Fran: By your own admission, “addictive” is broad enough to include other commonly consumed products, such as coffee and soft drinks containing caffeine. But of course the manufacture and sale of these products should not be restricted.
Speaker 1 Summary
Sherrie argues that governments should restrict the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. Why? Because tobacco is addictive, which Sherrie believes is sufficient to warrant treating tobacco like other dangerous drugs.
Speaker 2 Summary
Fran’s argument supports the implied conclusion that just being addictive is not a sufficient reason to restrict the manufacture and sale of a product. Fran gets there by pointing out that caffeine is also addictive, and then claiming that restrictions on caffeine products like coffee are not justified. This logically leads to the unstated conclusion that addictive potential alone is not enough to justify restrictions.
Objective
We’re looking for something Sherrie and Fran disagree about. They disagree about whether a product being addictive is sufficient to justify restricting its manufacture and sale.
A
The manufacture and sale of all drugs should be regulated by governments.
Neither Sherrie nor Fran makes this claim. Even Sherrie only says that “dangerous” drugs should be regulated, but never mentions drugs that are not dangerous.
B
Coffee and soft drinks that contain caffeine should not be regulated by governments.
Fran might agree with this (if we assume that “regulated” and “restricted” mean the same thing), but Sherrie never states an opinion. It’s unclear what Sherrie thinks should be done about caffeine products.
C
Agreement by scientists that a substance is addictive justifies government restrictions on products containing that substance.
Sherrie agrees with this, but Fran disagrees—this is the point of disagreement. Sherrie uses this claim directly as a premise. Fran, however, says that caffeine, an addictive substance, should not be restricted. So Fran thinks not all addictive substances should be restricted.
D
Scientists are not proper authorities with respect to the question of whether a given substance is addictive.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Sherrie directly refers to scientists as proper authorities, and Fran doesn’t disagree. Instead, Fran’s disagreement is about the policy decisions that should follow from a substance being addictive.
E
Scientists and governments have a duty to cooperate in regulating drugs to protect the public health.
Neither speaker talks about cooperation between scientists and government. Their discussion is about whether a certain government policy should follow from a scientific finding, not about how scientists and governments should interact.
Summary
The stimulus discusses the importance of packaging for a product's commercial success. It gives an example of a popular drink that introduced a "new, improved" version. It succeeded in blind taste tests but failed in the market because the packaging was almost identical to the earlier version. This led customers to expect the new product to share certain features of the old, an expectation that was not satisfied.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Commercial success depends on the packaging of a product (necessary condition).
If the packaging of a product creates expectations it does not meet, it will not succeed.
If the packaging of a product creates expectations it does not meet, it will not succeed.
A
Proper product packaging is more important than the quality of the product.
This comparative statement is too strong to support. While the passage says that packaging is “vital,” there is no evidence that it is more important than the quality of the product. The quality can be just as (or more) vital.
B
Products generally succeed in the market if they are packaged in a manner that accurately reflects their nature.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus does not give information about when/how products “generally” succeed. All we know is that this product failed because its packaging did not satisfy its expectations.
C
Changing the packaging of a product will not improve the product’s sales unless the product is also changed.
There is no support for this. The stimulus does not discuss the effects of solely changing packaging without changing the product.
D
To succeed in the market, a new product should not be packaged in a way that creates expectations that it does not meet.
This directly addresses the reasoning. The stimulus says that packaging is “vital” to a product’s commercial success. Thus, if a product is to succeed, it must not be packaged in a way that creates unfulfilled expectations (exactly what the example drink does).
E
An improved version of an existing product will sell better than the earlier version unless the improved version is packaged like the earlier one.
This is too strong to support. There is no guarantee that an improved version of a product will sell better if it is packaged differently.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Patients treated with physio+drugs performs as well as patients treated with physio, yet specialists claim the drugs are still absolutely necessary.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why drugs are a necessary component of treatment. Some patients might be fine with physio on its own, but some might need the combination to derive the same treatment benefit. The correct answer will also tell us that the experts know this to be the case, hence their insistence that drugs are important.
A
Medical specialists treat all patients who have serious back muscle injuries with either physical therapy alone or a combination of drugs and physical therapy.
This doesn’t explain why drugs are necessary. Patients treated with physio alone perform just as well, so what’s the point of the drugs?
B
Medical specialists who prescribe these treatments make accurate judgments about who needs both drugs and physical therapy and who needs physical therapy alone.
Some patients need drugs in addition to physio, while others only need physio to get the same benefit. Medical specialists know who these patients are, hence why they claim the drugs are essential.
C
Some back muscle injuries have been completely healed by a combination of drugs and physical therapy.
Okay, but this could be true about physio on its own as well. We need to know why the drugs are ever necessary to begin with.
D
Some back muscle injuries that have been aggravated by improper attempts at physical therapy, such as home massage, have been successfully treated with drugs.
We’re talking about a treatment package that includes physio and drugs. This is simply talking about treating botched physio with drugs.
E
Patients with injuries to other muscles show more improvement when treated with both drugs and physical therapy than when treated with physical therapy alone.
We don’t care about other muscles. We care about back muscle injuries, which according to the stimulus seem to be equally treated by physio+drugs and physio.
Summarize Argument
People’s responses to words are impacted not only by meaning, but also by how they sound. We know this because experiments demonstrated that people have positive and negative reactions to nonsense words.
Identify Argument Part
This is the evidence that supports the conclusion. This study allows the author to claim that responses to words are not just meaning dependent (because nonsense words have no meaning) but also based on how those words sound.
A
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that people have either a positive or a negative response to any word.
This is not an accurate representation of the conclusion. The conclusion says the response is impacted by sound, not that people will have these responses to any given word.
B
It is a conclusion for which the only support provided is the claim that people’s responses to words are conditioned both by what the words mean and by how they sound.
It is a premise. It provides evidence for the claim in this answer choice, which is the real conclusion.
C
It is a generalization partially supported by the claim that meaningful words can trigger positive or negative responses in people.
This is evidence, not a supported generalization. It is not supported by the first claim, which is a separate observation.
D
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that people’s responses to words are engendered not only by what the words mean, but also by how they sound.
This is evidence that supports the conclusion explaining the multiple ways people’s responses to words are conditioned.
E
It is a conclusion supported by the claim that people’s responses under experimental conditions are essentially different from their responses in ordinary situations.
It is a premise. The claim in this answer choice is not contained in the stimulus.