Mallotech portrays itself to the public as a socially responsible company, but critics charge that employees in many of its factories work in unsanitary conditions. Unless these critics are mistaken, then, Mallotech is not accurately portraying itself to the public.

Summary
The author concludes that if we accept the critics’ claim, then Mallotech is not a socially responsible company. This is based on the fact that critics claim employees in many of Mallotech factories work in unsanitary conditions.

Missing Connection
Let’s accept as true the claim that employees in many of Mallotech’s factories work in unsanitary conditions. Does this prove that Mallotech is not a socially responsible company? No. We have no idea what makes a company not socially responsible. Maybe the company as a whole does great things that are good for society, and what’s true about some employees doesn’t render the entire company “not socially responsible.”
To make the argument valid, we want to establish that if Mallotech has employees who work in unsanitary conditions, that implies the company is not socially responsible.

A
A socially responsible company would never lie about whether its employees are working in unsanitary conditions.
We don’t know that Mallotech has ever lied about having employees working in unsanitary conditions. Maybe Mallotech admits where its employees work. But it can still portray itself as socially responsible in other ways.
B
No company that conceals information from the public is socially responsible.
We don’t know that Mallotech has concealed information from the public. We know it portrays itself as socially responsible, and the author believes this is a false portrayal. But nothing in the stimulus suggests Mallotech has concealed information.
C
Many employees in Mallotech’s factories work in unsanitary conditions.
The author’s conclusion already accepts, for the purpose of the conclusion, the truth of the critics’ claim that many employees work in unsanitary conditions. (C) doesn’t connect these working conditions to lack of social responsibility.
D
A socially responsible company would not have employees working in unsanitary conditions.
If, as the conclusion asks us to, we accept that employees in many of Mallotech’s factories work in unsanitary conditions, then (D) allows us to conclude that Mallotech is not socially responsible. After all, a socially responsible company wouldn’t have employees working in those conditions.
E
Every company that is well managed is socially responsible.
(E) allows us to conclude that well-managed companies are socially responsible. But we’re trying to conclude that Mallotech is NOT socially responsible.

5 comments

Theorist: Hatred and anger, grief and despair, love and joy are pairs of emotions that consist of the same core feeling and are distinguishable from each other only in terms of the social conditions that cause them and the behavior they in turn cause. So even if the meaning of a given piece of music is the emotion it elicits, this can mean only that music produces the core of a given emotion, for music is merely sound and, therefore, by itself creates neither social conditions nor human behavior.

Summarize Argument
The theorist argues that even emotional music can only produce the “core” of a particular emotion, not the entire emotion. What the theorist means by the core of an emotion is that certain emotions involve the same basic feeling, or “core,” but are distinguished by social conditions and behavior associated with the emotion. The theorist also claims that “music is only sound,” so it can’t be responsible for the social conditions and behaviors that define certain emotions. Together, these two premises lead to the conclusion that music can’t be responsible for the entirety of an emotion, just its core.

Identify Argument Part
The claim that music is only sound (which cannot create social conditions or behavior) is one of two premises which work together to support the conclusion.

A
It is a generalization a particular instance of which is cited by the argument in order to undermine the viewpoint that the argument is attacking.
Firstly, the argument isn’t attacking any particular viewpoint. Secondly, the theorist never cites a particular instance of music being just sound. Thirdly, the claim that music is only sound doesn’t undermine anything.
B
It is a portion of the conclusion drawn in the argument.
No other claim supports the idea that music is only sound, so it can’t be the conclusion. Instead, the conclusion is that music can only produce emotional “cores,” not full emotions.
C
It is a claim that is offered as partial support for the argument’s conclusion.
This accurately identifies that the claim that music is only sound is one of two premises which together support the conclusion. This is a premise, each of which provides partial support.
D
It is a generalization the truth of which is claimed to be necessary to establish the conclusion of the argument.
The theorist doesn’t claim that music being sound is necessary to the argument. Just because it supports the conclusion, doesn’t mean it must be true for the conclusion to be true.
E
It is a hypothesis that must be rejected, according to the argument, because it is inconsistent with certain evidence.
The theorist never argues that any claim should be rejected, nor is evidence cited as a reason for rejecting any claim.

12 comments

In a recent study, researchers collected current prices for the 300 most common pharmaceutical drugs from the leading wholesalers specializing in bulk sales. It was found that these prices average 60 to 80 percent below the suggested wholesale prices listed for the same drugs in the current annual edition of a widely used, independently published pharmaceutical price guidebook.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why were the current prices for the 300 most common drugs from top wholesalers 60-80% lower than the suggested wholesale prices in a popular, independent pharmaceutical price guide?

Objective

Four of the answer choices will provide a hypothesis that helps to explain the difference between the actual drug prices and the suggested drug prices in the study.

Note that we are looking for the answer choice that does not help to explain this difference.

A
A price war wherein pharmaceutical drug wholesalers tried to undercut each others’ prices began shortly before the study was conducted.

This helps to explain why drug prices from top wholesalers were lower than the suggested wholesale prices in the guidebook. If a price war among drug wholesalers began shortly before the study was conducted, it could have caused the studied prices to be lower than usual.

B
Suggested wholesale prices for the most common pharmaceutical drugs tend to be less than those for less common pharmaceutical drugs.

This does not help to explain why prices for the 300 most common drugs were lower than the suggested prices in the guidebook. Since we're only talking about these 300 drugs, it doesn't matter if suggested prices for less common drugs are usually higher.

C
Wholesale prices for pharmaceutical drugs often fluctuate dramatically from one month to the next.

This helps to explain why drug prices from top wholesalers were lower than the suggested wholesale prices in the guidebook. If wholesale drug prices fluctuate significantly each month, it makes sense that the annual guidebook might not reflect the prices for any given month.

D
Wholesale prices suggested by the independently published pharmaceutical price guidebook are calculated to allow every pharmaceutical wholesaler to make substantial profits.

This helps explain the difference in the actual and suggested prices. The guidebook prices allow wholesalers to make a profit, so they can still profit by charging 60-80% of the suggested price. Wholesalers might want to charge less to stay competitive or reduce consumer costs.

E
The prices suggested by the independently published pharmaceutical price guidebook are for sales of relatively small quantities of pharmaceutical drugs to individual doctors.

This helps to explain why drug prices from top wholesalers were lower than the suggested wholesale prices in the guidebook. If the suggested prices are for smaller sales to individual doctors, these wholesalers who specialize in bulk sales might charge less for bulk purchases.


10 comments

Selena claims to have psychic powers. So if we find out whether Selena’s claim is true, we will thereby determine whether it is possible to have psychic powers.

Summary
The author’s conclusion means the following:
If we find out that Selena does have psychic powers, then we will determine that it’s possible to have psychic powers. And, if we find out that Selena does NOT have psychic powers, then we will determine that it’s NOT possible to have psychic powers.
This conclusion is based on nothing more than the fact that Selena claims to have psychic powers.

Missing Connection
If Selena has psychic powers, then it’s inherently true that having psychic powers is possible.
But if Selena doesn’t have psychic powers, that doesn’t necessarily prove that it’s impossible to have psychic powers. After all, what if someone else besides Selena could have psychic powers.
So to make the argument valid, we want to establish that if Selena doesn’t have psychic powers, it’s impossible to have psychic powers. In other words, we want to know that nobody else can have psychic powers if Selena doesn’t have them.

A
No one else has yet been found to have psychic powers.
(A) doesn’t establish that if Selena doesn’t have psychic powers, no one else can have them. Sure, no one else has “yet been found” to have them. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for others to have psychic powers.
B
If it is possible to have psychic powers, then Selena has them.
(B) establishes that if Selena doesn’t have psychic powers, then it’s impossible to have psychic powers (think about the contrapositive of this answer). This supplies the missing piece of the argument; if we find out Selena’s claim is not true, we can determine that it’s not possible to have psychic powers.
C
It is possible to determine whether Selena has psychic powers.
Whether it’s possible to determine that Selena’s claim is true/false has nothing to do with what happens IF we find out her claim is true/false. Adding (C) to the argument still leaves us not knowing whether other people besides Selena can have psychic powers.
D
If Selena’s claim turns out to be false, we will not know whether it is possible to have psychic powers.
We want to prove that by finding out whether Selena’s claim is true, we WILL determine whether it’s possible to have psychic powers. In other words, we’ll find out that it’s possible or that it’s impossible. (D) is directed toward proving that we “will not know whether it is possible” to have psychic powers. Not knowing whether it’s possible is the opposite of what we want to establish.
E
We will not be able to determine whether it is possible to have psychic powers unless we find out whether Selena’s claim is true.
(E) simply reverses the conclusion. (E) establishes that finding out whether Selena has psychic powers is necessary to determine whether it’s possible to have psychic powers. But we want to establish that it’s sufficient to determine whether it’s possible to have psychic powers.

73 comments

Studies have shown that pedestrians are struck by cars when crossing streets in crosswalks more often than they are struck when crossing outside of crosswalks. This is because crosswalks give many pedestrians an overly strong sense of security that oncoming cars will follow the signals, and these pedestrians are less likely to look both ways before crossing the street.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that pedestrians feel too safe in crosswalks and don’t watch for oncoming cars. To support his hypothesis, he notes a correlation: pedestrians get hit by cars more often when crossing at crosswalks than when crossing anywhere else.

Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the author concludes that the cause of increased accidents in crosswalks must be because pedestrians behave less safely when crossing there. But there could be other possible causes that would explain why more pedestrians get hit in crosswalks. Perhaps there are simply many more pedestrians crossing at crosswalks than anywhere else, and so more accidents occur there. Or perhaps it’s not the pedestrians who get careless in crosswalks, but the drivers. The author assumes these alternative explanations aren’t true.

A
The overwhelming majority of pedestrians in high-traffic areas cross streets in crosswalks.
This is a good alternative explanation for why more pedestrians get hit in crosswalks: that’s just where most pedestrians cross! If this is true, the author’s explanation is weakened—we have less reason to think that pedestrians are being especially unsafe in crosswalks.
B
The number of pedestrians struck by cars has increased in recent years.
This compares the number of pedestrians getting hit by cars everywhere over time. That’s the wrong comparison. We need to understand why more pedestrians are hit in one place (crosswalks) than any other place at a given time.
C
Pedestrians tend to underestimate the chances that the signals at a crosswalk will malfunction.
Too many unknowns. We have no idea how often this happens, or what the safety effects of this are. Perhaps this only causes a negligible uptick in pedestrians being struck by cars. Or perhaps this actually reduces accidents, because the signal’s stuck on “don’t walk”!
D
Drivers are generally most alert to pedestrians who are in or near crosswalks.
This strengthens the author's explanation by eliminating the alternative hypothesis that drivers are the careless ones rather than pedestrians.
E
Measures intended to promote safety tend to make people less cautious.
Crosswalks are one such measure. This supports the author’s argument.

28 comments

Psychologist: Phonemic awareness, or the knowledge that spoken language can be broken into component sounds, is essential for learning to read an alphabetic language. But one also needs to learn how sounds are symbolically represented by means of letters; otherwise, phonemic awareness will not translate into the ability to read an alphabetic language. Yet many children who are taught by the whole-language method, which emphasizes the ways words sound, learn to read alphabetic languages.

Summary

In order to read an alphabetic language, one must have phonemic awareness and have learned how sounds are symbolically represented by means of letters.

Many children who are taught using the whole-language method learn to read alphabetic languages.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

Many children who are taught using the whole-language method have phonemic awareness and have learned how sounds are symbolically represented by means of letters. (This must be true, because many children who are taught using the whole-language method can read an alphabetic language, which implies that they have what’s required to read an alphabetic language.)

A
The whole-language method invariably succeeds in teaching awareness of how spoken language can be broken into component sounds.

We don’t know whether the whole-language method is ever successful in teaching how spoken language can be broken into component sounds. We know that many children who are taught using this method can learn how spoken language is broken into component sounds, but we don’t know whether they learned this from the whole-language method.

B
When the whole-language method succeeds in teaching someone how to represent sounds by means of letters, that person acquires the ability to read an alphabetic language.

We know that learning how sounds are represented by means of letters is one necessary condition for reading an alphabetic language. But we don’t know that it’s sufficient. In fact, phonemic awareness is another requirement, so if someone doesn’t have phonemic awareness, they won’t be able to read, even if they understand how sounds are represented by letters.

C
Those unable to read an alphabetic language lack both phonemic awareness and the knowledge of how sounds are symbolically represented.

Not supported, because someone who can’t read an alphabetic language might be lacking some other necessary condition that we don’t know about. It’s possible they have phonemic awareness and knowledge of how sounds are represented by letters, but still can’t read for some unknown other reason.

D
Some children who are taught by the whole-language method are not prevented from learning how sounds are represented by means of letters.

Must be true, becaue we know many children taught using the whole-language method can read alphabetic languages. So they must understand how sounds are represented by means of letters.

E
The whole-language method succeeds in teaching many children how to represent sounds symbolically by means of letters.

Not supported, because we don’t know that the whole-language method is how many children who learn to read alphabetic languages came to understand how sounds are represented by letters. It’s possible that they learned this through something else besides the whole-language method. In other words, just because they were taught using the whole-language method does not imply that this method is how they learned what’s necessary to read alphabetic languages.


26 comments