Summary
When soil is plowed in the spring, pigweed seeds are churned up and redeposited just under the surface. Brief exposure to sunlight stimulates receptors. When receptors are stimulated, germination is triggered. Prolonged darkness, followed by exposure to sunlight, is necessary for the seeds to germinate.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Fewer pigweed seeds will germinate when a field is plowed at night versus a field that is plowed during the day.
A
Fewer pigweed plants will grow in the field if it is plowed only at night than if it is plowed during the day.
This answer is strongly supported. The last sentence tells us that exposure to sunlight is necessary for seeds to germinate. There is no sunlight at night, therefore the seeds are less likely to grow.
B
Fewer pigweed plants will grow in the field if it is not plowed at all than if it is plowed only at night.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what occurs whenever a field is not plowed at all.
C
Fewer pigweed plants will grow in the field if it is plowed just before sunrise than if it is plowed just after sunset.
This answer is unsupported. Before sunrise and after sunset both imply darkness. Exposure to sunlight is necessary for seeds to germinate.
D
The pigweed seeds that are churned up to the surface of the soil during the plowing will not germinate unless they are redeposited under the surface of the soil.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the seeds being redeposited is a necessary condition for germination.
E
All of the pigweed seeds that are already on the surface of the soil before the field is plowed will germinate.
This answer is unsupported. The last sentence tells us that prolonged darkness is necessary for seeds to germinate. If the seeds are already on the surface, then they were not exposed to prolonged darkness.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes companies should assign their best managers to development projects. Why? Because talented managers are typically assigned to established projects, causing new product lines—which require talent to market—to fail most of the time.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes assigning talented managers to development projects would create a net benefit to companies. This means assuming talented managers would increase the chances new projects succeed, and that the consequent benefit would outweigh any harm caused by removing skilled managers from established project lines.
A
On average, new ventures under the direction of managers at executive level survive no longer than those managed by lower-ranking managers.
This weakens the argument. It suggests assigning talented managers to new products would not make those products more successful on average.
B
For most established companies, the development of new product lines is a relatively small part of the company’s total expenditure.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests new product lines are a small part of a company’s overall plan, which means assigning talented managers to those projects carries a larger risk.
C
The more talented a manager is, the less likely he or she is to be interested in undertaking the development of a new product line.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests assigning managers to new product lines will result in more of a company’s talented managers working on projects they’re disinterested in.
D
The current revenue and profitability of an established product line can be maintained even if the company’s best managers are assigned elsewhere.
This supports the author’s recommendation by ruling out a possible problem. It suggests removing talented managers from established product lines will not substantially harm those product lines.
E
Early short-term revenue prospects of a new product line are usually a good predictor of how successful a product line will ultimately be.
This is irrelevant. The author doesn’t suggest experienced managers be assigned at a particular point in a new product’s development, nor does he suggest early revenue prospects are determined by managerial performance.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the critics who accuse our team of being unprofessional due to the team’s enthusiasm on the field are wrong. This is based on the fact that the professionals in the sport act in a more enthuasiastic way.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author misinterprets the critics claim that the team is “unprofessional.” “Unprofessional” can mean rude, uncourteous. But the author mistakenly thinks that the critics were claiming the team was not behaving like professional players behave.
A
misleadingly equates enthusiasm with unethical play
The author does not equate enthusiasm with unethical play. Rather, he is responding to the critics’ belief that the enthusiastic repsonses of the team are “unprofessional.” The author believes the responses are not “unprofessional,” in the sense that professionals act similarly.
B
misinterprets the critics’ claim that the team is unprofessional
The author misinterprets the critics’ claim as accusing the team of not acting like professional players. But the critics actually just mean that the team is rude or uncourteous.
C
too quickly generalizes from the sport at one level to the sport at a different level
The author doesn’t try to conclude that something is true of nonprofessionals because it’s true of professionals. The author is trying to show that particular behavior is performed by professionals to rebut the claim that the team is “unprofessional.”
D
shifts the blame for the team’s behavior to professional players
The author does not try to cast blame on anyone. Rather, the author tries to rebut the claim that the team is “unprofessional.”
E
takes everyone on the team to have performed the actions of a few
The author does not assume that everyone on the team acted in a certain way because a few acted in that way. The premises don’t say anything about whether only a few individuals have acted enthusiastically.
Summarize Argument
The author’s main conclusion is that the proposal to stimulate economic activity in the province by refunding $600 million won’t actually benefit the province’s taxpayers. This is because the province’s budget is required to be in balance, which the author believes implies that the province will need to issue new taxes or fire workers in order to make up for the $600 million that would be going back to taxpayers.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that in order to balance the budget, the province must issue new taxes or fire workers.
A
taxpayers of the province would spend outside the province at least $300 million of any $600 million refunded to them
If taxpayers spend the refund out of province, that’s less money that would be spent on economic activity in the province. This supports the author’s point that the proposal won’t result in a net increase in spending in the province.
B
taxpayers of the province would receive any refund in partial payments during the year rather than in a lump sum
Whether the refund is in one lump sum or multiple payments doesn’t change the overall amount of the refund or whether the need to balance the budget necessitates new taxes or firing workers.
C
province could assess new taxes in a way that would avoid angering taxpayers
The taxpayers’ emotions have no clear impact on this argument. The author’s reasoning relates to the need to balance the budget and recoup the $600 million being refunded.
D
province could, instead of refunding the money, stimulate its economy by redirecting its spending to use the $600 million for construction projects creating jobs around the province
This answer describes a solution that doesn’t involve refunding $600 million to taxpayers. But the conclusion is about the refund and whether it will achieve its goal. Pointing out that we can do something besides a refund doesn’t undermine the author’s point.
E
province could keep its workers and use them more effectively, with a resulting savings of $600 million in its out-of-province expenditures
This points out how the need to balance the budget doesn’t require new taxes or firing workers. If we could keep workers and recoup $600 million by saving on out-of-province expenditures, then we don’t need to tax the province’s taxpayers or fire workers.
Summarize Argument
The speaker concludes that businesses should use power responsibly in order to hold that power as long as possible. Why? Because according to history and the “Iron Law of Responsibility,” society will eventually act to disempower institutions it thinks are misusing power.
Notable Assumptions
The speaker assumes that a business must act responsibly in order for society to view it as responsible. She also assumes that when society tries to disempower an irresponsible business, it will have success. In addition, she assumes using power responsibly will not prevent a business from reaching the “long run.”
A
Government institutions are as subject to the Iron Law of Responsibility as business institutions.
This doesn’t mean businesses are exempt from that rule. This supports expanding the speaker’s argument to government institutions, but does not weaken her argument relating to businesses.
B
Public relations programs can cause society to consider an institution socially responsible even when it is not.
This challenges the speaker’s assumption that a business must act responsibly in order to be viewed as responsible. It implies businesses can hold their power by acting irresponsibly but maintaining good public relations.
C
The power of some institutions erodes more slowly than the power of others, whether they are socially responsible or not.
This is an irrelevant distinction between institutions. The speed of that erosion is not important to the speaker’s argument, because she admits the “long run” is different in each case.
D
Since no institution is eternal, every business will eventually fail.
This is fully compatible with the speaker’s argument. She explains how businesses should act to remain powerful as long as they can—she does not imply they can retain power forever.
E
Some businesses that have used power in socially responsible ways have lost it.
The speaker does not say that socially responsible businesses will last forever. She states only that social responsibility will maximize the time a business has power.