Politician: My opponents argue that the future of our city depends on compromise—that unless the city’s leaders put aside their differences and work together toward common goals, the city will suffer. However, the founders of this city based the city’s charter on definite principles, and anyone who compromises those principles betrays the city founders’ goals. What my opponents are advocating, therefore, is nothing less than betraying the goals of the city’s founders.
Critic: I’m afraid your argument is flawed. Unless you’re assuming that the differences among the city’s leaders are differences of principle, your argument depends on a misleading use of the term _______.
Summary
The opponents of the politician call for compromise. They say that the city will suffer unless the city’s leaders put aside their own differences and work toward common goals. The politician claims that the opponents advocating for the betrayal of the city founders’ goals, since anyone who compromises the principles on which the city’s charter was founded would betray the city founders’ goals.
The critic calls the politician’s argument flawed because of the misleading use of a particular term.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The blank should be filled with the term that the politicians is using in a misleading way. The word is “compromise.” The opponents advocate for compromise regarding the city leaders’ differences. That’s not the same as compromise regarding the principles underlying the city’s charter.
A
betray
Unsupported. The word “betray” is used in only one way and is not misleading.
B
common
Unsupported. The word “common” is used in only one way and is not misleading.
C
compromise
Strongly supported. The opponents advocated for “compromise” concerning the city leaders’ differences. The politician interpreted “compromise” as a reference to how we should treat the principles underlying the city charter. This changed the meaning of “compromise.”
D
principles
Unsupported. “Principles” was used in only one way and was not misleading.
E
opponents
Unsupported. “Opponents” was used in only one way and was not misleading.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes people who say every discovery or invention is a form of self-expression shouldn’t be taken seriously unless they make their interpretation more interesting. Why not? Because everything a person does is somewhat self-expressive.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes people who say all discovery and invention is self-expression allow everything to count as self-expression. In addition, he assumes a claim about self-expression should only be taken seriously if it means denying that some things are self-expressive.
A
All claims that are trivial are uninteresting.
This doesn’t affect the argument. It implies the claim about self-expression is both trivial and uninteresting, but does nothing to establish that a trivial, uninteresting claim shouldn’t be taken seriously.
B
Most people do not take trivial claims seriously.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how many people do take the claim seriously—only whether people should take it seriously.
C
No claims that are trivial are worthy of serious consideration.
This makes concrete a key assumption: that a claim about self-expression shouldn’t be taken seriously if it allows everything to be self-expressive and is therefore trivial.
D
Every claim is open to both interesting and uninteresting interpretations.
This doesn’t support the assertion that a more interesting interpretation is required. The author may consider the interpretation provided interesting, but not interesting enough.
E
Every interpretation is either trivial or uninteresting.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests the author asks the impossible by demanding those who claim discovery and invention are instances of self-expression craft an interpretation that is both not trivial and more interesting.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author presents an explanation for the media’s increase in crime coverage: it’s the result of increased public interest in crime, rather than the result of actual increases in crime itself. Why would increased public interest in crime have an effect on media coverage? Because the media base their coverage largely on their audiences’ interests.
Identify Argument Part
The text in the question stem is part of the conclusion. It’s the author’s preferred explanation for why the media are devoting more coverage to crime.
A
It supports the conclusion that the media now devote more coverage to crime than the crime rate alone justifies.
It is part of the main conclusion—it doesn’t support any other conclusion. Also, there is never any claim that the media give more coverage to crime than the crime rate justifies.
B
It is presented as evidence that the media decide what to cover and to what extent to cover it depending on the interests of the public.
This gets the argument’s support structure backward. The fact that the media base coverage decisions on the public’s interests provides evidence to believe the proposition in the question stem: the true cause of the media’s growing crime coverage is increased public interest.
C
It is a counterexample to the claim that the media devote more coverage to crime now than they did ten years ago.
It is an explanation for the phenomenon described here—not a counterexample. The author agrees that the media devote more coverage to crime now, and then explains why this is so.
D
It is a generalization based on the claim that the crime rate has increased over the past ten years.
It can’t be a generalization based on this claim, because this claim is never made in the stimulus. The proposition in the question stem is a hypothesis.
E
It is offered as an alternative explanation of why the media devote more coverage to crime now than they did ten years ago.
This describes the role of the proposition in the question stem. It’s the author’s explanation, which he offers as an alternative to the theory that the media’s growing crime coverage is due to an increase in crime itself.
Summary
Viruses can have beneficial effects.
Some viruses kill more-complex organisms. Some of these more-complex organisms that are killed by viruses are deadly to humans.
Viruses have simple structures. Modifying these structures can make a virus deadly to humans.
Random mutations commonly produce changes in the structures of viruses.
Any virus can easily become dangerous to humans.
Some viruses kill more-complex organisms. Some of these more-complex organisms that are killed by viruses are deadly to humans.
Viruses have simple structures. Modifying these structures can make a virus deadly to humans.
Random mutations commonly produce changes in the structures of viruses.
Any virus can easily become dangerous to humans.
Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference to draw. I’d rely on process of elimination to identify what must be false.
A
Random mutation makes some deadly viruses beneficial to humans.
Could be true. We know mutations can make viruses dangerous. That doesn’t mean mutations can’t make deadly viruses beneficial.
B
Some organisms of greater complexity than viruses are no more likely than viruses to undergo significant alterations through random mutation.
Could be true. It’s possible that there are some viruses that are less likely or equally likely as viruses to undergo major changes from mutations. We were never told that viruses are the least likely to undergo major changes from mutation.
C
Some microorganisms that are more complex than viruses are beneficial to humans.
We know some microorganisms that are more complex than viruses can kill humans. But there could be other microorganisms that are more complex than viruses that are beneficial to humans.
D
Some viruses that fail to kill other viruses that are deadly to humans are nevertheless beneficial to humans.
Could be true. Some viruses could be beneficial in other ways besides killing organisms that are deadly to humans. That was just one example of a benefit.
E
No virus that is deadly to organisms of greater complexity than itself is beneficial to humans.
Must be false. We know some viruses kill more-complex organisms that are deadly to humans. So these viruses are beneficial to humans by killing organisms that might kill humans.
Summary
In the retina, light is registered when photons make contact with molecules of rhodopsin and cause the molecules to change shape. Rhodopsin molecules sometimes change shape caused by normal molecular motion, which causes errors in the visual system. The amount of normal molecular motion is directly proportional to the temperature of the retina.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The warmer the retina, the higher the chance that errors in the visual system occur.
A
The temperature of an animal’s retina depends on the amount of light the retina is absorbing.
This answer is not supported. We don’t know whether the amount of light the retina absorbs actually causes the retina to change in temperature.
B
The visual systems of animals whose body temperature matches that of their surroundings are more error-prone in hot surroundings than in cold ones.
This answer is strongly supported. If the amount of normal molecular motion that causes visual errors is proportional to the temperature of the retina, then the warmer an animals’ environment the more error-prone that animal’s visual system is.
C
As the temperature of the retina rises, rhodopsin molecules react more slowly to being struck by photons.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus how quickly rhodopsin reacts after being struck by photons.
D
Rhodopsin molecules are more sensitive to photons in animals whose retinas have large surface areas than in animals whose retinas have small surface areas.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus if the surface area of an animal’s retina is correlated with the sensitivity of rhodopsin molecules.
E
Molecules of rhodopsin are the only pigment molecules that occur naturally in the retina.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether rhodopsin is the only pigment molecule. We only know that it is an example of a naturally occurring pigment molecule.
Summarize Argument
The critic concludes the “society-as-body” metaphor justifies authoritarian rule better than other metaphors. Why? Because metaphors are popular to the extent they’re politically useful, and the society-as-body metaphor is popular in authoritarian societies.
Notable Assumptions
The critic assumes there’s no political use for the society-as-body metaphor except to justify authoritarian repression. He also assumes the society-as-family metaphor and the other metaphors mentioned are less popular in authoritarian societies than the society-as-body metaphor.
A
In authoritarian societies, the metaphor of society as a family is just as pervasive as the society-as-body metaphor.
This disputes the author’s assumption that the society-as-family metaphor is less popular than the society-as-body metaphor. If both metaphors are equally widespread, then the society-as-body metaphor cannot be popular simply because it justifies authoritarian rule.
B
Every society tries to justify the legitimacy of its government through the use of metaphor.
This strengthens the critic’s argument. It explains why the society-as-body metaphor would be politically useful to authoritarian governments.
C
The metaphor of society as a human body is sometimes used in nonauthoritarian societies.
This doesn’t say the society-as-body metaphor is popular in nonauthoritarian societies. It may be quite rare, in which case its relative popularity in authoritarian societies still supports the argument.
D
Authoritarian leaders are always searching for new metaphors for society in their effort to maintain their power.
This doesn’t say the society-as-body metaphor becomes less useful to authoritarian leaders over time—they can search for new metaphors without abandoning old ones.
E
The metaphor of society as a human body governed by a head is rarely used in liberal democracies.
This strengthens the argument. It supports the critic’s claim that metaphors are popular to the extent they’re politically useful, since it suggests the society-as-body metaphor is much more popular in authoritarian societies than in liberal democracies.