Summary
Taxi drivers’ income is based on their fares.
They often decide to finish work when they reach a daily income target.
They tend to work fewer hours on busy days than on slow days.
They often decide to finish work when they reach a daily income target.
They tend to work fewer hours on busy days than on slow days.
Notable Valid Inferences
Taxi drivers get more money per hour on busy days than on slow days.
A
The number of hours per day that a person is willing to work depends on that person’s financial needs.
This could be true. The stimulus does not give any indication on what considerations go into the drivers’ income targets. It could be the case that one’s financial needs determines their income target.
B
People work longer when their effective hourly wage is high than when it is low.
The stimulus provides clear evidence against this. The stimulus says that drivers stop working when they meet their income target; they will reach their income target more quickly when their hourly wage is high, so they will work fewer hours on these days.
C
Workers will accept a lower hourly wage in exchange for the freedom to set their own schedules.
This could be true; the stimulus does not give any information to indicate what wages they will accept in exchange for freedom over their schedules.
D
People are willing to work many hours a day in order to avoid a reduction in their standard of living.
This could be true; the stimulus does not contradict this. We don’t know how many hours “many” hours means, and we don’t know whether or not taxi drivers are hitting this threshold of “many hours.”
E
People who are paid based on their production work more efficiently than those who are paid a fixed hourly wage.
This could be true; the stimulus does not give any information that compares how efficiently people work under different payment systems.
Further Explanation
The key to this question is understanding what an "effective hourly wage" means.
If you get paid a total of $100 over the course of a day, what's your "effective hourly wage"? Well, that depends on how many hours you worked. If you worked 1 hour to make that $100, then you're "in effect" getting paid $100/hour. If you worked 10 hours to make that same $100, then you're "in effect" getting paid $10/hour ($100 divided by 10 hours).
Understanding this helps to make (B) clearer as the correct answer choice.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
Any contribution of $100 or less doesn’t have to be registered with the city council.
Any contribution made by a resident of Weston doesn’t have to be registered with the city council.
Any contribution made by a former resident of Weston doesn’t have to be registered with the city council.
Any contribution made by a resident of Weston doesn’t have to be registered with the city council.
Any contribution made by a former resident of Weston doesn’t have to be registered with the city council.
A
No nonresident of Weston contributed in excess of $100 to Brimley’s campaign.
Could be false. Maybe a former resident of Weston contributed in excess of $100 to Brimley’s campaign.
B
Some contributions to Brimley’s campaign in excess of $100 were registered with the city council.
Could be true. The stimulus tells us that contributions over $100 don’t have to be registered with the city council as long they were made by a current or former Weston resident, but it doesn’t tell us that such donations can’t be registered by choice.
C
No contributions to Brimley’s campaign needed to be registered with the city council.
No contributions to Brimley’s campaign were made by someone who has never lived in Weston, so none of the contributions fall into the category of donations that need to be registered with the city council.
D
All contributions to Brimley’s campaign that were registered with the city council were in excess of $100.
Could be true. Maybe each of the current and former residents that contributed to Brimley’s campaign donated more than $100.
E
Brimley’s campaign did not register any contributions with the city council.
Could be true. We know that Brimley’s campaign were not required to register any contributions with the city council, and they may have decided not to.
This question's pretty tough so I hope you didn't spend too much time on it.
The stimulus tells us that "the law" is as follows. It's important for (C) to note that in context, we are to presume that this is the only law that pertains to contributions to mayoral campaigns in Weston.
What's "the law"?
If (1) $100+ and (2) currently nonresident and (3) never was a resident then must be registered.
For Brimley's campaign, we know that (4) he complied with this law and (5) accepted contributions from residents and former residents and no one else.
What must be true? (4) tells us that his campaign did not run afoul of the law (in other words, no contradiction). We overlook this fact because (4) is a conclusion and we're well trained to be skeptical of conclusions. But, this is a MBT question. The question stem explicitly tells us to presume that EVERYTHING in the stimulus is true. We must accept that in fact Brimley's campaign was run legally.
(5) tells us that Brimley's campaign failed the sufficient conditions of the law. Remember logic games lessons? Sufficient failed, rule irrelevant. In context, that means Brimley's campaign did not have to register any of its contributions. That's exactly what (C) says.
(A) is the attractive, trap answer choice. We're thinking, well, (A) must be true right?
If nonresidents contributed in excess of $100, then it would have to be registered.
First, that's false. This is true: if nonresidents who were never residents contributed in excess of $100, then it would have to be registered. See the difference?
Second, even if that's not false, we don't actually know if Brimely's campaign registered any contributions. We know that (C) they did not NEED to register. But maybe they registered for fun anyway.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Students with jobs and minimal social lives outperformed students with no jobs and active social lives.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why students with jobs but no social lives performed so much better than those with social lives but no jobs. Presumably the two groups were sacrificing study time to work or party. Our answer should explain why an active social life is more detrimental to studies than employment, or vice versa.
A
The students compensated for any study time lost due to their jobs but they did not compensate for any study time lost due to their social lives.
Students who party sleep in on Saturdays. Students who work Friday nights get up early to study, hence why they outperform their more socially-active peers.
B
The students who had full-time jobs typically worked late-night hours at those jobs.
Working late-night hours wouldn’t improve these students’ grades. Their socially-active peers were probably out late, too.
C
Better students tend to choose classes that are scheduled to meet early in the morning.
According to the stimulus, both groups of students—the very best and the very worst—attend classes in the morning.
D
A larger percentage of those students interested in majoring in history had part-time jobs than had full-time jobs.
This compares between employed students. The correct answer needs to explain the difference between employed and unemployed, socially-active students.
E
Although having a job tends to provide a release from stress, thus increasing academic performance, having a full-time job, like having an active social life, can distract a student from studying.
Much like (D), this compares between employed students. We need to know why these students do better than their unemployed peers.
Summarize Argument
Specialization in international trade carries risk. Small countries often have a small number of products that make up the majority of their exports. Examples of risks that could hurt the economy of these countries are that raw material exports could be used up and foodstuffs could be destroyed by natural disasters.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s warning about specialization in international trade: “such specialization carries risks.”
A
Specialization within international trade comes with risks.
This accurately rephrases the conclusion that specialization within international trade carries risks.
B
A natural disaster can destroy a whole season’s production overnight, devastating a small country’s economy.
This is a premise. It is an example of a risk that faces countries who specialize.
C
A small country’s supply of raw materials can be used up in a short period.
This is a premise. It is another example of a risk that faces countries who specialize.
D
Some countries rely on a small number of products for the export-based sectors of their economies.
This is a premise. It demonstrates why specialization is risky. If countries rely on only a few products, their exports are not diversified against disaster.
E
When international trade is free, countries can specialize in what they export.
This is context that sets up the argument about the potential risks of specialization.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
The group who knew they were competing for prizes wrote stories that ranked significantly lower on average than the group who didn’t know they were writing for prizes.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis explaining why the writing quality was different between people who knew they were being judged for prizes and people who didn’t know they were being judged. That explanation must result in people writing worse when they’re aware they’re being judged for prizes.
A
The cash prizes were too small to motivate an average adult to make a significant effort to produce stories of high quality.
First, we don’t know if any of the stories submitted were of high quality. Second, the cash prizes seemed to make a difference.
B
People writing to win prizes show a greater than usual tendency to produce stereotypical stories that show little creativity.
The group who knew they were writing for prizes wrote unoriginal stories, whereas the other group wrote with more relative creativity since they didn’t know they were competing. This explains the difference between the groups.
C
Most adults show little originality in writing stories on a topic suggested by someone else.
We need to know why one group wrote worse stories than the other. This lacks any comparative aspect.
D
The team of judges was biased in favor of stories that they judged to be more realistic.
We don’t know that the group who didn’t know they were writing for prizes wrote relatively realistic stories.
E
No one explained clearly to either group what standards would be used in judging their stories.
This doesn’t explain why one group wrote worse stories than the other. We need a comparative aspect in our answer.
Green: I disagree. Some of our salespeople with big territories wear out their cars in three years.
Hernandez: I meant three-year-old cars subjected to normal use.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Hernandez concludes that staff cars should be replaced every four years instead of every three years. Why? Replacement every four years would save money, as three-year-old cars are still in good condition. Hernandez clarifies that this claim only applies to the subset of staff cars which are subject to normal use, in response to Green’s comment that some staff cars used in large areas are not still in good condition after three years.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Hernandez responds to Green by clarifying the set to which the premise that three-year-old cars are in good condition applies. By clarifying that it’s specifically the subset of three-year-old cars that have been subject to normal use which are still in good condition, Hernandez neutralizes Green’s objection.
A
by explicitly qualifying a premise used earlier
Hernandez explicitly qualifies the earlier premise that “three-year-old cars are still in good condition” to specify that the claim applies to the subset of cars which are used normally, rather than the entire set of three-year-old staff cars.
B
by criticizing salespeople who wear out their cars in three years
Hernandez does not criticize salespeople anywhere in the argument.
C
by disputing the accuracy of Green’s evidence
Hernandez does not dispute the accuracy of Green’s evidence, but claims that it is already compatible with the intentions of Hernandez’s original claims.
D
by changing the subject to the size of sales territories
Hernandez doesn’t talk about the size of sales territories, and stays focused on the original subject of staff cars.
E
by indicating that Green used a phrase ambiguously
Hernandez does not claim that Green’s language is ambiguous at any point, instead responding to the substance of Green’s objection.
Summarize Argument
The economist concludes that significantly raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment. This is because raising the minimum wage would make minimum-wage jobs more expensive for businesses, leading to layoffs.
Notable Assumptions
The economist assumes that businesses will shoulder the costs of the minimum wage raise, rather than increasing the price of their products and services to account for the new expense. She also assumes that most businesses aren’t currently seeking a substantial number of employees to fill their minimum wage jobs, which if true would suggest that layoffs aren’t imminent.
A
Businesses typically pass the cost of increased wages on to consumers without adversely affecting profits.
The minimum wage raise won’t affect profits. Employers therefore won’t need to lay off minimum-wage workers, at least not for the reason mentioned.
B
When the difference between minimum wage and a skilled worker’s wage is small, a greater percentage of a business’s employees will be skilled workers.
We don’t care about skilled workers. We have no idea if businesses are even looking for skilled workers.
C
A modest increase in unemployment is acceptable because the current minimum wage is not a livable wage.
The economist only cares about how the minimum wage affects unemployment. We don’t care about livable wages.
D
Most workers are earning more than the current minimum wage.
The economist never claimed minimum wage workers constitute the majority of workers. We don’t care that most people earn more than the minimum wage.
E
The unemployment rate has been declining steadily in recent years.
Even if unemployment has been declining, a minimum wage raise may make it rise again. We don’t care about general trends.