Summarize Argument
Promoting creativity is not a good goal for an employee training program. Lots of jobs don’t need creativity, and using creativity in those positions is likely to do more harm than good. Even if creativity was needed, there is no evidence that it could be taught.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the manager’s claim about creativity in employee training programs: “There is no good reason to suppose that promoting creativity is a proper goal of an employee training program.”
A
Using creativity in jobs that require little or no creativity can be disruptive.
This is support for why promoting creativity is not a good goal for an employee training program. Encouraging that creativity would have negative consequences.
B
Employee training programs are not able to teach employees creativity.
The fact that there is no evidence that creativity can be taught is used as support for that it should not be the goal of training programs to promote creativity.
C
Many jobs require little or no creativity.
This is support for the argument that promoting creativity is not a proper goal of employee training programs. Creativity would not be useful in those jobs.
D
There is no good reason to suppose that employee training programs should promote creativity.
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. It is not a proper goal of an employee training program, so they should not promote creativity.
E
Creativity is in demand, but there is no evidence that it can be taught.
This is inaccurate. The stimulus does not indicate that creativity is in demand. The fact that there is no evidence that creativity can be taught is used as support for that it should not be the goal of training programs.
Summary
The producer concludes that boycotting advertisers is censorship. Why? Because boycotting will cause a chain of events resulting in a restriction of shows available to the public.
Missing Connection
The conclusion is that boycotting advertisers counts as censorship, but we don’t know anything about what qualifies as censorship. For the premises to lead to the conclusion, we need to know that the ultimate result of the boycott (restriction of shows) constitutes censorship.
A
If there is neither government censorship nor boycotting of advertisers, there will be no restriction of the television shows that the public can watch.
This supports a conclusion about there being no restriction, and we need to support a conclusion that boycotting = censorship. The contrapositive of (A) supports a conclusion that there is either censorship or boycotting, but we don’t know which.
B
Public boycotts could force some shows off the air even though the shows neither promote violence nor erode values.
This is a statement about the possible reach of public boycotts. But which shows are forced off the air doesn’t change whether boycotting qualifies as censorship or not.
C
For any television show that promotes violence and erodes values, there will be an audience.
Having an audience is not synonymous with public access. The shows that are forced off the air may still have an audience, but public access to them has been restricted, and we need to know that this is enough to be considered censorship.
D
There is widespread public agreement about which television shows promote violence and erode values.
Public agreement about which advertisers to boycott does not guarantee that boycotting qualifies as censorship.
E
Any action that leads to a restriction of what the public can view is censorship.
This gives us a link from a known effect of boycotting (restriction of public access) to our conclusion. (E) guarantees that boycotting is considered censorship.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that printed books likely will not be soon replaced by books in electronic formats. This is because bookstores and libraries will offer books in the format the general public wants, and that won’t be an electronic format.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that publishers will publish books in the format bookstores and libraries stock.
A
Scholars and scientists find an electronic format for books the most convenient one for quick searching and cross-referencing.
The author concedes scholars and scientists may end up using electronic formats. We don’t care why that is.
B
Publishers will continue to print books in the format stocked by bookstores and public libraries.
In order for bookstores and libraries to continue offering books in the general public’s preferred non-electronic format, books must still be printed in that format. This tells us they will be printed in that format.
C
Scholars and scientists do not usually conduct their research in public libraries.
We know that scholars and scientists might use electronic formats. We also know libraries won’t cater to them since they’re not the general public. This adds nothing.
D
At some bookstores and libraries, the popularity of books on tape and of videos is beginning to rival that of printed books.
This weakens the author’s argument. The general public is increasingly interested in other formats.
E
Some members of the general public prefer to purchase books in an electronic format rather than borrow them from the library.
This is irrelevant. We care about the general public as a whole, and the author claims they prefer non-electronic formats.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes one is less likely to be injured in an accident if they drive a large car rather than a small car. This is based on a study that a higher percentage of people driving small cars were injured in accidents than people driving large cars.
Notable Assumptions
Based on that fact that a higher percentage of people driving small cars were injured in accidents, the author concludes you’re less likely to be injured in an accident if you’re driving a large vehicle. The author therefore assumes that large vehicles don’t get in so many more accidents as to outweigh the relative percentages.
A
Most of the accidents analyzed in the study occurred in areas with very high speed limits.
We need something that differentiates large and small cars. This tells us something was constant during the study.
B
Most people who own small cars also drive large cars on occasion.
The study is about people who got in accidents, not people who left their cars in the garage. We don’t care what people own.
C
Half of the study participants drove medium-sized cars at the time of their accidents.
We’re not comparing with meidum-sized cars. We only car about large and small cars.
D
A large automobile is far more likely to be involved in an accident than is a small automobile.
Let’s say 2 out of 100 people driving small cars got in accidents and both were seriously injured. On the other hand, 20 out of 100 people driving large cars got in accidents and 10 were seriously injured. Those driving large cars were thus more likely to be injured.
E
Only a small percentage of those people involved in an automobile accident are injured as a result.
We care whether small car drivers or large car drivers are more likely to be injured in accidents. This lacks a comparative aspect.