Among people who have a history of chronic trouble falling asleep, some rely only on sleeping pills to help them fall asleep, and others practice behavior modification techniques and do not take sleeping pills. Those who rely only on behavior modification fall asleep more quickly than do those who rely only on sleeping pills, so behavior modification is more effective than are sleeping pills in helping people to fall asleep.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that behavior modification techniques are more effective than sleeping pills for helping people fall asleep. She bases this on the observation that, among people who chronically struggle to fall asleep, people who use behavior modification techniques fall asleep quicker than people who use sleeping pills.

Notable Assumptions
Based on relative correlations between the techniques (behavior modifications, sleep pills) and falling asleep, the author hypothesizes that one technique is more effective than the other. This means the author assumes that all other variables—e.g. severity of insomnia, mental health, medical status—are constant between the two groups of people who chronically struggle to fall asleep.

A
People who do not take sleeping pills spend at least as many total hours asleep each night as do the people who take sleeping pills.
We don’t care how long people stay asleep for. We’re interested in how easily they fall asleep, and whether any conclusions about different techniques can be drawn from the author’s data.
B
Most people who have trouble falling asleep and who use behavior modification techniques fall asleep more slowly than do most people who have no trouble falling asleep.
We’re not comparing against people who don’t have trouble falling asleep. Of course those people have an easier time.
C
Many people who use only behavior modification techniques to help them fall asleep have never used sleeping pills.
It doesn’t matter if these people have ever tried sleeping pills. We only care about the relative efficacy of the two techniques.
D
The people who are the most likely to take sleeping pills rather than practice behavior modification techniques are those who have previously had the most trouble falling asleep.
The two groups in question aren’t in all respects equal. People who use sleeping pills have had more difficulty falling asleep than people who use behavior modification techniques. Thus, no conclusion can be drawn about the efficacy of the techniques.
E
The people who are the most likely to practice behavior modification techniques rather than take sleeping pills are those who prefer not to use drugs if other treatments are available.
This isn’t a significant difference between the groups. Maybe people using behavior modification techniques didn’t want to use sleeping pills. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have derived the same benefit from those pills as from the behavior modification techniques.

13 comments

Scientist: In our study, chemical R did not cause cancer in laboratory rats. But we cannot conclude from this that chemical R is safe for humans. After all, many substances known to be carcinogenic to humans cause no cancer in rats; this is probably because some carcinogens cause cancer only via long-term exposure and rats are short lived.

Summarize Argument
The fact that chemical R did not cause cancer in rats does not mean chemical R is safe for humans. Many substances cause cancer in humans but not rats. This likely because some substances cause cancer through long term exposure and rats live short lives.

Identify Argument Part
This is context that sets up the argument. The conclusion refers to this context when it says: we cannot conclude from “this.” The stimulus is arguing that this piece of information is not enough to draw a conclusion.

A
It is cited as evidence against the conclusion that chemical R is safe for humans.
It is not evidence, and no conclusion is being drawn that chemical R is safe.
B
It is advanced to support the contention that test results obtained from laboratory rats cannot be extrapolated to humans.
This is not used to support that extrapolation cannot occur, or anything else. We are told that this information is not sufficient to draw a conclusion about humans.
C
It illustrates the claim that rats are too short lived to be suitable as test subjects for the carcinogenic properties of substances to which humans are chronically exposed.
While this describes a feature in the later part of the argument, the text in question does not illustrate this claim. It is just context.
D
It is used as evidence to support the hypothesis that chemical R causes cancer in humans via long-term exposure.
The conclusion being drawn is that this statement is not enough to say the chemical is safe for humans. No hypotheses are formed about how chemical R might cause cancer.
E
It is cited as being insufficient to support the conclusion that chemical R is safe for humans.
The conclusion is that “we cannot conclude from this (the text in question) that chemical R is safe for humans.” The argument tells us that this statement is not enough to draw that conclusion.

15 comments

In her recent book a psychologist described several cases that exhibit the following pattern: A child, denied something by its parent, initiates problematic behavior such as screaming; the behavior escalates until finally the exasperated parent acquiesces to the child’s demand. At this point the child, having obtained the desired goal, stops the problematic behavior, to the parent’s relief. This self-reinforcing pattern of misbehavior and accommodation is repeated with steadily increasing levels of misbehavior by the child.

Summary
In some cases when a child does not get what they want from a parent, they display problematic behavior. The behavior escalates until the parent gives in to the child’s demand. When the parent gives in, the child stops their misbehavior. This reinforcing pattern of misbehavior and accommodation is repeated with increasing levels of problematic behavior by the child.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
We should note that, since this is an “except” question, any strongly supported conclusion will be an incorrect answer choice. We’re looking for an answer choice that is unsupported or least supported. Some strongly supported conclusions can include:
Some children adopt problematic behaviors as a result of getting what they want.
Some child and parent relationships mutually influence each other’s behavior.
Some parents unintentionally cause their children’s problematic behavior.

A
A child can develop problematic behavior patterns as a result of getting what it wants.
The stimulus tells us that getting what they want is a direct cause of problematic patterns of behavior.
B
A child and parent can mutually influence each other’s behavior.
The parent is influencing the child’s behavior by giving in, and the child is influencing the parent’s behavior by misbehaving.
C
Parents, by their choices, can inadvertently increase their child’s level of misbehavior.
The parent could inadvertently cause problematic behavior by giving in to the child’s demands.
D
A child can unintentionally influence a parent’s behavior in ways contrary to the child’s intended goals.
The influenced behavior by the parent is not contrary to the child’s goals. In the stimulus, we’re told that the parent’s behavior results in the child getting what they want.
E
A child can get what it wants by doing what its parent doesn’t want it to do.
The child gets what they want from the parent through problematic behavior. Certainly the parent does not want the child to display problematic behavior.

4 comments

Really tough question. Reading only the question stem, it's not clear what type of question it is. Some general "principle" type, I suppose. So, you read the stimulus and then glance at the answers again. Notice there's an argument in the stimulus. Notice the answers are all conditionals. We're looking for a PSA answer choice. We can get away with fudging some ideas because the question stem has the word "most" in it.

So let's lay the argument out.

Sentence 1 zooms into the subset of "Most TV shows". What about them? They depend on advertising funding.
show alive --> funding
contrapositive
/funding --> /show alive (think canceled show)

Sentence 2 tells us a necessary condition of advertising funding.
funding --> many people buy product

Now we get to chain up:
show alive --> funding --> many people buy product

Sentence 3 runs the contrapositive on the whole chain.
/many people buy product --> /funding --> /show alive

[I think we really could have done without sentence 3 since it's not adding anything new. We could have chained up sentences 1 and 2 on our own and also ran the contrapositive on our own. Sentence 3 feels redundant to me.]

Now, sentence 4, the conclusion.
feel show worth preserving --> buy product

All together now:

[P] show alive --> funding --> many people buy product
__________________
[C] feel show worth preserving --> buy product

What's our most standard, cookie cutter formulation of a PSA or SA answer choice that we are trained to anticipate and look for?
IF P, THEN C

With some cleverly crafted referential phrasing, that's precisely what (B) is saying:

IF [a TV show would be canceled unless many people took certain actions], THEN [everyone who feels that the show is worth preserving out to take those actions]. IF [P], THEN [C]

Try to figure it out before reading on.

IF [P], THEN [C]
[P] is [a TV show would be canceled unless many people took certain actions]
[C] is [everyone who feels that the show is worth preserving out to take those actions]

[P] first. "unless" is group 3, negate sufficient. "not a TV show would be canceled --> many people took certain actions" =
"show alive --> many people took certain actions"
What could those actions possibly be referring to? Buy product.
"show alive --> many people buy product"

Now [C]. "everyone" is group 1, sufficient. "feel show worth preserving --> take those actions" Again, what could those actions possibly be referring to? Again, buy product.
"feel show worth preserving --> buy product"

The problem with answer choice (A) is that it's not describing the same shows that the stimulus is describing. The shows in the stimulus depended for their survival on MANY people buying a product. This conforms to our common sense expectations of TV shows. I would expect that the real life TV shows that depend on advertising funding would depend for their survival on MANY people buying whatever products they're meant to be buying.

(A) however talks about a set of TV shows whose survival depends on ONE single person buying a product. "would be canceled unless one took certain actions" What show in the world's survival is dependent on a single person taking some action? I have no idea. But whatever the TV shows (A)'s talking about, they're not the same TV shows that the stimulus talked about.


40 comments

Psychologist: It is well known that becoming angry often induces temporary incidents of high blood pressure. A recent study further showed, however, that people who are easily angered are significantly more likely to have permanently high blood pressure than are people who have more tranquil personalities. Coupled with the long-established fact that those with permanently high blood pressure are especially likely to have heart disease, the recent findings indicate that heart disease can result from psychological factors.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that psychological factors can cause heart disease. This is based on a study showing that people who are easily angered are more likely to have permanently high blood pressure than people with more calm personalities, and the fact that people with permanently high blood pressure are likely to have heart disease.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the correlation between being easily angered and likelihood of having permanently high blood pressure is due to anger causing the permanently high blood pressure or due to calmness causing lower blood pressure. This overlooks the possibility that high blood pressure could make one easy to anger, or that there’s an alternate cause that leads to both anger and high blood pressure. The author also assumes that high blood pressure causes heart disease.

A
Those who are easily angered are less likely to recover fully from episodes of heart disease than are other people.
This relates to the relationship between anger and recovery from heart disease. But it doesn’t undermine a causal connection between anger and the initial presence of heart disease.
B
Medication designed to control high blood pressure can greatly affect the moods of those who use it.
Without knowing whether many people take this medication, or whether the effect on moods includes making one easily angered, (B) doesn’t do enough to suggest a reversed causal relationship between being easily angered and permanently high blood pressure.
C
People with permanently high blood pressure who have tranquil personalities virtually never develop heart disease.
If anything, this could support the author’s hypothesis by showing that, despite permanently high blood pressure, calm personalities almost never get heart disease. This suggests that psychological factors may have a role to play in causing or inhibiting heart disease..
D
Those who discover that they have heart disease tend to become more easily frustrated by small difficulties.
Becoming more easily frustrated by small difficulties does not constitute being “easily angered.” So, (D) doesn’t suggest that the causal relationship between heart disease and being easily angered is reversed.
E
The physiological factors that cause permanently high blood pressure generally make people quick to anger.
This provides an alternate causal explanation for the correlation between being easily angered and having perm. high blood pressure. If certain bodily factors lead to both, there doesn’t have to be a causal relationship between being easily angered and perm. high blood pressure.

93 comments

Even those who believe that the art of each age and culture has its own standards of beauty must admit that some painters are simply superior to others in the execution of their artistic visions. But this superiority must be measured in light of the artist’s purposes, since the high merits, for example, of Jose Rey Toledo’s work and his extraordinary artistic skills are not in doubt, despite the fact that his paintings do not literally resemble what they represent.

Summarize Argument
The superiority of some painters to others in executing their artistic visions should be determined in light of the artists’ purposes. For example, Jose Rey Toledo has definitively extraordinary art even though his art is is not literally representative of its subjects.

Identify Argument Part
This is the claim that the conclusion tells us how to evaluate. The argument takes this as true and tells us how to measure superiority in the execution of their artistic visions: in light of their purposes.

A
It is a hypothesis that the argument attempts to refute.
The argument accepts this claim as true. It says that everyone “must admit” it.
B
It is a generalization, one sort of objection to which the argument illustrates by giving an example.
The argument does not illustrate an objection. It agrees with the claim and argues how to evaluate it.
C
It is a claim that, according to the argument, is to be understood in a manner specified by the conclusion.
The conclusion specifies that this claim should be understood in light of the artist’s purposes.
D
It is a claim that the argument derives from another claim and that it uses to support its conclusion.
This claim is part of the context that sets up the argument about measuring it. It neither gives nor receives support.
E
It is a generalization that the argument uses to justify the relevance of the specific example it cites.
This claim does not justify the relevance of the example, nor is it used as any sort of support. Instead, the example supports how we should measure this claim.

6 comments