Summarize Argument
The author concludes that nutrition educated was dangerous to health. She provides no support for this claim.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s some reason why nutrition education was dangerous to health. This likely has to do with the division of foods into the four food groups.
A
The division into four groups gave the impression that an equal amount of each should be consumed, but milk and meat tend to contain fats that promote heart disease and cancer and should be eaten in lesser amounts.
Not all foods should be consumed in equal amounts, yet the “four food groups” idea suggested just this. Thus, nutrition education was dangerous to health.
B
The omission of fish, which contains beneficial oils, from the names of groups in the list gave the erroneous impression that it is less healthy as a food than is red meat.
The food groups omitted foods that were actually healthy. That’s not good for health.
C
A healthy diet should include the consumption of several different fruits and vegetables daily, but the recommendation was often interpreted as satisfied by the consumption of a single serving of a fruit or vegetable.
Healthy diets have a mix of fruits and vegetables, but the four food groups suggested simply eating a couple carrots every day would cut it. That’s not the case.
D
The recommendation that some food from the fruit and vegetable group be consumed daily constituted a reminder not to neglect this group, which provides needed vitamins, minerals, and fiber.
Here’s a benefit of the food guide. We’re looking for the opposite.
E
Encouraging the daily consumption of some product from each of the four food groups gave the impression that eating in that manner is sufficient for a healthy diet, but eating in that manner is consistent with the overconsumption of sweets and fats.
The “four food groups” idea gave the impression that a healthy diet is simply a matter of eating dairy, meat, fruits, and grains. Such diets are in fact often terrible.
Q: But any regulations that can potentially prevent money from being wasted are useful. If obeyed, the new safety regulations will prevent some accidents, and whenever there is an accident here at the laboratory, money is wasted even if no one is injured.
Speaker 1 Summary
P says that it’s useless to follow the new safety regulations at the lab. Why? Because the regulations don’t address the causes of a fire that happened last year, and so the regulations wouldn’t have stopped the fire or prevented any injuries.
Speaker 2 Summary
Although not stated, Q’s argument leads to the implicit conclusion that following the new regulations is useful. Q says that any regulations that save money are useful, and the new regulations would prevent some accidents, thus saving money. This implies that, therefore, the new regulations are useful.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. The usefulness of the new regulations is one such point: P thinks they’re useless, but Q thinks they’re useful.
A
last year’s fire resulted in costly damage to the laboratory
Neither of the speakers actually says how costly the damage from last year’s fire was. Q says that every accident wastes money, but doesn’t say how much; P never discusses money at all.
B
accidents at the laboratory inevitably result in personal injuries
Q disagrees with this, discussing the possibility of accidents where no one is injured. P, on the other hand, never states an opinion about any accident other than last year’s fire. We simply don’t know P’s perspective on this.
C
the new safety regulations address the underlying cause of last year’s fire
P explicitly disagrees with this, but we don’t know what Q thinks. Q never weighs in on how the new regulations relate to last year’s fire, which means we can’t say that P and Q disagree.
D
it is useful to comply with the new safety regulations
P explicitly disagrees with this, but Q implicitly agrees, making this the point of disagreement. Although Q never states that they new regulations are useful, Q’s argument logically leads to that conclusion, so we can infer that Q agrees with this claim.
E
the new safety regulations are likely to be obeyed in the laboratory
Neither speaker offers an opinion about how likely people are to obey the new regulations. The conversation is about the regulations’ usefulness, not lab members’ adherence to the regulations.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why are high-quality teas not more expensive than low-quality teas, even though they differ in quality?
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains a difference between high-quality teas and low-quality teas. This difference will account for why both types of tea are priced similarly, even though one might expect high-quality teas to cost more.
A
Packaging and advertising triple the price of all teas.
This would have a uniform effect on all teas, regardless of quality. The right answer will offer a difference between high- and low- quality teas.
B
Most people buy low-quality tea, thus keeping its price up.
This explains the phenomenon by introducing an additional factor that affects price: demand. Since most people buy low-quality tea rather than high-quality tea, the increased demand drives the price of lower-quality tea up to the level of high-quality tea.
C
All types of tea are subject to high import tariffs.
This would have a uniform effect on all teas, regardless of quality. The right answer will offer a difference between high- and low- quality teas.
D
Low-quality teas are generally easier to obtain than high-quality teas.
The relative accessibility of low-quality teas does not explain why they are priced similarly to high-quality teas. One might even expect that the easier availability of low-quality teas would make them cheaper than high-quality teas.
E
The price of tea generally does not vary from region to region.
(E) does not offer any information to distinguish between high- and low-quality teas. The price of tea being generally the same across regions does not offer insight into why high- and low-quality teas are the same price.
Monarch butterflies spend the winter hibernating on trees in certain forests. Local environmental groups have organized tours of the forests in an effort to protect the butterflies’ habitat against woodcutters. Unfortunately, the tourists trample most of the small shrubs that are necessary to the survival of any monarch butterflies that fall off the trees. Therefore, the tour groups themselves are endangering the monarch butterfly population.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that tour groups meant to protect butterfly habitats are actually harming the monarch butterfly population. She supports this by saying that the tourists damage most small shrubs, which are essential for the survival of butterflies that fall from the trees.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that tourists destroying the shrubs is enough to threaten the entire monarch population. To make this assumption, she must also believe that the monarchs that fall from the trees make up a significant portion of the entire population, so that, by endangering the subset of monarchs that fall off the trees, the tourists also endanger the population as a whole.
A
the amount of forest land suitable for monarch butterfly hibernation that is not currently used by monarch butterflies for hibernation
The author only discusses the effects of tourists on the land that is currently being used by monarchs for hibernation. Whether there is also some other land that could be used for hibernation isn’t relevant to her argument.
B
the amount of wood cut each year by woodcutters in forests used by monarch butterflies for hibernation
The author concludes that the tourists are endangering the monarch butterfly population by trampling shrubs. Whether or not the woodcutters are also threatening the butterfly population doesn’t help us to evaluate this argument.
C
the amount of plant life trampled by the tourists that is not necessary to the survival of monarch butterflies
The author is only concerned with the plant life, specifically the small shrubs, that is necessary to the monarchs’ survival. It doesn’t matter how much other plant life is trampled by the tourists.
D
the proportion of the trees cut down by the woodcutters each year that are cut in the forests used by monarch butterflies for hibernation
Like (B), this doesn’t help us evaluate the author’s argument because her conclusion is only about the effect of the tourists on butterfly survival. The effect of the woodcutters is irrelevant.
E
the proportion of hibernating monarch butterflies that fall off the trees
If only a small number of hibernating monarchs fall from the trees, the tourists' actions would have little impact on the population as a whole. However, if a large number fall, the tourists may indeed be endangering the entire monarch butterfly population.
Summary
The mayor concludes that it’s not financially feasible to pave the city’s roads with rubberized asphalt, which would make winter ice removal easier and less expensive. Why not? Because rubberized asphalt is more expensive than regular asphalt—and the city cannot increase its budget to build and maintain roads.
Notable Assumptions
For the argument to make sense, the mayor must assume that using rubberized asphalt would require increasing the city’s road budget, despite any cost savings during winter ice removal. In other words, the necessary assumption is that rubberized asphalt would increase costs by a greater amount than the savings it would create.
A
Using rubberized asphalt to pave roads would not have any advantages besides facilitating the removal of ice on roads.
The mayor isn’t arguing that rubberized asphalt wouldn’t be beneficial, just that it wouldn’t fit in the budget. It’s not necessary that there be no other advantages.
B
The severity of winters in the region in which the city is located does not vary significantly from year to year.
Whether the city’s winters vary in severity doesn’t affect the argument—even if some winters were much more severe than others, the argument would still make sense.
C
It would cost more to add particles of rubber to asphalt than to add particles of rubber to other materials that are used to pave roads.
The mayor’s conclusion that rubberized asphalt wouldn’t fit in the city’s budget can stand whether or not asphalt is more expensive to rubberize than other road materials. That means this is irrelevant.
D
Savings in the cost of ice removal would not pay for the increased expense of using rubberized asphalt to pave roads.
In other words, rubberized asphalt would overall increase the city’s spending on roads. If we negated this, and the savings matched or outweighed the costs, then the mayor’s conclusion would be unsupported—making this necessary to assume.
E
The techniques the city currently uses for removing ice from city roads are not the least expensive possible, given the type of road surface in place.
The city’s ability to save money on ice removal is irrelevant, except for how it compares to the cost of rubberized asphalt. This doesn’t get to the mayor’s assumption that that cost would exceed ice removal savings, so it’s not necessary to assume.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that cable companies won’t be able to survive the fiber-optic revolution. This is because fiber-optic cables allow telephone companies to offer 150 channels for the same price cable companies charge for 50 channels.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that customers will generally choose packages with more channels at the same price. This means the author either believes customers simply like having more channels, or that some of the channels are ones customers want but don’t have access to. The author also assumes that cable companies don’t bundle their TV services with other products (i.e. internet service) in a way that would be cost-efficient for customers.
A
The initial cost per household of installing new fiber-optic television service will exceed the current cost of installing cable television service.
This seems to weaken the argument for the fiber-optic revolution. Even if telephone companies can offer channels at a cheaper price, the installation fee might mitigate some of that benefit.
B
The most popular movies and programs on channels carried by cable companies will also be offered on channels carried by the fiber-optic lines owned by the telephone companies.
Customers generally won’t lose out on any of their favorite programs if they switch to fiber-optic. They’ll simply get more choices at a lower price point.
C
Cable television companies will respond to competition from the telephone companies by increasing the number of channels they offer.
If anything, this seems to weaken the author’s argument. The whole benefit of fiber-optic is that more channels will be available.
D
Some telephone companies own cable companies in areas other than those in which they provide telephone services.
Irrelevant. The author never talks about telephone companies own cable companies.
E
The new fiber-optic services offered by telephone companies will be subject to more stringent governmental programming regulations than those to which cable companies are now subject.
This may actually weaken the author’s argument. Some people’s favorite shows might be regulated out of existence on the fiber-optic services.