Summary
If understanding a word requires knowing the dictionary definition, then understanding a word requires understanding all the words in the definition.
Some babies say things. But they don’t know the dictionary definitions of the words they say.
Some babies say things. But they don’t know the dictionary definitions of the words they say.
Notable Valid Inferences
There are no clear inferences to draw from these facts. One thing that we should definitely NOT infer is the idea that babies don’t understand the words they utter. We don’t know this is true, because we don’t know whether understanding a word requires knowing the dictionary definition.
A
Some babies utter individual words that they do not understand.
Could be false. We don’t know whether understanding a word requires knowing the dictionary definition. The first sentence starts with IF. The IF part of the first sentence is not necessarily true. So maybe babies can understand everything they say. We just don’t know.
B
Any number of people can understand some words without knowing their dictionary definitions.
Could be false. We don’t know that it’s possible to understand a word without knowing the dictionary definition. And even if we did, we don’t know that “any number of people” can understand without dictionary definition.
C
If some words can be understood without knowing their dictionary definitions, then babies understand some words.
Could be false. We don’t know that babies understand words that might be understood without knowing the dictionary definition. Maybe some words can be understood by teenagers and adults, but not necessarily babies.
D
If it is possible to understand a word without knowing its dictionary definition, then it is possible to understand a word without having to understand any other word.
Could be false. If it’s possible to understand a word without knowing the dictionary definition, it still could be the case that we need to understand other words. The stimulus doesn’t tell us what happens if understanding doesn’t require knowing dictionary definitions.
E
If some babies understand all the words they utter, then understanding a word does not always involve knowing its dictionary definition.
Must be true. If some babies understand everything they say, and we know from the stimulus that they don’t know the dictionary definitions of those words, that means understanding does not require knowing the dictionary definition.
Summary
The producer concludes that boycotting advertisers is censorship. Why? Because boycotting will cause a chain of events resulting in a restriction of shows available to the public.
Missing Connection
The conclusion is that boycotting advertisers counts as censorship, but we don’t know anything about what qualifies as censorship. For the premises to lead to the conclusion, we need to know that the ultimate result of the boycott (restriction of shows) constitutes censorship.
A
If there is neither government censorship nor boycotting of advertisers, there will be no restriction of the television shows that the public can watch.
This supports a conclusion about there being no restriction, and we need to support a conclusion that boycotting = censorship. The contrapositive of (A) supports a conclusion that there is either censorship or boycotting, but we don’t know which.
B
Public boycotts could force some shows off the air even though the shows neither promote violence nor erode values.
This is a statement about the possible reach of public boycotts. But which shows are forced off the air doesn’t change whether boycotting qualifies as censorship or not.
C
For any television show that promotes violence and erodes values, there will be an audience.
Having an audience is not synonymous with public access. The shows that are forced off the air may still have an audience, but public access to them has been restricted, and we need to know that this is enough to be considered censorship.
D
There is widespread public agreement about which television shows promote violence and erode values.
Public agreement about which advertisers to boycott does not guarantee that boycotting qualifies as censorship.
E
Any action that leads to a restriction of what the public can view is censorship.
This gives us a link from a known effect of boycotting (restriction of public access) to our conclusion. (E) guarantees that boycotting is considered censorship.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that printed books likely will not be soon replaced by books in electronic formats. This is because bookstores and libraries will offer books in the format the general public wants, and that won’t be an electronic format.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that publishers will publish books in the format bookstores and libraries stock.
A
Scholars and scientists find an electronic format for books the most convenient one for quick searching and cross-referencing.
The author concedes scholars and scientists may end up using electronic formats. We don’t care why that is.
B
Publishers will continue to print books in the format stocked by bookstores and public libraries.
In order for bookstores and libraries to continue offering books in the general public’s preferred non-electronic format, books must still be printed in that format. This tells us they will be printed in that format.
C
Scholars and scientists do not usually conduct their research in public libraries.
We know that scholars and scientists might use electronic formats. We also know libraries won’t cater to them since they’re not the general public. This adds nothing.
D
At some bookstores and libraries, the popularity of books on tape and of videos is beginning to rival that of printed books.
This weakens the author’s argument. The general public is increasingly interested in other formats.
E
Some members of the general public prefer to purchase books in an electronic format rather than borrow them from the library.
This is irrelevant. We care about the general public as a whole, and the author claims they prefer non-electronic formats.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes one is less likely to be injured in an accident if they drive a large car rather than a small car. This is based on a study that a higher percentage of people driving small cars were injured in accidents than people driving large cars.
Notable Assumptions
Based on that fact that a higher percentage of people driving small cars were injured in accidents, the author concludes you’re less likely to be injured in an accident if you’re driving a large vehicle. The author therefore assumes that large vehicles don’t get in so many more accidents as to outweigh the relative percentages.
A
Most of the accidents analyzed in the study occurred in areas with very high speed limits.
We need something that differentiates large and small cars. This tells us something was constant during the study.
B
Most people who own small cars also drive large cars on occasion.
The study is about people who got in accidents, not people who left their cars in the garage. We don’t care what people own.
C
Half of the study participants drove medium-sized cars at the time of their accidents.
We’re not comparing with meidum-sized cars. We only car about large and small cars.
D
A large automobile is far more likely to be involved in an accident than is a small automobile.
Let’s say 2 out of 100 people driving small cars got in accidents and both were seriously injured. On the other hand, 20 out of 100 people driving large cars got in accidents and 10 were seriously injured. Those driving large cars were thus more likely to be injured.
E
Only a small percentage of those people involved in an automobile accident are injured as a result.
We care whether small car drivers or large car drivers are more likely to be injured in accidents. This lacks a comparative aspect.
Summarize Argument
The economist concludes that restricting imports to reduce a trade deficit won’t effectively strengthen the economy. She argues that this course of action would be just as ineffective as sticking a thermometer in cold water to lower someone’s fever. This is because, although a country’s trade deficit may indicate economic weakness, the trade deficit does not in itself weaken the country’s economy.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The economist uses an analogy to show that restricting imports to reduce a trade deficit won’t strengthen the economy because the trade deficit isn’t causing economic weakness. She compares it to the pointless act of sticking a thermometer in cold water to lower a fever, suggesting that restricting imports would be just as useless.
A
claiming that a crucial assumption entails a falsehood
The economist never points out a crucial assumption in someone else’s argument, nor does she point out any falsehoods.
B
demonstrating that an analogy explicitly used to establish a certain conclusion is faulty
The economist uses an analogy, but not in the way that (B) describes. (B) suggests that the economist is showing that someone else’s analogy used to support their conclusion is flawed. This is not the case. Instead, she draws her own analogy to support her own conclusion.
C
appealing to an analogy in order to indicate the futility of a course of action
The economist uses an analogy to show that one course of action (restricting imports to reduce a trade deficit) would be just as futile as another course of action (sticking a thermometer in a cold water to lower a fever).
D
calling into question the authority on the basis of which a claim is made
The economist doesn’t question the authority of anyone making any claims. She doesn’t actually challenge any claims at all.
E
showing that a recommended course of action would have disastrous consequences
The economist shows that a particular course of action would be useless. She doesn’t necessarily challenge a “recommended” course of action, and she certainly doesn’t claim that it would have disastrous consequences.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do people enjoy seeing so many movies when most have recycled plots?
Objective
The correct answer will offer an unsatisfactory hypothesis, one that fails to explain why people enjoy seeing movies with unoriginal plots. Every wrong answer, meanwhile, will give a reason for people to enjoy these movies anyway.
A
Movies based on standard plots are more likely to be financially successful than are ones based on original plots.
This is a consequence of those movies’ popularity, not a reason for it. It does not explain why people choose to see them.
B
If the details of their stories are sufficiently different, two movies with the same basic plot will be perceived by moviegoers as having different plots.
This explains why people will see multiple movies with similar plots. If they do not notice that a film's plot is unoriginal, they will not be turned off by that unoriginality.
C
Because of the large number of movies produced each year, the odds of a person seeing two movies with the same general plot structure in a five-year period are fairly low.
This explains why people see new movies each year. Although most movies use recycled plots, the particular movies a given person sees are unlikely to share plots very often.
D
A certain aesthetic pleasure is derived from seeing several movies that develop the same plot in slightly different ways.
This explains why people will see multiple movies every year. They see an unoriginal plot as a positive, one that makes a movie more enjoyable.
E
Although most modern movie plots have been used before, most of those previous uses occurred during the 1940s and 1950s.
This explains why people continue to watch movies even though their plots are largely recycled. Because the movies first using those plots are so old, few viewers have seen them, so the plots are largely novel to the people watching.