Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The scientist hypothesizes Alzheimer’s disease is caused by a virus. This is based on a study where rats injected with blood from Alzheimer’s disease patients exhibited signs of a different neurological disorder which is caused by a virus.
Notable Assumptions
The scientist assumes that the rats developed Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease due to being injected blood from Alzheimer’s disease patients; if that virus came from elsewhere, then the hypothesis makes no sense. The scientist also assumes that the same virus that causes Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease causes Alzheimer’s disease. It would otherwise be purely coincidental that Alzheimer’s patients carry two separate disease-causing viruses.
A
Alzheimer’s disease in rats is not caused by a virus.
We have no evidence rats can even get Alzheimer’s. If anything, this seems to weaken the scientist’s argument.
B
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease affects only motor nerves in rats’ limbs, not their brains.
We don’t care about how the disease affects rats. We care about where Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease came from.
C
The virus that causes Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in rats has no effect on humans.
If it has no effect on humans, then it couldn’t cause Alzheimer’s disease. This weakens the scientist’s argument.
D
The symptoms known, respectively, as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and Alzheimer’s disease are different manifestations of the same disease.
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and Alzheimer’s disease are the same disease. Thus, a virus that causes one must cause the other, and we know that Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in rats was caused by a virus.
E
Blood from rats without Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease produced no symptoms of the disease when injected into other experimental rats.
We need to strengthen the connection between a virus and Alzheimer’s disease. We can imagine rats without a virus don’t infect other rats.
Summary
When speaking, an orator can use gestures and change the tone of their voice to indicate the intended meaning of ambiguous words and phrases. On the other hand, writers cannot use these tactics and must instead rely on style, arrangement of words and sentences, to provide readers with the intended meaning of their work.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Orators and writers get their intended meaning across in different ways.
Writers use the arrangement of words and sentences to get their intended meaning across.
Writers use the arrangement of words and sentences to get their intended meaning across.
A
The primary function of style in writing is to augment the literal meanings of the words and sentences used.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that a function of style (not the primary function) is to indicate the intended meaning of their work. The stimulus also says nothing about augmenting the meaning of words.
B
The intended meaning of a piece of writing is indicated in part by the writer’s arrangement of words and sentences.
The stimulus says that writers rely on style (the arrangement of words and sentences) to indicate their intended meaning. All you need to show is that the intended meaning is indicated *in part* which is a very low standard of proof to meet.
C
It is easier for a listener to detect the tone of a speaker than for a reader to detect the style of a writer.
This comparative statement is not supported and requires a few assumptions to make it work. You have to assume that it is easier to understand a speaker's gesture and tone of voice than a writer’s style.
D
A writer’s intention will always be interpreted differently by different readers.
The stimulus does not support this. You need a few assumptions to make this work.
E
The writer’s arrangement of words and sentences completely determines the aesthetic value of his or her writing.
There is no link between the writer’s style and the aesthetic value of the writing (much less something that would completely determine its worth).
Summary
Gene splicing can create new kinds of farm animals whose genetic makeup is only partially understood. While the process can introduce desired traits, it can also introduce potentially harmful genes that are difficult to detect.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Gene splicing can have some negative unintended consequences.
A
All toxin production is genetically controlled.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus gives support that *some* toxin production is genetically controlled, not “all.”
B
Gene splicing to produce new varieties of farm animals should be used cautiously.
The stimulus claims that genetic splicing can bring about “undesirable” traits. Thus, it is reasonable that the statements support being “cautious” about the technique.
C
Gene splicing is not effective as a way of producing new varieties of farm animals.
This statement is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that it has some undesirable consequences, not that it is “not effective.”
D
Most new varieties of farm animals produced by gene splicing will develop cancer.
There is no mention of cancer in the stimulus. You need a lot of assumptions to make this work
E
Gene splicing will advance to the point where unforeseen consequences are no longer a problem.
There is no support for what gene splicing will look like in the future.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that testosterone tends to promote heart disease, and estrogen tends to inhibit heart disease. This is based on the following:
Heart disease generally affects men earlier than it does women. Women tend to experience heart disease after menopause.
When men and women are young, men have ten times more testosterone than women.
Women lose estrogen after menopause.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that a correlation between higher testosterone and increased heart attacks is explained by testerone’s causing heart attacks. The author also assumes that women’s decreased risk of heart attack compared to men when young is expained by estrogen helping to prevent heart attacks.
A
Hormones are the primary factors that account for the differences in age-related heart disease risks between women and men.
The author doesn’t assume that hormones are the “primary” factors. He does assume that hormones are at least one factor, but that doesn’t mean he thinks they are the most important factor.
B
Estrogen and testosterone are the only hormones that promote or inhibit heart disease.
The author doesn’t assume these are the only hormones that affect heart disease risk. He does assume that these hormones affect the risk, but that doesn’t mean he thinks other hormones have no effect.
C
Men with high testosterone levels have a greater risk for heart disease than do postmenopausal women.
The author never compares the risk of heart disease between men with high testosterone levels and women after menopause.
D
Because hormone levels are correlated with heart disease they influence heart disease.
The author assumes that correlation between testerone levels and increased heart attacks, as well as between estrogen and decreased heart attacks, implies a causal relationship between those hormones and heart disease.
E
Hormone levels do not vary from person to person, especially among those of the same age and gender.
The author does not assume that every single person of the same age and gender has the exact same hormone levels. If there are variations from person to person, that doesn’t undermine the author’s reasoning, which is based on general correlations.