Summary
Some people argue that because advertising changes people’s preferences, advertising is socially harmful. The author shows this argument is flawed by pointing out that classes in music and art change people’s preferences, too, but there’s nothing wrong with these classes. The author’s implicit point is that advertising is not necessarily bad simply because it changes people’s preferences.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Advertising is not necessarily bad simply because it changes people’s preferences.
The fact that something changes people’s preferences does not make the thing wrong.
The fact that something changes people’s preferences does not make the thing wrong.
A
consumers would still want most of the things they want even if they were not advertised
Unsupported. The author acknowledges that it’s possible advertising does change people’s preferences. The point is that it’s not bad simply because it changes people’s preferences.
B
the social perniciousness of advertising is not limited to its effect on people’s preferences
Antisupported. The author’s point is that advertising isn’t necessarily bad simply because it changes people’s preferences. So the author isn’t suggesting that advertising is socially pernicious.
C
the fact that advertising changes consumers’ preferences does not establish that it is bad
Strongly supported. Using an analogy, the author points out that the fact something changes preferences does not automatically make it bad.
D
if advertising changes consumers’ preferences, it generally does so in a positive way
Unsupported. Although the author believes changing consumers’ preferences isn’t necessarily bad, that doesn’t suggest the changes are positive. They may simply be neutral.
E
it is not completely accurate to say that advertising changes people’s preferences
Unsupported. The author drew an analogy to something that does change people’s preferences, but isn’t bad. The author isn’t denying that advertising change’s people’s preferences. He’s saying even if it changes people’s preferences, it’s not necessarily bad.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do chimps usually fail to follow up threat gestures with physical attacks?
Objective
The correct answer should help show why threat gestures usually aren’t followed by physical attacks. Note that the question stem does not require us to explain why physical attacks aren’t preceded by threat gestures.
A
Chimpanzees engage in threat gestures when they are angry in order to preserve or enhance social status.
This explains why threat gestures are performed, but doesn’t explain why they aren’t followed by physical attacks. Wouldn’t chimps still want to attack others they’re angry at, even if they’ve demonstrated their status?
B
Making threat gestures helps chimpanzees vent aggressive feelings and thereby avoid physical aggression.
If threat gestures can help chimps vent and thereby avoid physical aggression, this explain why the gestures usually don’t result in physical attacks. The gestures help reduce the chimp’s aggressive feelings, which reduces the likelihood of physical attacks.
C
Threat gestures and physical attacks are not the only means by which chimpanzees display aggression.
This doesn’t change our expectations about threat gestures. If they’re means of displaying aggression, wouldn’t we expect physical attacks to follow?
D
Chimpanzees often respond to other chimpanzees’ threat gestures with threat gestures of their own.
But why don’t chimps usually attack each other after making threat gestures? We still don’t know.
E
The chimpanzees that most often make threat gestures are the ones that least often initiate physical attacks.
This deepens our confusion. Why are threat gestures rarely followed by physical attacks? This answer merely points out an extreme example of threats not being followed by attacks. We still don’t know why the attacks fail to occur.
Brown: Given the great successes of Einstein’s theory, it would be better to conclude that most of the matter in our galaxy has not yet been found.
Speaker 1 Summary
Klein argues toward the implied conclusion that we should abandon Einstein’s theory. This is the conclusion indicated by Klein’s premise: that the fact that we’ve found much less matter in the galaxy than Einstein predicted justifies abandoning Einstein’s theory.
Speaker 2 Summary
Brown argues that instead of abandoning Einstein’s theory based on this inconsistency, we should instead believe that most of the matter in our galaxy hasn’t been found yet. In support, Brown points out that Einstein’s theory has had great successes (suggesting that one inconsistency isn’t enough to justify abandoning it).
Objective
We need to find something that Klein and Brown disagree about. Their disagreement is over whether we should abandon Einstein’s theory.
A
Scientists have found only one-tenth of the matter that Einstein’s theory predicts.
Both speakers agree that this is true. Klein directly makes this claim. Brown doesn’t refer to this inconsistency explicitly, but talks about what we should believe based on this fact, indicating an agreement that it’s true.
B
Einstein’s theory has achieved many successes.
Brown agrees with this, but Klein doesn’t state an opinion. Brown directly makes this claim. Klein just doesn’t say anything about the successes of Einstein’s theory, so we can’t know what Klein thinks.
C
It is possible to determine the amount of matter in our galaxy without relying on Einstein’s theory.
Neither speaker makes this claim. The discussion isn’t about how to determine the amount of matter in the galaxy, it’s about whether the observed amount of matter justifies abandoning Einstein’s theory.
D
The failure to find all of the matter predicted by Einstein’s theory should lead us to abandon it.
Klein agrees with this, but Brown disagrees, making this the point of disagreement. Klein thinks that because of the inconsistency between the theory’s prediction and our observations, we should abandon the theory. Brown thinks we should look for more matter instead.
E
Scientists are able to accurately judge the amount of matter that has been found in our galaxy.
Both speakers most likely agree with this. Neither speaker disputes that scientists know how much matter we’ve found. Also, this would have to be the case to accurately compare our findings with Einstein’s theory’s predictions.