The increasing complexity of scientific inquiry has led to a proliferation of multiauthored technical articles. Reports of clinical trials involving patients from several hospitals are usually coauthored by physicians from each participating hospital. Likewise, physics papers reporting results from experiments using subsystems developed at various laboratories generally have authors from each laboratory.
Summary
The increasing complexity of scientific inquiry has caused a proliferation of multiauthored technical articles. Reports of clinical trials with patients from several hospitals are usually coauthored by physicians from each hospital. Physics papers reporting results from experiments using subsystems developed at several laboratories usually have authors from each laboratory.
Notable Valid Inferences
Most reports of clinical trials with patients from several hospitals are coauthored.
Most physics papers reporting results from experiments using subsystems developed at several laboratories are coauthored.
A
Clinical trials involving patients from several hospitals are never conducted solely by physicians from just one hospital.
Could be false. To say that these clinical trials are never conducted by a sole physician is too extreme. We know that these trials are usually conducted by multiple physicians, but this does not mean that all of them are.
B
Most reports of clinical trials involving patients from several hospitals have multiple authors.
Must be true. We know that most of these reports have multiple authors because the stimulus tells us that usually these reports are coauthored by physicians from each participating hospital.
C
When a technical article has multiple authors, they are usually from several different institutions.
Could be false. The information in the stimulus is restricted to certain clinical trials and physics papers. Applying this idea to all technical articles generally is too extreme.
D
Physics papers authored by researchers from multiple laboratories usually report results from experiments using subsystems developed at each laboratory.
Could be false. This answer choice reverses the relationship in the stimulus. The stimulus tells us that usually physics papers about experiments using subsystems developed at each laboratory have authors from each laboratory.
E
Most technical articles are authored solely by the researchers who conducted the experiments these articles report.
Could be false. The information in the stimulus is restricted to certain clinical trials and physics papers. Applying this idea to all technical articles generally is too extreme.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author takes on a claim by vegetarians that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat. The author presents a hypothetical that would make it unclear if the second reason is actually individually sufficient. If eating meat is essential to good health, it becomes unclear if empathy for other conscious creatures is a sufficient reason to not eat meat.
Identify Argument Part
This is a hypothetical premise used to demonstrate that it is not clear if an aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures is a sufficient reason to stop eating meat.
A
It is used to disprove the vegetarian position that we should not eat meat.
This inaccurately identifies the position being disputed. The author is weakening the idea that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat, not that we should avoid meat.
B
It is used to show that the two types of reasons cited in favor of vegetarianism are independent.
The supposition actually shows that the two types of reasons are somewhat dependent. The second reason doesn’t hold up as well if the first reason is failed. Therefore, they are interconnected.
C
It is used to disprove the claim that a vegetarian diet is healthy.
The author is presenting a hypothetical premise, not actually disputing the health of vegetarianism.
D
It is used to weaken the claim that the consciousness of animals is a sufficient reason for not eating meat.
By presenting this supposition, the individual strength of this reason for not eating meat is weakened. It shows that this reason may not be completely sufficient.
E
It is used to show that there is no sufficient reason for not eating meat.
The author is weakening one of two potentially sufficient reasons. The first reason remains sufficient in this argument.
Summary
In theory, analog systems are better than digital systems. This is because analog signals can be infinitely detailed, whereas digital signals cannot, since they can’t be more precise than their digital units. But there’s an associated disadvantage of analog systems. Since there’s no limit to the level of detail in analog signals, duplication of analog signals allows room for variations from the original (called errors), which tend to build up as the analog signal is further duplicated. At some point, the number of errors in an analog signal makes it impossible to understand the information contained in the original signal.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
When duplicated, digital signals allow for less variation than analog signals allow.
Digital systems may be better for signals that must be duplicated many times.
Digital systems may be better for signals that must be duplicated many times.
A
Many ideas that work well in theory do not work well in practice.
Unsupported. Analog systems are at a disadvantage when signals have to be copied many times. That doesn’t imply that analog systems don’t work well in practice.
B
Analog representation of information is impractical because we do not need infinitely detailed information.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest that we don’t need infinitely detailed information. Maybe we do, and it would be better for us if there were a way to achieve such infinite detail.
C
Digital systems are the best information systems because error cannot occur in the emission of digital signals.
Unsupported. Although digital systems are not as prone to error in duplication as are analog systems, that doesn’t imply that there are never any errors associated with emission of digital signals.
D
Analog systems are inferior to digital systems for most practical purposes.
Unsupported. Although analog systems are worse for purposes that involve duplicating a signal many times, that doesn’t imply they’re worse for “most” practical purposes. Maybe most practical purposes don’t involve numerous copies.
E
Digital systems are preferable to analog systems when the signal must be reproduced many times.
Strongly supported. We’re told that analog systems lead to a build-up of errors in the signal when the signal is copied many times. Digital system don’t have this problem to the same extent. So, digital systems are preferable when we need the signal to be copied many times.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Harrold Foods already dominates the market and doesn’t need to grow, since 72% of people surveyed believe that their new drink dominates the market and any product responsible for more than half of the sales in a market is dominant.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This argument treats a certain group’s opinion as fact. The author only cites evidence that some people believe that Harrold Foods’s product is dominant, but fails to establish that the product actually does make up the majority of sales in the market. It’s entirely possible that the majority of the people surveyed are mistaken.
A
failing to exclude the possibility that what appears to be the result of a given market condition may in fact be the cause of that condition
This describes an argument mistaking a cause for an effect, but the argument never mentions any cause-and-effect relationship.
B
mistaking a condition required if a certain result is to obtain for a condition that by itself is sufficient to guarantee that result
The only sufficient condition in this argument is “any product with more than 50 percent of the sales in a market... is dominant...”, but the argument doesn’t mistake this for a necessary condition. It fails to establish that the product has more than 50% of the sales.
C
treating the failure to establish that a certain claim is false as equivalent to a demonstration that that claim is true
The argument never cites a failure to establish a claim as false. The problem is that it treats an opinion survey result as a fact.
D
taking evidence that a claim is believed to be true to constitute evidence that the claim is in fact true
This describes how the argument assumes that, just because most people in a survey believe a product is dominant, the product is actually dominant.
E
describing survey results that were obtained in the past as if they are bound to obtain in the future as well
The argument only cites current market opinion to make the claim that Harrold Foods is now dominant. It never presumes that anyone will still hold that opinion in the future.
Summarize Argument
The biologist concludes that humans would be equally satisfied with six fingers if they’d descended from a six-fingered fish. This is because five fingers are no more or less useful than six fingers.
Notable Assumptions
In order for humans to be equally satisfied by six fingers, biologist assumes that humans are equally satisfied by equally useful things. The biologist shifts from usefulness to satisfaction without justification.
A
Everyone is equally content with our present configuration of fingers.
We don’t need everyone in the world to be content with our present configuration. Besides, the biologist never claims we actually are content with having five fingers. She claims we would be equally content with six fingers, but we don’t know how content that is.
B
Humans are never equally content with two things of unequal usefulness.
We’re not talking about things of unequal usefulness. We’re interested in things that are equally useful.
C
Humans are always equally content with two things of equal usefulness.
Humans are equally content with two equally useful things—in this case, hands with five or six fingers. This clarifies the relationship between contentment and usefulness.
D
The perceived usefulness of our configuration of fingers is an illusory result of our prejudices.
Five fingers seem to be pretty useful. We need to strengthen the claim that humans would be as content with six fingers.
E
At least one species of fish had six phalanges in its fins.
Irrelevant. Humans descended from a fish with five phalanges.
Figorian Development Commission: Other nations have flagrantly developed wetlands at the expense of wildlife. We have conserved. Since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife and is necessary for growth, we should allow development. We have as much right to govern our own resources as countries that have already put their natural resources to commercial use.
Summarize Argument
The development commission argues in favour of development. This is because wetland development might not adversely harm wildlife, and development is necessary for economic growth.
Notable Assumptions
The development commission assumes that an action carrying a potential harm should still be undertaken if it carries a distinct benefit. In this case, the development commission assumes economically beneficial development should be undertaken despite possibly being harmful to wildlife.
A
National resources should be regulated by international agreement when wildlife is endangered.
The development commission definitely doesn’t think international agreements should regulate how they use their national resources.
B
The right of future generations to have wildlife preserved supersedes the economic needs of individual nations.
The development committee thinks development should go ahead. They don’t consider the rights of future generations.
C
Only when a reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development has been found should regulation be implemented to prevent further damage.
This tells us that until development proves harmful to wildlife, development should go ahead. That’s exactly what the development committee assumes when it says development might not harm wildlife.
D
Environmental regulation must aim at preventing any further environmental damage and cannot allow for the different degrees to which different nations have already harmed the environment.
We don’t care about some international comparative aspect. We care about whether or not development should go ahead in this situation.
E
It is imprudent to allow further depletion of natural resources.
The development committee doesn’t think development will necessary deplete natural resources.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that despite being high in cholesterol, shellfish isn’t necessarily bad for the heart. This is because shellfish is low in saturated fat, which affects blood cholesterol more than dietary cholesterol does.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes ones of two things. First, the author may assume that there’s some level of cholesterol that isn’t unhealthy, hence why shellfish aren’t heart-unhealthy despite being high in cholesterol and thus contributing to cholesterol. Second, the author may assume that shellfish in fact offset their blood cholesterol contribution through some other, unmentioned nutritional factor.
A
Meat and eggs are high in saturated fat.
We need to strengthen the claim shellfish isn’t unhealthy for the heart. We don’t care about meat and eggs.
B
Small quantities of foods high in saturated fat are not bad for the heart.
Shellfish isn’t high in saturated fat, so we don’t care.
C
Shellfish has less cholesterol per gram than meat, eggs, and poultry do.
Shellfish can be healthier than bacon and still be bad for the heart. We’re trying to strengthen the claim that shellfish actually isn’t bad for the heart.
D
Foods low in saturated fat promote low blood cholesterol.
While shellfish has dietary cholesterol, shellfish also has low saturated fat. This promotes low blood cholesterol, thus offsetting whatever contribution shellfish otherwise makes to blood cholesterol through dietary cholesterol. On the balance, shellfish are fine.
E
A serving of meat or poultry is typically larger than a serving of shellfish.
We don’t care about servings. We’re trying to strengthen the claim shellfish isn’t bad for the heart.