Extract from lease: The tenant should record all preexisting damage on the preexisting damage list, because the tenant need not pay for preexisting damage recorded there. The tenant must pay for damage that was not recorded on the preexisting damage list, except for any damage caused by a circumstance beyond the tenant’s control.
Summary
A tenant does not have to pay for preexisting damage if the damage was recorded on the preexisting damage list. A tenant must pay for damage not on this list except in cases where the damage was caused by circumstances beyond the tenant’s control.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If an event beyond a tenant’s control caused damage, the tenant will not have to pay for that damage.
A
a hole in the wall that was not recorded on the preexisting damage list and that was the result of an event within the tenant’s control
This answer is unsupported. In order to not be required to pay for damage, a tenant must meet at least one condition: (1) the damage was recorded on the preexisting damage list, or (2) the damage was caused by an event outside of the tenant’s control.
B
a crack in a window caused by a factor beyond the tenant’s control and not recorded on the preexisting damage list
This answer is strongly supported. This answer satisfies one condition for the tenant not to be required to pay for the damage.
C
a tear in the linoleum that was not preexisting but that was caused by one of the tenant’s children
This answer is unsupported. It is reasonable that the tenant would have control over what damage their children cause, and therefore it does not meet a condition required for the tenant not to be required to pay.
D
a missing light fixture that was present when the tenant moved in but was later removed by the tenant
This answer is unsupported. It is unclear from the stimulus whether a missing light fixture could be considered “damage.”
E
paint splatters on the carpet that should have been recorded on the preexisting damage list but were not
This answer is unsupported. It is unclear in this answer whether the paint splatters occurred within or beyond the tenant’s control. Without knowing, we cannot reasonably say the tenant would not be required to pay for the damage.
Marion: The mayor’s action is fully explained by cruder motives: she’s rewarding Azco’s owner, a political supporter of hers.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Marion hypothesizes that, by using her influence to get Azco time on a community channel, the mayor was rewarding Azco’s owner for politically supporting the mayor.
Notable Assumptions
Marion assumes that there’s no other explanation for why the mayor used her influence to get Azco time on a community channel.
A
The owner of Azco supported the mayor simply because he liked her political agenda, and not for any expected reward.
The mayor can still choose to reward the owner, even if the owner didn’t expect it. (A) doesn’t suggest that the mayor’s action might not be a choice to reward the owner for the support.
B
The mayor also used her influence to get time on a community channel for another news service, whose owner supported the mayor’s opponent in the last election.
This suggests that there can be other motives behind the mayor’s action besides rewarding for political support. After all, (B) shows that the mayor used her influence in a similar way for someone who didn’t support her.
C
Azco’s news coverage of the mayor has never been judged to be biased by an impartial, independent organization.
Marion’s theory doesn’t depend on the content of Azco’s channel involving bias. It’s just based on the Azco owner’s support of the mayor. This could be financial support, such as donations to the mayor’s campaign.
D
The many people whose jobs depend on Azco’s continued presence on a community channel are a potential source of political support for the mayor.
This doesn’t suggest that the mayor’s action might not be a reward to the Azco owner. If anything, this provides more reason to think the mayor might be politically motivated.
E
The number of people who watch Mega Cable Television Company’s programming has decreased during the mayor’s term.
The number of people watching Mega Cable has no clear impact on Marion’s theory. Her theory doesn’t depend on any assumptions concerning viewership of either Mega Cable or Azco.
Summarize Argument
People’s values can be used to predict their actions. This is because there is a strong correlation between the two variables of value and action. One example of this correlation is that people who value wealth will choose higher paying jobs even if they are in undesirable locations.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is a possible application of the knowledge described: “knowing what people value can help one predict their actions.”
A
Knowing how people behave allows one to infer what they value.
This flips the conclusion. The author is saying values can be used to predict action, not the other way around.
B
People’s claims concerning what they value are symptomatic of their actions.
The author is saying that the two variables are correlated and that values can be used to predict action. This answer choice claims that actions precede values, which doesn’t fit with the stimulus.
C
No two people who value different things act the same way in identical circumstances.
This answer choice goes too far. The stimulus does not indicate that this is impossible, just that values can be helpful in predicting actions.
D
People who value wealth tend to allow their desire for it to outweigh other concerns.
This comes from the example that supports the correlation, which in turn supports the conclusion. It is a somewhat inaccurate rephrasing of a premise.
E
What people value can be a reliable indicator of how they will act.
This accurately rephrases the conclusion. As a reliable indicator, what people value can help predict how people will act.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Elderly people who were born in and reside in a certain community have significantly worse health than elderly people who moved to the community in the last five years.
Objective
Since this is an “Except” question, we’re looking for a hypothesis that doesn’t explain the health differences between the two groups of elderly community residence. The correct answer won’t give any reason why the elderly people who’ve lived in the community their whole lives have worse health, or why the ones who moved in recently are in relatively better health.
A
People who have the means to relocate tend to be in better-than-average health.
The elderly people who’ve moved into the community are well-off, and therefore more likely to be in good health. This explains the difference between the two groups, so it isn’t our answer.
B
Although most people who have moved into the community are young, most people who have lived in the community all their lives are elderly.
We’re comparing two groups of elderly people. We don’t care about young people who’ve moved into the community, so this doesn’t help resolve anything.
C
The quality of health care available to the community is lower than that for the rest of the country.
Elderly people who’ve lived in the community their entire lives suffered worse healthcare than those who haven’t, hence why they’re in worse health.
D
Changes in one’s environment tend to have a beneficial effect on one’s health.
Elderly people who’ve moved to the community benefited from the move. And elderly people who’ve lived in the community their entire lives have never got the benefit of changing their environment.
E
People in good health are more likely to move to new communities than are people in poor health.
The people who moved to the community were already healthy when they got there. This explains why they’re healthier than the existing residents, who we must assume are average in health.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Minimum-wage increases usually result in layoffs, yet the fast-food industry didn’t experience layoffs after a recent minimum-wage increase.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis explaining why the fast-food industry didn’t react as industries generally do to a minimum-wage increase, especially considering that most fast-food industry employees are paid the minimum wage. The explanation must account for the lack of cutbacks.
A
After the recent increase in the minimum wage, decreased job turnover in the fast-food industry allowed employers of fast-food workers to save enough on recruiting costs to cover the cost of the wage increase.
Since fast-food workers got a raise, they didn’t go looking for new jobs. Employers were therefore able to save on recruiting new workers. This saving allowed them to continue operating as usual without cutbacks.
B
If, in any industry, an increase in the minimum wage leads to the elimination of many jobs that pay the minimum wage, then higher-paying supervisory positions will also be eliminated in that industry.
The increase in the minimum wage didn’t lead to the elimination of minimum-wage fast food jobs. Besides, it’s not like the supervisor class decides which jobs are retained or eliminated.
C
With respect to its response to increases in the minimum wage, the fast-food industry does not differ significantly from other industries that employ many workers at the minimum wage.
This directly contradicts the stimulus rather than giving the explanation we need. Companies usually cut back on jobs when the minimum wage raises, but fast-food companies didn’t cut back on jobs. The fast-food industry definitely differed from other industries.
D
A few employees in the fast-food industry were already earning more than the new, higher minimum wage before the new minimum wage was established.
We don’t care about exceptions. Most fast-food employees were at the minimum wage, so we still need to know why they weren’t laid off as expected.
E
Sales of fast food to workers who are paid the minimum wage did not increase following the recent change in the minimum wage.
We’re not talking about workers actually buying fast food. We’re talking about fast-food workers.
Summary
The first word, the last word, and the main words in a title should be capitalized.
Articles in the middle of a title, and prepositions and conjunctions with fewer than five letters in the middle of a title should not be capitalized.
Articles in the middle of a title, and prepositions and conjunctions with fewer than five letters in the middle of a title should not be capitalized.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
If an article should be capitalized, then it’s not in the middle of the title.
If a preposition or conjunction with fewer than five letters should be capitalized, then it’s not in the middle of the title.
If a word in the middle of a title should be capitalized, then it’s not an article or a preposition or conjunction with fewer than five letters.
If a preposition or conjunction with fewer than five letters should be capitalized, then it’s not in the middle of the title.
If a word in the middle of a title should be capitalized, then it’s not an article or a preposition or conjunction with fewer than five letters.
A
If a word that is a preposition or conjunction should be capitalized, then it is the first or last word of the title.
Unsupported. Actually, if a preposition or conjunction should be capitalized, then it’s not in the middle of the title or it’s not shorter than five letters.
B
If a word in the middle of a title should be capitalized, then that word is neither an article nor a conjunction shorter than five letters.
Very strongly supported. Articles and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters in the middle of a title should not be capitalized. So if a word in the middle of a title should be capitalized, it’s not an article and it’s not a conjunction shorter than five letters.
C
All prepositions and conjunctions with fewer than five letters should be uncapitalized in titles.
Unsupported. Prepositions and conjunctions with fewer than five letters in the middle of a title should be uncapitalized. But the first and last words should always be capitalized. So if a short preposition or conjunction is the first or last word, then it should be capitalized.
D
If a word is neither a main word nor a first or last word of a title, then it should not be capitalized.
Unsupported. These words should be capitalized, but that doesn’t mean that all other words should not be capitalized. It’s possible that prepositions and conjunctions with more than five letters should be capitalized, or that other kinds of words like names should be capitalized.
E
Prepositions and conjunctions with five or more letters should be capitalized in any text.
Unsupported. We’re only talking about titles, not about “any text.” Regardless, just because prepositions and conjunctions with fewer than five words should not be capitalized doesn’t necessarily mean that longer prepositions and conjunctions should be.