Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the city isn’t being overzealous in its issuance of parking tickets. This is based on the assertion (in the form of a rhetorical question) that parking would be worse if parking regulations were not being enforced.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the city could still enforce parking regulations, but just not as zealously as it currently is. The author cites to what would happen if parking regulations were not enforced. But this doesn’t tell us what would happen if the city just reduced how much it enforced the regulations, while still enforcing them.
A
misrepresents a criticism about the consequences of a practice as a criticism about the intrinsic value of the practice
The author doesn’t comment on the intrinsic value of enforcing parking regulations. We also have no evidence that the author misrepresents the criticism that the city is overzealous in issuance of tickets.
B
takes for granted that a certain authority should be respected merely because it is an authority
The author doesn’t rely on an an appeal to authority to support the conclusion. Rather, the author relies on a comment on the consequences of lack of parking regulation enforcement.
C
takes for granted that a particular practice is good simply because it is the way things have traditionally been done
The author doesn’t argue that enforcing parking regulations is good merely because we have traditionally enforced such regulations. Rather, the author points to the results of lack of enforcement.
D
confuses the cause of a certain phenomenon for an effect of that phenomenon
The author does not confuse cause and effect. The author does not conclude or assume that one thing causes another. Rather, the premise establishes that lack of enforcement leads to certain consequences.
E
defends the current situation merely by suggesting its superiority to an implausible alternative
The author, through a rhetorical question, suggests that the current level of enforcement is better than a complete lack of enforcement. But lack of enforcement isn’t a plausible alternative — the question is whether the city could enforce less zealously than it currently does.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it’s not true that a significant amount of music on the Internet is a result of people downloading others’ music and reworking it into music of their own. This is based on the fact that 99% of Internet users who download music don’t public new music of their own on the Internet.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that a very small portion of music-downloaders can end up producing a large portion music. So the 1% of people who download music and publish it can still create a significant amount of music by reworking others’ music.
A
overlooks the possibility that a relatively small number of people can create a significant amount of new music
This possibility shows that the author’s conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Even 1% of people using the Internet can produce a significant amount of new music, possibly by reworking the music of others.
B
neglects to consider the ease with which music can be published on the Internet
The author’s reasoning is based on the portion of people who actually publish music after downloading music. Whether publishing is easy has no bearing on the author’s reasoning, because we already know only a small % actually publish.
C
fails to provide an alternative account of the sources for most of the music published on the Internet
We know that only a small % of people publish music after downloading music. The author believes this shows the origin of much Internet music is not from downloaders. Where the music really comes from is not part of what the author sets out to prove.
D
presumes, without giving justification, that those who rework downloaded music into new creations always publish those new creations on the Internet
If people who download music sometimes publish reworked music elsewhere, that doesn’t undermine the author’s argument. The author simply wants to show that there isn’t a lot of reworked music published on the Internet.
E
takes for granted that Internet users always prefer music that is original to music that has been downloaded and reworked into a new creation
The argument has nothing to do with what people “prefer” to listen to. The argument is about whether a lot of Internet music results from people downloading music and reworking it into music of their own.
Library policy: For a book to be removed from circulation, the book must be badly damaged and must not have been checked out for over two years. Books that are either written by local authors or are considered to be of significance to local history can only be removed from circulation if they have not been checked out for over three years.
Application: Paper Flowers should not be removed from circulation.
Summary
The conclusion is that Paper Flowers should not be removed. This is based on the following rules:
In order for a book to be removed, it must be (1) badly damaged, AND (2) not been checked out for over 2 years.
If a book is written by a local author OR considered significant to local history, then this additional rule applies:
In order for the book to be removed, it must not have been check out for over 3 years.
Missing Connection
We want to prove that Paper Flowers should not be removed. So we want to show (1) it was not badly damaged, OR (2) it has been checked out within 2 years.
If the book is written by a local author OR considered significant to local history, then we want to show (1) it was not badly damaged, OR (2) it has been check out within 3 years.
A
Paper Flowers is badly damaged.
(A) tells us that Paper Flowers satisfies one of the necessary conditions for being removed. That doesn’t establish that Paper Flowers should be removed.
B
Paper Flowers has been checked out within the last year.
(B) establishes that we do not meet one of the necessary conditions for being removed. Regardless of whether the book is significant to local history or by a local author, if the book has been checked out in the last year, then it hasn’t met the condition of “not been checked out for over 2 years” or “not been checked out for over 3 years.” So it shouldn’t be removed.
C
Paper Flowers was last checked out between two and three years ago.
(C) isn’t enough to prove Paper Flowers should be removed if the book isn’t by a local author and isn’t important to local history. That’s because if it is by a local author/important to local history, it just needs to be checked out within the last 3 years to be removed.
D
Paper Flowers was written by a local author.
(D) doesn’t tell us whether the book is badly damaged or hasn’t been checked out in the last 3 years. So we don’t know whether any of the necessary conditions for removal haven’t been met.
E
Paper Flowers was not written by a local author, but is considered to be of significance to local history.
(E) doesn’t tell us whether the book is badly damaged or hasn’t been checked out in the last 3 years. So we don’t know whether any of the necessary conditions for removal haven’t been met.
Summary
The conclusion is that EE Cummings stood against something essential to his own work. Why?
First, EE Cummings stood for the individual human against regimentation and standardization.
Second, metaphor requires literal language, which in turn requires regimentation.
First, EE Cummings stood for the individual human against regimentation and standardization.
Second, metaphor requires literal language, which in turn requires regimentation.
Missing Connection
We’re trying to prove that EE Cummings stood against something essential in his own work. The only thing we know EE Cummings stood for is being against regimentation and standardization. So something in EE Cummings’ work must involve or otherwise support regimentation or standardization.
We have premises that establish metaphor involves regimentation. But what does this have to do with EE Cummings? We don’t know. The author never explicitly stated that metaphor was essential to EE Cummings’ work. But if we can learn that it was essential to his work, that would establish that there’s a conflict between what EE Cummings stood for (being against regimentation) and something essential in his work (metaphor, which involves regimentation).
We have premises that establish metaphor involves regimentation. But what does this have to do with EE Cummings? We don’t know. The author never explicitly stated that metaphor was essential to EE Cummings’ work. But if we can learn that it was essential to his work, that would establish that there’s a conflict between what EE Cummings stood for (being against regimentation) and something essential in his work (metaphor, which involves regimentation).
A
Not all poets use metaphor.
This doesn’t tell us anything about EE Cummings work. So we have no further basis for saying that EE Cummings stood against something essential to his work.
B
Metaphor was essential to E. E. Cummings’s work.
Metaphor presupposes (or in other words, requires) literal language, which involves regimentation. Since EE Cummings stood against regimentation, (E) establishes that he stood against something essential in his work (regimentation).
C
There can be no literal language without metaphor.
This doesn’t tell us anything about EE Cummings work. So we have no further basis for saying that EE Cummings stood against something essential to his work.
D
Poetry cannot be regimented or standardized.
This doesn’t tell us anything about EE Cummings work. So we have no further basis for saying that EE Cummings stood against something essential to his work.
E
E. E. Cummings did not use literal language.
(E) doesn’t establish that metaphor was essential to EE Cummings’ work, because there could be nonliteral language that isn’t metaphor. So what, then, is the significance of not using literal language? Does this go against EE Cummings’ stance against regimentation and standardization? We don’t know.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Horses peaked 25,000 years ago and then rapidly declined.
Objective
The correct answer will explain why horses peaked 25,000 years ago before rapidly declining. The explanation will explain why horses peaked during a cold period and declined during a period of warming. This explanation must show that the cooler period was favorable for horses, while the warming period was in some way difficult for horses. Since the stimulus states that horses thrive in grasslands, the explanation will likely involve how grasslands respond to warming and cooling.
A
The forest-dwelling ancestor of horses was many times smaller than horses.
We’re talking about modern horses, not their descendants. We also don’t know how size impacts horses’ ability to withstand cooling and warming.
B
The only true wild horse existing today, Przewalski’s horse, inhabits the cold grasslands of Central Asia.
This suggests that horses thrive in cold grasslands, but the stimulus already more or less says that. We need to know why horses peaked 25,000 years ago.
C
Some modern species that are related to horses, such as zebras, inhabit the warm grasslands of Africa.
This is the opposite of (B), and therefore runs slightly contrary to our stimulus. Horses peaked during a cool period. It doesn’t matter if some horse relatives thrive in warm climates.
D
During cold periods there are extensive grasslands, but these tend to revert to forest when the climate warms.
Horses thrive on grasslands. Cold periods provide horses ample habitats, while warmer periods turn grasslands into forests. This explains why horses peaked during a cold period and declined rapidly during a warm one.
E
Several cycles of a cold period followed by a period of warming have occurred in the last 2 million years.
We need to know why horses peaked during one of these cycles 25,000 years ago. This doesn’t give us any explanation.
Summarize Argument
The editorial concludes that programs that encourage children to read by paying them to read should be viewed with suspicion. This is supported by the claim that such programs might make children view reading as a chore rather than as something inherently satisfying and enjoyable.
Notable Assumptions
The editorial assumes that viewing reading as a chore rather than as something inherently satisfying and enjoyable is negative. It thus assumes that children should be taught to find reading enjoyable and satisfying on its own, without external rewards.
A
Early education reading programs should focus more on getting children to read challenging books than on getting them to read a large number of books.
This fails to address the assumption that reading programs should instill an enjoyment of reading rather than use money to motivate children to read. Also, we don’t know that children would choose easy books rather than challenging ones because of the program.
B
Children will be more likely to develop into regular readers if they choose the books they read than if they do not.
This fails to address the assumption that reading programs should instill an enjoyment of reading rather than use money to motivate children to read. Also, as far as we know, children might be choosing the books that they read whether the reading programs are in place or not.
C
Parents will usually play a more important role than teachers in instilling in children a love of reading.
Parents and teachers may have different effects on children’s love of reading, but the argument is only discussing the effects of the reading programs. We don’t know whether parents or teachers are more involved in these programs.
D
The goal of early education reading programs should be to instill in children a love of reading.
This strengthens the argument by addressing the assumption that reading programs should instill an enjoyment of reading rather than use money to motivate children. If this is the case, then the reading programs should indeed be viewed with suspicion.
E
Improving children’s facility with reading will get them to enjoy reading.
This weakens the argument because, if the reading programs get children to read more books and reading more books will eventually get them to enjoy reading, then the programs do instill a love of reading in the end.
Summarize Argument
The salmon farmer concludes that the best reason for choosing farmed salmon over wild salmon is that the farmed option is more eco-friendly. As support, he points to a cause-and-effect chain that suggests farmed salmon is the more eco-friendly choice. Specifically, preference for farmed salmon takes the pressure off of wild salmon, which allows wild populations to recover.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there aren’t any significant ecological downsides to farmed salmon that would undermine its eco-friendliness.
Also, by concluding that eco-friendliness is the single best reason for choosing farmed salmon, she assumes that any other advantages that farmed salmon might have are less important when compared with the ecological advantages.
Also, by concluding that eco-friendliness is the single best reason for choosing farmed salmon, she assumes that any other advantages that farmed salmon might have are less important when compared with the ecological advantages.
A
Farmed salmon are fed with large quantities of small fish caught in areas where wild salmon attempt to feed.
This raises an ecological downside of preferring farmed salmon: it could reduce food sources for wild salmon, potentially harming those wild populations. This negative ecological effect weakens the author’s whole line of reasoning, as choosing farmed salmon may hurt wild salmon.
B
Though some wild salmon may be of lesser quality than farmed salmon, some is far better.
“Quality” is an irrelevant point of comparison—the conclusion only cares about the ecological benefits of farmed salmon. If anything, (B) slightly strengthens by helping to rule out quality as a competing “best reason” to choose farmed salmon.
C
Most people who eat salmon are not aware of any differences between the taste of wild salmon and that of farmed salmon.
This strengthens the argument. It helps to rule out taste as a competing “best reason” to choose farmed salmon.
D
Limits on the number of salmon that can be taken from the wild have led to increases in the price of wild salmon.
It’s unclear what effect this has on the argument. First, we don’t know what’s happening to the price of farmed salmon—is it also increasing? Second, nothing here suggests that price is now a “better reason,” or eco-friendliness a worse one, for choosing farmed salmon.
E
Wild salmon are more likely than farmed salmon to have consumed pollutants that may be harmful to humans.
It’s unclear what effect this has on the argument, because nothing here suggests that human safety is now a “better reason,” or eco-friendliness a worse one, for choosing farmed salmon.