulus allows us to conclude that X will develop greater resistance to any currently-on-the-market antibiotic used against it. This doesn’t imply anything about the level of danger or harm (virulence) posed by X and whether it will change.
E
Bacterial species X is more resistant to at least some antibiotics that have been used against it than it was before those antibiotics were used against it.
Unsupported. We don’t know whether any antibiotics have ever been tried against X.