Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.
(1) Irradiation prevents food from spoiling before reaching stores.
(2) It leaves behind no radiation.
(3) Vitamin loss from irradiation and from cooking are the same.
(4) It kills harmful Salmonella bacteria.
The author assumes that since irradiation and cooking cause the same amount of vitamin loss, irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutritional reasons. But what if you cook irradiated food? Wouldn’t it have twice as much vitamin loss? Or if you don’t cook it, wouldn’t it still have more vitamin loss than non-irradiated raw food?
A
After irradiation, food might still spoil if kept in storage for a long time after being purchased by the consumer.
B
Irradiated food would still need cooking, or, if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of raw food.
C
Vitamin loss is a separate issue from safety.
D
Vitamins can be ingested in pill form as well as in foods.
E
That food does not spoil before it can be offered to the consumer is primarily a benefit to the seller, not to the consumer.
Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.
A
isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument
B
showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
C
establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies
D
shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers
E
pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage
A
a change of scenery is the stage direction most frequently reflected in an opera’s music
B
an opera’s stage directions are never reflected in its music
C
an opera’s music can have an effect on the opera’s stage directions
D
a variety of stage directions can be reflected in an opera’s music
E
the most frequent relation between an opera’s music and its stage directions is one of musical imitation of the sounds that occur when a direction is carried out
A
Most bills that have not been supported by even one leader of a major party have not been passed into law.
B
Most bills that have not been passed into law were not supported by even one member of a major party.
C
If the leaders of all major parties endorse the new agriculture bill, it will pass into law.
D
Most bills that have been passed into law were not unanimously supported by the leaders of all major parties.
E
Most bills that have been passed into law were supported by at least one leader of a major party.
Scientist: Some critics of public funding for this research project have maintained that only if it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project is continued public funding for it justified. If the critics were right about this, then there would not be the tremendous public support for the project that even its critics acknowledge.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
The inference the stimulus is designed to produce is “The critics are wrong about the claim that indicating how the public will benefit is necessary for the public funding to be justified.” In other words, indicating public benefit is NOT required to justify public funding for the project.
This inference is warranted because if the critics were right, there would not be tremendous public support. But there is tremendous public support. This triggers the contrapositive and proves the critics are wrong.
A
The benefits derived from the research project are irrelevant to whether or not its funding is justified.
Could be false. We know indicating the benefits isn’t required for justification. That doesn’t mean they are irrelevant. Something can be highly relevant, even if it’s not required.
B
Continued public funding for the research project is justified.
Could be false. All we know is that the indication of how the public will benefit is not a requirement for justification. That doesn’t mean the project is actually justified. We don’t know whether it’s justified.
C
Public support for the research project is the surest indication of whether or not it is justified.
Could be false. We don’t know whether public support is the “surest” indication of justification. All we know is that there is public support, and that this shows the critics are wrong. That doesn’t mean the project is justified or that support indicates justification.
D
There is tremendous public support for the research project because it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project.
Could be false. We have no idea why there is tremendous public support. Nothing in the stimulus indicates the reason there exists such support.
E
That a public benefit can be indicated is not a requirement for the justification of the research project’s continued public funding.
Must be true. If the critics were right, there wouldn’t be tremendous public support. But there is tremendous public support. So the critics are wrong.
If there aren’t sophisticated listeners in the audience, there won’t be any inspired musical performances.
A
If there are no sophisticated listeners in the audience, then there will be no inspired musical performances in the concert.
B
No people who understand their musical roots will be in the audience if the audience will not be treated to a good show.
C
If there will be people in the audience who understand their musical roots, then at least one musical performance in the concert will be inspired.
D
The audience will be treated to a good show unless there are people in the audience who do not understand their musical roots.
E
If there are sophisticated listeners in the audience, then there will be inspired musical performances in the concert.
Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one’s risk of lung cancer. But no one thinks the government should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger. So by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.
Summary
The columnist concludes that the government shouldn’t tax certain hunting and recreational items just because they have associated risks.
Notable Valid Inferences
This is a MBT Except question. For this question, all the wrong answers will be consistent with the conclusion that the government shouldn’t tax certain recreational items just because they’re dangerous. The right answer will conflict with this conclusion by offering information that suggests the government should tax certain recreational items just because they’re dangerous.
A
The government should fund education by taxing nonessential sports equipment and recreational gear.
This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It does not conflict with the conclusion that certain recreational items shouldn’t be taxed just because they’re dangerous. Instead, it proposes that certain items should be taxed to fund education.
B
The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt healthy lifestyles.
This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It does not conflict with the conclusion that certain recreational items shouldn’t be taxed just because they’re dangerous. Instead, it argues that people with healthy lifestyles should not be taxed.
C
The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.
This conflicts with the conclusion by suggesting the complete opposite of what the columnist argues. (C) says the government should create financial disincentives for dangerous activities, while the columnist says the government should not.
D
The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountains, even though these are dangerous activities.
This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It supports the conclusion by offering a supporting principle: the government should not create financial disincentives for dangerous activities.
E
The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannot afford to pay for them.
This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It does not conflict with the conclusion that certain recreational items shouldn’t be taxed just because they’re dangerous.
Only a very small percentage of people from the service professions ever become board members of the 600 largest North American corporations. This shows that people from the service professions are underrepresented in the most important corporate boardrooms in North America.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people from the service professions are underrepresented in the most important corporate boardrooms in North America. She supports this by noting that only a small percentage of them become board members of the 600 largest corporations.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author’s conclusion is about the amount of board members who are from service professions, while her premise is about the percentage of people from service professions who are board members.
She assumes that, because a small percentage of people from service professions are board members, it must be that a small percentage of board members are from service professions. But what if only 5% of people from service professions are board members, but 75% of board members are from service professions? Then people from the service professions would certainly not be underrepresented.
A
Six hundred is too small a sample on which to base so sweeping a conclusion about the representation of people from the service professions.
The author’s argument isn’t flawed due to sample size. 600 is simply referring to the number of the largest corporations in North America, and the conclusion is about these same “most important” corporations. She isn’t using an unrepresentative sample to draw her conclusion.
B
The percentage of people from the service professions who serve on the boards of the 600 largest North American corporations reveals little about the percentage of the members of these boards who are from the service professions.
Just because a small percentage of people from service professions are board members, does not mean that a small percentage of board members are from service professions. The author mistakenly assumes that it does.
C
It is a mistake to take the 600 largest North American corporations to be typical of corporate boardrooms generally.
The author doesn't make this mistake because she isn’t talking about corporate boardrooms generally. She’s just talking about “the most important corporate boardrooms in North America.”
D
It is irrelevant to smaller corporations whether the largest corporations in North America would agree to have significant numbers of workers from the service professions on the boards of the largest corporations.
How this impacts smaller corporations is irrelevant. The argument only addresses the largest corporations in North America.
E
The presence of people from the service professions on a corporate board does not necessarily imply that that corporation will be more socially responsible than it has been in the past.
The author never addresses corporations’ levels of social responsibility or how board members from service professions might impact social responsibility. (E) is irrelevant.