Summarize Argument
People who switch to "fake fat" products to lose weight are unlikely to achieve their goal of losing weight because they often consume extra calories that negate the savings from the "fake fat" foods.
Identify Conclusion
“Fake fat” foods are unlikely to help people lose weight.
A
People tend to take in a certain number of daily calories, no matter what types of food they eat.
This choice is incorrect because it focuses on the premise that people consume extra calories when they eat “fake fat” products. While this premise suggests that people take in a fixed number of daily calories, it is not the argument’s main conclusion.
B
Most consumers who think that foods with “fake fat” are more nutritious than fatty foods are destined to be disappointed.
This answer misstates the argument’s main conclusion. The argument concludes that consumers who expect “fake fat” foods to help them lose weight will likely be disappointed, not those who expect the foods to be more nutritious.
C
“Fake fat” products are likely to contribute to obesity more than do other foods.
The dietician doesn’t compare “fake fat” to other foods regarding its potential to cause obesity. Since the dietician doesn’t make this comparison, any opinions about “fake fat” causing obesity cannot be considered part of the dietician’s conclusion.
D
“Fake fat” in foods is probably not going to help consumers meet weight loss goals.
This is a good paraphrase of the argument's main conclusion. The stimulus notes that consumers who switch to "fake fat" to lose weight will be disappointed because, as this answer explicitly states, the "fake fat" in foods is unlikely to help consumers lose weight.
E
“Fake fat” in foods is indistinguishable from genuine fat by most consumers on the basis of taste alone.
The stimulus doesn’t make this argument. The dietician says that “fake fat” usually doesn’t help people lose weight but does not discuss whether it tastes like real fat. As the main conclusion must match the argument in the stimulus, it can’t be about something not mentioned.
Summarize Argument
The analyst concludes that offering free services to new customers isn't a good business practice for banks. As support, she notes that regular, long-term customers, who make up most of the business, are excluded from these offers.
Notable Assumptions
The analyst assumes that excluding regular, long-term customers from special offers is bad for banks’ business. Similarly, she assumes that excluding those customers who make up most of a banks’ business from special offers is also bad for business.
A
Most banks have similar charges for most services and pay similar interest rates on deposits.
Irrelevant. The fact that most banks have similar charges and interest rates doesn’t help to determine whether banks should exclude their long-term customers from special offers.
B
Banks do best when offering special privileges only to their most loyal customers.
If banks do best when they only give special offers to loyal customers, then it’s probably bad for business to exclude regular, long-term customers from special offers. This strengthens the conclusion that offering free services only to new customers isn't good for business.
C
Offering services at no charge to all of its current customers would be prohibitively expensive for a bank.
Even if banks can’t offer free services to all their customers, this fails to address whether only offering free services to new customers and excluding long-term customers is bad for business.
D
Once they have chosen a bank, people tend to remain loyal to that bank.
This slightly weakens the argument by suggesting that loyal customers will probably remain loyal. It doesn’t address whether excluding loyal customers from special offers is bad for business.
E
Some banks that offer services at no charge to new customers are very successful.
This slightly weakens the argument by suggesting that banks can be successful when they offer free services to new customers. But it doesn’t address whether loyal customers are excluded from these offers or whether excluding loyal customers is bad for business.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that medical researchers’ judgments of the importance of prior research is influenced by the publicity received by that research. This is based on the fact that research articles cited in popular newspapers or magazines are more likely to be cited in later medical research.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks alternate explanations for the correlation between being cited in popular newspapers/magazines and being cited in later medical research. One potential explanation is that the importance of research leads both to increased citation in popular newspapers/magazines and to increased citation in later medical research.
A
presents counterarguments to a view that is not actually held by any medical researcher
Whether medical researchers hold an opposing view is irrelevant. The author’s argument doesn’t need to counter anyone’s actual views.
B
fails to consider the possibility that popular newspapers and magazines do a good job of identifying the most important medical research articles
This possibility, if true, shows that the author’s explanation doesn’t have to be true. The increased citation rate of articles cited in popular newspaper/magazines could be due to the actual importance of the research, and not due to influence from publicity.
C
takes for granted that coverage of medical research in the popular press is more concerned with the eminence of the scientists involved than with the content of their research
The author doesn’t make any assumption about whether the media emphasizes the scientists involved more than the content of research.
D
fails to consider the possibility that popular newspapers and magazines are able to review only a minuscule percentage of medical research articles
This possibility doesn’t undermine the author’s reasoning. Even if popular media only reviews a small portion of articles, researchers can still be influenced by the articles popularized by the media.
E
draws a conclusion that is logically equivalent to its premise
(E) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion does not restate a premise.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that heavily increasing taxes on cigarettes sold in the city would reduce smoking in the city. He bases this on surveys which show that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that increase taxes on cigarettes.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the survey captures a clear cause-and-effect relationship between higher taxes and lower smoking rates. He assumes that, because taxes are shown to decrease cigarette sales, a drop in cigarette sales would then cause a decrease in smoking. He ignores the possibility that people might seek cigarettes through other means.
He also assumes that what works in the cities with similar tax increases that are represented by the survey will also work in this particular city, without considering any local factors that might differ.
He also assumes that what works in the cities with similar tax increases that are represented by the survey will also work in this particular city, without considering any local factors that might differ.
A
A city-imposed tax on cigarettes will substantially reduce the amount of smoking in the city if the tax is burdensome to the average cigarette consumer.
This does not undermine the reasoning in the argument. Instead, it presents a condition which, if met, would indeed reduce the amount of smoking in the city.
B
Consumers are more likely to continue buying a product if its price increases due to higher taxes than if its price increases for some other reason.
While (B) suggests there might be more effective ways to reduce cigarette purchases, it doesn't change the fact that higher taxes would have some effect. It also doesn't point out the author’s assumption that a reduction in purchases would lead to less smoking.
C
Usually, cigarette sales will increase substantially in the areas surrounding a city after that city imposes stiff taxes on cigarettes.
(C) weakens the author's argument by showing that people might find other ways to get cigarettes after the city’s tax increase. It thus demonstrates that a drop in cigarette purchases will not necessarily lead to less smoking, as the author assumed it would.
D
People who are well informed about the effects of long-term tobacco use are significantly less likely to smoke than are people who are not informed.
This implies that the city’s antismoking education programs could effectively reduce smoking. But it doesn’t undermine the author’s conclusion, which is that increased taxes on cigarettes would effectively reduce smoking.
E
Antismoking education programs that are funded by taxes on cigarettes will tend to lose their funding if they are successful.
Like (D), this speaks to the effectiveness of antismoking education programs; if they successfully reduce smoking, then they’ll lose their funding due to fewer cigarette purchases. However, it doesn't weaken the author's conclusion that higher cigarette taxes will reduce smoking.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the government’s demolishing of a former naval base was inefficient and immoral. This is based on the fact that using the base’s facilities for other purposes would have benefited everyone.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that if using the base for other purposes would have benefited everyone, then demolishing the base is immoral. This overlooks the possibility that demolishing the base could have been a morally acceptable action even if not demolishing the base could have benefited everyone. There’s no necessary relationship between benefiting others and being moral or immoral. The author also ignores that demolishing the base might be even more beneficial for everyone than using the base for other purposes.
A
fails to consider that an action may be morally permissible even if an alternative course of action is to everyone’s advantage
The author fails to consider that an action (demolishing) may be morally permissible even if an alternative course of action (using the base for other purposes) is to everyone’s advantage. (A) shows that the author’s premise doesn’t establish demolishing the building was immoral.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that the actual consequences of an action are irrelevant to the action’s moral permissibility
The author doesn’t assume that actual consequences are irrelevant. After all, one actual consequence of demolishing is that the base can’t be used for the purposes described. This is something the author takes into account and uses in the argument.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that the government never acts in the most efficient manner
The author’s argument concerns only the demolishing of the former naval base. The author concludes that this action was inefficient. That doesn’t commit the author to an assumption that the government never acts in the most efficient way.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that any action that is efficient is also moral
The author does not assume that if an action is efficient, then it must be moral. The conclusion is that the government’s action was inefficient and also immoral. This doesn’t commit the author to a belief about a conditional relationship between efficiency and morality.
E
inappropriately treats two possible courses of action as if they were the only options
The author does not treat demolishing the base and using it for other purposes as the only options. For example, maybe the government could have left the base up and just abandoned it completely. The author doesn’t assume this wasn’t possible.
Tova: You assume that communication via computer replaces more intimate forms of communication and interaction, when more often it replaces asocial or even antisocial behavior.
Speaker 1 Summary
Communication via computer contributes to the dissolution of lasting communal bonds. Why? Because communication via computer is usually conducted privately and anonymously between people who would otherwise interact in person.
Speaker 2 Summary
Communication via computer more often replaces asocial or antisocial behavior. You cannot assume communication via computer replaces intimate forms of interaction.
Objective
We need a statement that Samuel and Tova disagree on. They disagree whether communication via computer dissolves social bonds. Samuel thinks that it does because communication via computer replaces in-person interactions. Tova thinks that it does not because communication via computer replaces asocial or antisocial interactions.
A
A general trend of modern life is to dissolve the social bonds that formerly connected people.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Neither speaker classifies computer communication as a general trend of modern life.
B
All purely private behavior contributes to the dissolution of social bonds.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Samuel only thinks that some private behavior contributes to this dissolution. “All” private behavior is too strong.
C
Face-to-face communication is more likely to contribute to the creation of social bonds than is anonymous communication.
Tova does not express an opinion on this statement. Tova only expresses that it’s not necessarily true that computer communication dissolves social bonds.
D
It is desirable that new social bonds be created to replace the ones that have dissolved.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. We don’t know what either speaker would believe is a desirable outcome.
E
If people were not communicating via computer, they would most likely be engaged in activities that create stronger social bonds.
Samuel and Tova disagree on this statement. Samuel agrees and thinks that this is the reason computer communication can be said to contribute to the dissolution of social bonds. Tova disagrees and thinks that computer communication replaces asocial behavior.