Adjusted for inflation, the income earned from wool sales by a certain family of Australian sheep farmers grew substantially during the period from 1840 to 1860. This is because the price for wool sold on the international market was higher than the price paid on domestic markets and the percentage and amount of its wool that this family sold internationally increased dramatically during that period. But even though the family generated more income from selling their wool, they failed to enjoy a commensurate increase in prosperity.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Between 1840 and 1860, why did the family fail to enjoy an increase in prosperity that corresponded to their increase in wool-income, which derived from the family’s increase in amount of wool sold internationally?

Objective
The correct answer should tell us about something that changed over 1840 to 1860 that might have led the family to either make less money or have greater expenses.

A
At the end of the 1800s, prices in general in Australia rose more rapidly than did the wholesale price of wool sold domestically.
What happened at the “end of the 1800s” won’t explain what happened to the family between 1840 and 1860. And, the family’s wool-income increased from international sales, so general prices increasing faster than domestic wool prices increased has no impact.
B
The prices of wool sold to domestic markets by Australian sheep farmers decreased dramatically during the period in question.
The family’s wool-income increased due to greater international sales. Even if the family made less wool-income from domestic sales, we already know their overall wool-income increased because of international sales.
C
The international and domestic prices for mutton, sheepskins, and certain other products produced by all Australian sheep farmers fell sharply during the period in question.
If prices for these non-wool products sold by the family fell sharply, that could have offset the increased income from wool-sales. This shows why overall income for the family might not have increased, even if wool-income did.
D
Competition in wool sales increased during the period in question, leaving Australian wool producers in a less favorable position than previously.
Even if Australian wool producers in general were in a less favorable position than previously, we already know this family increased their wool-income. This answer doesn’t suggest why the family’s prosperity might not have increased along with their wool-income.
E
Among Australian sheep farmers, the percentage who made their living exclusively from international wool sales increased significantly during the period in question.
We already know this family increased its wool-income from international sales. Whether other farmers exclusively sold internationally doesn’t tell us why this particular family might not have seen an increase in prosperity along with its increase in wool-income.

46 comments

Ethicist: Robert Gillette has argued that because a thorough knowledge of genetics would enable us to cure the over 3,000 inherited disorders that affect humanity, deciphering the human genetic code will certainly benefit humanity despite its enormous cost. Gillette’s argument is not persuasive, however, because he fails to consider that such knowledge might ultimately harm human beings more than it would benefit them.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Robert Gillette’s argument isn’t convincing because he doesn’t consider that decoding the human genetic code might harm people more than it helps them.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the ethicist’s disagreement with Robert Gillette’s hypothesis that deciphering the human genetic code would benefit humanity. The ethicist ultimately concludes that Gillette’s argument is “not persuasive.”

A
Gillette’s argument wrongly assumes that deciphering the genetic code will lead to cures for genetic disorders.
This misstates the conclusion. The ethicist agrees that decoding the human genetic code could cure genetic disorders but argues that, despite this benefit, it might still do more harm than good overall. Since Gillette has not considered this possibility, his argument is flawed.
B
Deciphering the genetic code might ultimately harm human beings more than benefit them.
This is a premise. The ethicist’s main conclusion is that Gillette's argument isn't convincing. The possibility that deciphering the genetic code “might ultimately harm human beings more than benefit them” supports this conclusion by explaining why Gillette’s argument is flawed.
C
Because of its possible negative consequences, genetic research should not be conducted.
The ethicist does not make this claim. The ethicist argues that Robert Gillette's argument is not convincing but does not say that genetic research as a whole should be stopped just because Gillette did not fully consider the consequences of decoding the human genetic code.
D
Gillette’s claim that a thorough knowledge of genetics would enable us to cure over 3,000 disorders is overstated.
The ethicist does not make this claim. The ethicist agrees that understanding genetics could cure over 3,000 genetic disorders but argues that the research could also have negative consequences, possibly causing more harm than good despite its potential to cure so many disorders.
E
Gillette’s argument is unconvincing because it ignores certain possible consequences of genetic research.
This states the main conclusion. The ethicist argues that Gillette’s argument is flawed because he ignores the possibility that decoding the human genetic code could ultimately harm humanity. Since Gillette didn’t consider this potential consequence, his argument is unconvincing.

12 comments

Many uses have been claimed for hypnosis, from combating drug addiction to overcoming common phobias. A recent experimental study helps illuminate the supposed connection between hypnosis and increased power of recall. A number of subjects listened to a long, unfamiliar piece of instrumental music. Under subsequent hypnosis, half the subjects were asked to recall salient passages from the musical piece and half were asked to describe scenes from “the film they had just viewed,” despite their not having just seen a film. The study found that the subjects in the second group were equally confident and detailed in their movie recollections as the subjects in the first group were in their music recollections.

Summary
A recent study explores the connection between hypnosis and increased power of recall. The subjects of the study listened to a long, unfamiliar piece of music. After subsequent hypnosis, half of the subjects were asked to recall passages from the musical piece and the other half were asked to describe scenes from a film “they had just viewed” but have in fact not seen. The study found the group that recalled the film were equally confident and detailed in their recollections as the other group in their music recollections.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
What people recall under hypnosis could be influenced by things suggested to them.

A
Many of the claims made on behalf of hypnosis are overstated.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what claims are being made on behalf of hypnosis. We only know that an experimental study suggests that there’s a connection between hypnosis and recall.
B
Hypnosis cannot significantly increase a person’s power of recall.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if hypnosis absolutely cannot increase a person’s power of recall. Rather, the experimental study seeks to establish that there may be some connection.
C
Recalling events under hypnosis inevitably results in false memories.
This answer is unsupported. To say hypnosis “inevitably” results in false memories is too strong. It’s possible, but we don’t know this for sure based on the stimulus.
D
What people recall under hypnosis depends to at least some extent on suggestion.
This answer is strongly supported. The experimental study in the stimulus is one instance where suggestions may have influenced what the subjects recalled.
E
Visual memory is enhanced more by hypnosis than is auditory memory.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about a person’s visual memory based on the stimulus. We don’t know whether visual memory is a part of a person’s ability to recall information.

13 comments