Yolanda: Just as optometry relies on patients’ reports of what they see, happiness research relies on subjects’ reports of how they feel. Surely optometry is a scientific discipline.
Speaker 1 Summary
Vincent argues that scientific disciplines can only study things that can be measured. Because happiness is a subjective experience, it cannot be measured.
Speaker 2 Summary
Yolanda counters by making an analogy to optometry. She argues that optometrists rely on patients’ subjective reports of what they see, and that optometry is surely a scientific discipline.
Objective
Disagree: Vincent and Yolanda disagree over whether a scientific discipline can rely on subjective reports.
A
Happiness is an entirely subjective experience.
Vincent directly agrees with this in his argument, but Yolanda does not address whether happiness is an entirely subjective feeling. If anything, she may agree with this.
B
Optometry is a scientific discipline.
Yolanda agrees with this statement in her argument, but Vincent does not address anything about optometry. His argument is solely concerned with happiness.
C
A scientific discipline can rely on subjective reports.
Vincent opposes this statement in the first sentence of his argument. Yolanda agrees with this statement because she believes optometry is a scientific discipline despite relying on subjective reports.
D
Happiness research is as much a scientific discipline as optometry is.
Vincent has no position on this because he does not mention optometry. Yolanda also does not say anything that could support this comparative statement. She does not mention happiness or compare it to optometry.
E
Experiences that cannot be measured are entirely subjective experiences.
Neither Vincent nor Yolanda addresses whether unmeasurable experiences are subjective. Their disagreement centers around whether a scientific discipline can rely on subjective experiences.
Summarize Argument
The author’s main conclusion is that increasing urbanization might reduce the total amount of pollution in the nation. This is because people in more urban areas tend to rely more on mass transit and live in more energy-efficient houses than people in more rural areas. The same number of people in an urban area will produce less pollution than the same number of people in a rural area.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is the conclusion of the argument.
A
It is used to support the conclusion that people should live in large cities.
The referenced text is not a conclusion. Also, the author never suggests people should live in large cities.
B
It is a statement offered to call into question the claim that large cities are generally more polluted than the countryside.
The author concedes that large cities are generally more polluted than the countryside. This is not called into question by the author.
C
It is a statement serving merely to introduce the topic to be addressed in the argument and plays no logical role.
The referenced text is the conclusion.
D
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that large cities are generally more polluted than the countryside.
The referenced text is the conclusion. The claim that large cities are more polluted than the countryside is a concession.
E
It is a claim that the rest of the argument is designed to establish.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. It’s a conclusion supported by the claim that a given number of people will produce less pollution if concentrated in a large city than if dispersed among many small towns.
Summary
Vitamins A and D can be toxic at high levels, meaning it can be dangerous to greatly exceed recommended daily intake. Some vitamin-fortified foods have 100 percent of the daily intake of both vitamins. Many people overestimate what counts as a serving of these foods. Many people will consume two to three times the manufacturer-defined serving size.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Some people who eat vitamin-fortified food are exceeding the recommended daily intake of vitamins A and D by eating two to three times the serving size.
A
Few people who consume vitamin-fortified foods are aware of the recommended daily intake of vitamins A and D.
This is unsupported because we aren’t given any information about the mental state or knowledge of people consuming fortified foods. We don’t know how many are aware of the excessive levels of vitamin A and D.
B
Some people who consume vitamin-fortified foods exceed the recommended daily intake of vitamins A and D.
This is strongly supported because we are told that some people exceed more than one serving of these foods daily, and each serving can contain 100 percent of the recommended daily levels of vitamins A and D.
C
Some people mistakenly believe it is healthy to consume more than the recommended daily intake of vitamins A and D.
This is unsupported because we are not told anything about what people know or believe.
D
Most people who eat vitamin-fortified foods should not take any vitamin supplements.
This is unsupported because people who eat vitamin fortified foods may eat less than a serving per day, which would warrant supplements. It is also possible that people should take vitamin supplements for those vitamins not included in the vitamin-fortified foods.
E
Manufacturers are unaware that many people consume vitamin-fortified foods in amounts greater than the standard serving sizes.
This is unsupported because we are not told anything about the knowledge or awareness of manufacturers regarding how consumers eat their foods.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The fact that, in a few centuries, there will be ten people for every square meter will only be temporarily solved by humans learning how to colonize other planets. Colonizing other planets will only temporarily solve Earth’s population crisis because if the population keeps doubling every 30 years, and half of Earth's population moves to Mars in 2500, Earth will be just as crowded as before by 2530.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the essayist’s criticism of a potential solution to the fact that Earth’s population may soon grow to where there are ten people for every square meter of Earth’s surface. The essayist disputes the claim that colonizing other planets will be a solution for Earth’s overpopulation. The essayist’s conclusion is that this potential solution is flawed because colonizing other planets will only "be a temporary solution at best."
A
If Earth’s population continues to grow geometrically, then in a few centuries the population density of Earth’s surface will be ten people per square meter.
This is context. The essayist explains how Earth’s population is growing to introduce a possible solution—colonizing other planets. This context helps us understand the essayist’s main point: colonizing other planets won’t solve overpopulation in the long term, only temporarily.
B
Due to the continuing geometric growth of Earth’s population, the problem of overpopulation of Earth will probably persist.
The essayist doesn’t make this claim. The essayist argues that if Earth's population keeps growing, one proposed solution may not be enough. However, the essayist doesn’t say for sure that Earth's population will grow this way or that overpopulation will “probably” be a problem.
C
If Earth’s population continues to double every 30 years, and if at some point half of the population of Earth emigrated elsewhere, then after 30 years Earth would be just as crowded as it had been before the emigration.
This is a premise. The fact that Earth will be just as crowded again after half the population moves to another planet supports the main conclusion that colonizing other planets is only a temporary fix for overpopulation. It explains why this solution won’t help in the long term.
D
The population of Earth’s surface will probably continue to grow geometrically even if temporary solutions to population growth, such as colonizing other planets, are adopted.
This is an assumption the essayist makes. The essayist assumes that Earth's population will keep doubling, even after some people hypothetically move to Mars. If this assumption is true, the essayist argues that colonizing other planets will only temporarily fix overpopulation.
E
Learning how to colonize other planets would, at best, be a temporary solution to the overcrowding of Earth.
This accurately states the main conclusion. The essayist disagrees that colonizing other planets will solve Earth's future overpopulation, believing it would only be a temporary solution for such overcrowding because the growing population will eventually replace those who leave.