Sociologist: A recent study of 5,000 individuals found, on the basis of a physical exam, that more than 25 percent of people older than 65 were malnourished, though only 12 percent of the people in this age group fell below government poverty standards. In contrast, a greater percentage of the people 65 or younger fell below poverty standards than were found in the study to be malnourished.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
People older than 65 are more likely to be malnourished than live in poverty, yet people younger than 65 are more likely to live in poverty than be malnourished.
Objective
The correct answer must offer an unsatisfactory hypothesis, one that fails to explain the differences between age groups. Every wrong answer, meanwhile, will resolve this discrepancy by stating a difference between people older than 65 and people younger than 65. This difference will result in a greater proportion of the older group being malnourished, a greater proportion of the younger group living in poverty, or both.
A
Doctors are less likely to correctly diagnose and treat malnutrition in their patients who are over 65 than in their younger patients.
This would explain the discrepancy. Younger people are more likely to live in poverty than be malnourished because they are more likely to receive treatment for malnourishment than older people.
B
People over 65 are more likely to take medications that increase their need for certain nutrients than are people 65 or younger.
This would explain the discrepancy. If people over 65 are more likely to need additional nutrients, their relative undernourishment is unsurprising.
C
People over 65 are more likely to suffer from loss of appetite due to medication than are people 65 or younger.
This would explain the discrepancy. If people over 65 are more likely to lose their appetite, they are likely to eat less and therefore be relatively undernourished.
D
People 65 or younger are no more likely to fall below government poverty standards than are people over 65.
This is a similarity between the groups and cannot explain their different outcomes. If people in both groups are equally likely to live in poverty, then people over 65 are more than twice as likely to be malnourished as people under 65, which is unexplained.
E
People 65 or younger are less likely to have medical conditions that interfere with their digestion than are people over 65.
This would explain the discrepancy. Younger people are more likely to have healthy digestion, making them more likely to fully absorb the nutrients in their food and thus less likely to be malnourished.
Summary
The stimulus discusses a study where researchers tried and failed to find any correlation between pain intensity in arthritis sufferers and various weather features (humidity, temperature swings, barometric pressure). Arthritis sufferers in the study who believed in such a correlation gave widely varying accounts of the time delay between the weather change and the increased pain.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
There is no correlation between weather features and pain intensity.
A
indicates that the weather affects some arthritis sufferers more quickly than it does other arthritis sufferers
This is too strong to support. There is no indication that the weather impacts pain intensity at all, much less that it impacts some more quickly than others.
B
indicates that arthritis sufferers’ beliefs about the causes of the pain they feel may affect their assessment of the intensity of that pain
This is a tricky answer choice, but it is too strong to support. You have to make an assumption that the arthritis sufferers are correct. There is no support that the beliefs about their pain impact the assessment of that pain.
C
suggests that arthritis sufferers are imagining the correlation they assert to exist
The argument's premises (that there is no correlation and widely varying accounts) support the conclusion that this perceived correlation is imaginary. Remember, your job is to complete THIS argument, not provide assumptions to lead to another conclusion.
D
suggests that some people are more susceptible to weather-induced arthritis pain than are others
The stimulus says that there is no correlation.
E
suggests that the scientific investigation of possible links between weather and arthritis pain is impossible
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that there is no correlation, not that such correlation is impossible.
Summarize Argument
Criticism by politicians that their opponents’ ideas are incomprehensible is insincere. Incomprehensible political agendas will not be realized because political mobilization requires many people to work with a common purpose. Every politician knows this. This implies that any politician would not actually promote their ideas incomprehensibly, making the criticism insincere.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s claim about criticizing political opponents for incomprehensible messaging: “Such criticism, however, is never sincere.”
A
People who promote political agendas in an incomprehensible manner should be regarded as insincere.
This misrepresents the argument. The criticism is what the political scientist calls insincere, not those who promote agendas incomprehensibly.
B
Sincere critics of the proponents of a political agenda should not focus their criticisms on the manner in which that agenda is promoted.
The author makes no claims about what sincere critics do. Additionally, the author only claims that criticisms about incomprehensibility are insincere. There could be other valid criticisms on the manner of promotion.
C
The ineffectiveness of a confusingly promoted political agenda is a reason for refraining from, rather than engaging in, criticism of those who are promoting it.
The political scientist simply claims that the criticism is insincere. He does not make claims about reasons to refrain or engage in the criticism.
D
A politician criticizing his or her political opponents for presenting their political agendas in an incomprehensible manner is being insincere.
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. The political scientist says this type of criticism is insincere, therefore a politician who engages in it is being insincere.
E
To mobilize large numbers of people in support of a political agenda, that political agenda must be presented in such a way that it cannot be misunderstood.
This is support for why criticism about incomprehensibility is insincere. Political messaging must necessarily be understandable.
Summary
Storytelling appears to be part of every culture. Studies of stories from various diverse cultures across different time periods show that these cultures’ stories have certain common themes (creation, tribal origin, for example) and common types (fables and tales involving animals with human personalities, for example).
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Cultures have something in common that might cause them to develop stories about certain themes or of certain types.
A
Storytellers routinely borrow themes from other cultures.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t provide any evidence that cultures were in contact with each other or influenced each other’s stories or themes. The fact common themes arose in different cultures from widely separate time periods instead suggests that those themes may have arisen independently in each culture.
B
Storytellers have long understood that the narrative is a universal aspect of human culture.
Unsupported. Although stories are universal, we don’t have evidence that the storytellers themselves were aware that stories are universal. There’s no suggestion that a storyteller from ancient Greece, for example, knew that people in other parts of the world told stories.
C
Certain human concerns and interests arise in all of the world’s cultures.
Most strongly supported. The stimulus tells us that among diverse cultures across widely separate time periods, there are stories with common themes. This is evidence that human cultures are interested in certain topics (such as the creation of the world).
D
Storytelling was no less important in ancient cultures than it is in modern cultures.
Unsupported. Although we know all cultures told and tell stories, there’s no evidence of the comparative importance placed upon stories. Modern cultures might find storytelling more important than ancient cultures did.
E
The best way to understand a culture is to understand what motivates its storytellers.
Unsupported. Although we can probably infer that the themes that arise in a culture’s stories give us some insight into that culture, we don’t know whether this is the best way to understand the culture. The stimulus doesn’t compare this way of understanding to any other way.
Summarize Argument
The science journalist concludes that life has likely evolved on Europa, a moon of Jupiter. This is based on the claim that there is probably liquid water on Europa, and liquid water is necessary for life to evolve.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The science journalist confuses necessary and sufficient conditions, a cookie-cutter flaw. If liquid water is present on Europa, that would fulfill a necessary condition for life to evolve. However, liquid water might not be sufficient for life to evolve. Other factors might also be necessary, like the right temperature or geological conditions.
A
takes for granted that if a condition would be necessary for the evolution of life as we know it, then such life could not have evolved anywhere that this condition does not hold
This is an accurate description of the meaning of a “necessary condition,” and doesn’t constitute a flaw in the argument.
B
fails to address adequately the possibility that there are conditions necessary for the evolution of life in addition to the presence of liquid water
The argument takes the likely presence of one necessary condition (water) as making it likely that life has evolved on Europa. This overlooks the possibility that other factors are also necessary, and water, while necessary for life, is not sufficient.
C
takes for granted that life is likely to be present on Europa if, but only if, life evolved on Europa
The journalist is only talking about the likelihood of life evolving on Europa, not claiming that this is the only way for life to be present on Europa (for example, life could have migrated from somewhere else).
D
overlooks the possibility that there could be unfamiliar forms of life that have evolved without the presence of liquid water
The journalist isn’t claiming that the evolution of some unknown form of life on Europa would be impossible without water, only that water is necessary for “life as we know it.”
E
takes for granted that no conditions on Europa other than the supposed presence of liquid water could have accounted for the data transmitted by the spacecraft
The journalist isn’t claiming that liquid water is definitely present on Europa, only that it is the most likely explanation for the transmitted data.
Summary
A bacterial species will develop greater resistance within a few years to any antibiotics used against it. The only exception to this inevitable development of greater resistance is when the antibiotics eliminates the bacterial species completely. But, no single antibiotic now on the market can eliminate bacterial species X completely.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If any single antibiotic currently on the market is used against bacterial species X, the species will develop greater resistance against that antibiotic.
A
It is unlikely that any antibiotic can be developed that will completely eliminate bacterial species X.
Unsupported. The stimulus tells us about antibiotics currently on the market. We don’t know about future antibiotics and their ability to kill bacterial species X completely.
B
If any antibiotic now on the market is used against bacterial species X, that species will develop greater resistance to it within a few years.
Strongly supported. We know no antibiotic currently on the market can kill X completely. So, if used against X, X will develop a resistance against that currently-on-the-market antibiotic.
C
The only way of completely eliminating bacterial species X is by a combination of two or more antibiotics now on the market.
Unsupported. We don’t know that this is the only way. Maybe another way is to develop a new antibiotic that can kill X completely. The stimulus doesn’t suggest this can’t be done.
D
Bacterial species X will inevitably become more virulent in the course of time.
Unsupported. The stimulus allows us to conclude that X will develop greater resistance to any currently-on-the-market antibiotic used against it. This doesn’t imply anything about the level of danger or harm (virulence) posed by X and whether it will change.
E
Bacterial species X is more resistant to at least some antibiotics that have been used against it than it was before those antibiotics were used against it.
Unsupported. We don’t know whether any antibiotics have ever been tried against X.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The argument concludes that organic factors which affect the symptoms of mental illnesses are not evenly distributed around the world. This is based on the claim that symptoms of mental illness that are known to be affected by organic factors vary greatly in different places around the world.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument overlooks alternative explanations for the variation of mental illness symptoms, other than uneven distribution of organic factors. Other environmental or systemic causes, like climate, culture, or healthcare, could also affect mental illness symptoms. Differences in these alternative factors could explain the global variation of symptoms.
A
does not say how many different mental illnesses are being discussed
There’s no need to specify how many different mental illnesses are being discussed in order to draw conclusions about the variation of certain symptoms of mental illness.
B
neglects the possibility that nutritional factors that contribute to deficiencies in compounds in the brain vary from culture to culture
This possibility is not neglected by the argument. It’s consistent with the argument’s conclusion that organic factors—such as deficiencies in compounds in the brain—vary across the globe.
C
fails to consider the possibility that cultural factors significantly affect how mental illnesses manifest themselves in symptoms
The argument fails to consider any explanations for the variation of mental illness symptoms around the world, other than uneven distribution of organic factors. Cultural factors that affect the manifestation of mental illness would be one plausible alternative.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that any change in brain chemistry manifests itself as a change in mental condition
The argument simply doesn’t claim that any change in brain chemistry manifests as a change in mental condition.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that mental phenomena are only manifestations of physical phenomena
The argument doesn’t claim that mental phenomena are only manifestations of physical phenomena, just that some mental phenomena (mental illness symptoms) are at least in part affected by certain physical phenomena (organic factors).
Summarize Argument
The politician concludes that privatizing national parks will benefit visitors. She reaches this conclusion by analogy: a privatization project in telecommunications benefited consumers.
Notable Assumptions
By appealing to the privatization of telecommunications, the politician assumes that there are no relevant difference between telecommunications and national parks. She also assumes that there’s some relevant analog to competition among telecommunications providers for national parks.
A
It would not be politically expedient to privatize the national parks even if doing so would, in the long run, improve service and reduce the fees charged to visitors.
It doesn’t matter what would be politically expedient. We care about whether or not it would benefit visitors.
B
The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.
Even if that’s true, it still benefited consumers. The politician concludes about how privatizing national parks would benefit visitors, so we don’t care about other problems privatization may cause.
C
The vast majority of people visiting the national parks are unaware of proposals to privatize the management of those parks.
We don’t care whether the visitors know the parks might be privatized. We care whether privatization would benefit them.
D
Privatizing the national parks would benefit a much smaller number of consumers to a much smaller extent than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.
It would still benefit visitors. This agrees with the politician’s conclusion.
E
The privatization of the national parks would produce much less competition between different companies than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.
Privatizing telecommunications benefitted consumers through increased competition, but that wouldn’t happen with national parks since there’s so little competition in the industry. Thus, the politician’s appeal to a supposedly analogous case isn’t valid.