Robert: They are not nostalgic for the recent past, but for the distant past, which the prerevolutionary regime despised; this indicates that although they are troubled, they do not regret the revolution.
Speaker 1 Summary
Marc concludes that the people regret the recent revolution. This is based on the fact that the people look back on the past with a lot of nostalgia.
Speaker 2 Summary
Robert concludes that people don’t regret the revolution. This is because people are nostalgic for the distant past, not the more recent past.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of agreement. Both speakers agree that the people are nostalgic for some aspect of the past, and that this nostalgia allows us to draw inferences about whether the people regret or don’t regret the revolution.
A
tend to underrate past problems when the country faces troubling times
Neither speaker has an opinion about what people tend to do. They argue only about what the nostalgic feelings of the people indicate about the people’s feelings concerning the recent revolution.
B
are looking to the past for solutions to the country’s current problems
Neither speaker has an opinion. Neither suggests anyone is looking for solutions. They may have nostalgia for the past, but this doesn’t indicate the presence of solutions in the past.
C
are likely to repeat former mistakes if they look to the country’s past for solutions to current problems
Neither speaker has an opinion. Neither suggests anyone is likely to make another mistake.
D
are concerned about the country’s current situation and this is evidenced by their nostalgia
This is a point of agreement. They acknowledge the people are nostalgic for the past. Marc believes this nostalgia shows regret for the revolution. Robert believes this indicates people are troubled. This supports agreement that people are “concerned” as shown by the nostalgia.
E
tend to be most nostalgic for the things that are the farthest in their past
Neither speaker has an opinion. Neither suggests what people tend to be most nostalgic about. Neither speaks about different degrees of nostalgia.
</section
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that moral socialization has had a net effect of increasing the total amount of suffering. This is based on the premise that in many people, the shame that is caused by moral socialization results in feelings of guilt and self-loathing that can be a severe hardship for those people.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author makes a conclusion about the net effect of moral socialization on the total amount of suffering in the world, but only describes one factor that increases suffering. This overlooks the possibility that moral socialization has effects that reduce suffering that might outweigh the increase in suffering described by the author.
A
overlooks the possibility that the purported source of a problem could be modified to avoid that problem without being eliminated altogether
The author does not assume that moral socialization cannot be changed in the future. The author’s conclusion is solely about the effect moral socialization has had until this point.
B
fails to address adequately the possibility that one phenomenon may causally contribute to the occurrence of another, even though the two phenomena do not always occur together
The author does not assume that there is no causal relationship between two things. The author’s assumption is that the increase in moral suffering caused by the feelings of guilt/self-loathing in many people is not outweighed by a reduction in suffering in other people.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that a phenomenon that supposedly increases the total amount of suffering in a society should therefore be changed or eliminated, regardless of its beneficial consequences
The author does not conclude that any aspect of how we socialize children should be changed or eliminated. The author’s conclusion is simply a descriptive statement about the effect of moral socialization.
D
takes for granted that a behavior that sometimes leads to a certain phenomenon cannot also significantly reduce the overall occurrence of that phenomenon
The author thinks that because moral socialization sometimes leads to suffering (by causing many to feel shame), it can’t significantly reduce overall suffering. This is flawed because moral socialization might help reduce suffering in others, thus reducing suffering overall.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that if many people have a negative psychological reaction to a phenomenon, then no one can have a positive reaction to that phenomenon
The author doesn’t assume that “no one” can have a “positive reaction” to moral socialization. Some people might react positively; as long as this reaction isn’t a reduction in suffering enough to outweigh the increased suffering in many people, this doesn’t hurt the argument.
Higuchi: I disagree. More than one factor must be considered: A victim who recovers the use of personal property after two years is owed more than a victim who recovers its use after only one year.
Speaker 1 Summary
Davis concludes that the compensation for property damage or theft should be based solely on the value of the property damaged or stolen. This is because the harm to the victim is directly proportional to that value.
Speaker 2 Summary
Higuchi concludes that the compensation should be based on more than just the value of the property damaged or stolen. This is because how quickly the victim recovers the property should influence the compensation.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree on whether compensation for property damage or theft should be based on more than just the value of the property. Davis thinks it should be based only on the value of the property. Higuchi thinks it should include consideration of when the victim recovered the property.
A
It is possible to consistently and reliably determine the amount of compensation owed to someone whose property was damaged or stolen.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. They tell us about certain factors they think are relevant to compensation. But whether we can make reliable and consistent calculations about compensation amounts is not discussed.
B
Some victims are owed increased compensation because of the greater dollar value of the damage done to their property.
This is not a point of disagreement. Davis agrees that value matters for determining compensation, and there’s no evidence Higuchi disagrees that value matters.
C
Victims who are deprived of their property are owed compensation in proportion to the harm they have suffered.
Not a point of disagreement. Davis agrees and thinks harm should be measured by the value of the property. We can’t say Higuchi disagrees. He may want other factors included in how we measure harm, but there’s no evidence he thinks compensation shouldn’t be based on harm.
D
Some victims are owed increased compensation because of the greater amount of time they are deprived of the use of their property.
This is a point of disagreement. Davis thinks time of deprivation shouldn’t be a factor in compensation; only value of the property matters. Higuchi thinks time of deprivation should be a factor in compensation.
E
The compensation owed to victims should be determined on a case-by-case basis rather than by some general rule.
Not a point of disagreement. Both speakers advocate for a general rule for calculating compensation. They may disagree about specific factors that should be part of that rule, but they both advocate for a rule.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The essayist claims that neither Earth nor anything that lives on it is important. People used to think Earth (and its inhabitants) was important because they mistakenly believed Earth was at the center of the universe, but since we now know that it’s not, the essayist argues that their belief in Earth's importance is also mistaken.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The problem is that the argument only identifies a bad reason for believing a claim, but doesn’t actually disprove the claim itself. The fact that people once had the wrong reason for believing Earth and its inhabitants are important does not mean they are unimportant. Undermining one potential piece of support for a claim does not prove the claim to be false.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that only true statements can have good reasons to be believed
The essayist didn’t make any claim about what does or doesn’t have good reasons to be believed. The conclusion is that Earth is not important.
B
neglects to consider that a statement that was believed for questionable reasons may nevertheless have been true
This describes what the essayist didn’t account for. People can believe a true fact for the wrong reason, so merely pointing out that their reason for believing was wrong doesn’t prove that Earth isn’t important.
C
fails to consider that there can be no reason for disbelieving a true statement
The only "true statement" identified in the stimulus is that Earth revolves around a star. All that matters for the argument is that this statement is true, not whether people have reason to believe it or not.
D
overlooks the fact that people’s perception of their importance changed from century to century
Similar to (E), this is irrelevant. The argument says that it’s wrong to believe that Earth is important. It doesn’t matter whether or not people’s opinions on that issue change over time.
E
neglects the fact that people’s perception of their importance varies from culture to culture
Similar to (D), this doesn’t matter. The argument says that it’s wrong to believe that Earth is important. Whether or not different cultures have different opinions on that issue is irrelevant.
Summarize Argument
The essayist concludes that Earth is a living organism. As support for this conclusion, the essayist says that it can be said that Earth has a metabolism and can regulate its temperature and humidity. The essayist then anticipates and rejects a counter argument: the essayist concedes that Earth does not breathe, but to show that breathing is not necessary for being considered an organism, cites the example of insects, which are organisms that do not breathe.
Identify Argument Part
The assertion in the question stem is used to reject the counter-argument that the essayist anticipates. The assertion in the question stem demonstrates why it is not relevant to the essayist’s conclusion that the Earth does not literally breathe.
A
a reason for not rejecting Earth’s status as an organism on the basis of its not breathing
The assertion in the question stem demonstrates why it is not a problem for the essayist’s conclusion that Earth does not literally breathe.
B
a reason for rejecting as false the belief that Earth is a living organism
The assertion in the question stem actually provides support for the belief that Earth is a living organism; the assertion in the question stem allows the essayist to reject an anticipated counter-argument.
C
an illustration of the general claim that to be an organism, a creature must have a metabolism
The claim about insects is used to demonstrate that not all organisms breathe; the assertion in the question stem is not provided in relation to the claim that all organisms have a metabolism.
D
an example of a type of organism whose status, like Earth’s, is unclear
Insects are given as an example of a living thing that is clearly an organism, not an organism whose status is unclear.
E
an illustration of a type of organism out of which Earth is composed
The assertion in the question stem is used to show that not all living things must be able to breathe; it is not given as an example of the kinds of organisms that make up Earth.
Summary
A study concludes that the average temperature on Earth has permanently increased. Why? Because for the last five years, the average temperature has been higher than any previous average on record. However, sometimes random fluctuations in temperature can cause periods of up to ten years to have record high average temperatures.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The last five years of record high temperatures do not necessarily indicate that the average temperature on Earth has permanently increased.
A
All large increases in average temperature on record have occurred in ten-year periods.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know for a fact if all large increases have occurred in ten-year periods. The use of “all” is too strong here.
B
Five successive years of increasing annual average temperature does not always signify a permanent increase in temperature.
This answer is strongly supported. If there have sometimes been periods of up to ten years of record high temperatures due to random fluctuations, then five years of record high temperatures doesn’t necessarily mean that the average temperature has permanently increased.
C
Record high temperatures can be expected on Earth for another five years.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus if temperatures will continue to increase. We only know that temperatures have increased over the last five years. We can’t assume that what’s true of the past will also be true of the present.
D
Random fluctuations in Earth’s average temperature typically last less than ten years.
This answer is anti-supported. We are told from the stimulus that random fluctuations in temperature are always occurring. It is possible that this could cause an average temperature to increase for longer than ten years.
E
The average temperature on Earth never increases except in cases of random temperature fluctuation.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if random temperature fluctuations are the only cause of increases in average temperatures. There could be other things in existence that cause the average temperature to increase.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that therapists who treat violent criminals can’t simultaneously honor their client’s right to confidentiality and be concerned about the criminals’ future victims. As support, the author claims that reporting unreported crimes violates the client’s right to confidentiality and breaks their trust, but not reporting these crimes keeps criminals out of prison and able to commit more crimes.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that concern for the client’s rights to confidentiality and concern for the welfare of future crime victims are mutually exclusive. It could be possible that there is a way to both respect client’s right to privacy while also protecting future victims.
A
Most therapists who treat violent criminals are assigned this task by a judicial body.
If (A) is true, the apparent contradiction between right to privacy and protection of victims still exists; (A) does not add information that allows right to privacy to coexist with protection of victims. Further, the argument discusses criminals who are currently out of prison.
B
Criminals are no more likely to receive therapy in prison than they are out of prison.
The argument is concerned with criminals who were out of prison. This comparison with a different group (criminals in prison) is irrelevant to the argument.
C
Victims of future violent crimes also have a right to confidentiality should they need therapy.
The argument is concerned with whether criminals’ rights to confidentiality puts potential future crime victims at risk; future victims’ confidentiality rights wouldn’t come with that same risk, so (C) is irrelevant.
D
The right of victims of violent crimes to compensation is as important as the right of criminals in therapy to confidentiality.
The idea of compensation is irrelevant to the argument; the argument discusses the relationship between confidentiality and safety.
E
A therapist who has gained a violent criminal’s trust can persuade that criminal not to commit repeat offenses.
(E) is correct because it shows how confidentiality for criminals can coexist with safety for potential future victims. Therapists can be concerned with both their clients’ rights to confidentiality and the welfare of future victims.