This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the decision by Lopez and Simmons to reveal their marriage to Evritech is foolish. This is because their decision will result in one of them getting their job offer withdrawn, and they could have just told the company that they got married after they were already hired.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s opinion about Lopez’s and Simmons’ decision: “Their decision is foolish.”
A
Lopez and Simmons should not both have applied for jobs at Evritech Corporation
The conclusion doesn’t say anything about the initial application to the company.
B
Evritech Corporation’s rule against hiring more than one member of the same family is often not enforced
The conclusion doesn’t say anything about the likelihood of enforcement. Also, the author never suggests that the rule is often not enforced.
C
Lopez and Simmons would be unwise to reveal their marriage to Evritech Corporation without already having started to work there
This is a paraphrase of the idea that their decision is “foolish.”
D
Evritech Corporation should be willing to employ two members of the same family if it is willing to retain two of its employees who marry each other
The conclusion isn’t about what Evritech should or should not do. It’s about what the married couples should have done.
E
Evritech Corporation is not likely to discover the marital status of Lopez and Simmons if they do not volunteer the information
The conclusion doesn’t say anything about what Evritech is likely to discover.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The anthropologist concludes that ice-age nomads’ food mostly came from plants and small animals, not big-game hunting as many people believe. In support, the anthropologist says that ice-age nomad communities likely only had about 15 to 20 members, and that big-game hunting would have risked multiple community members’ lives. This supports the idea that ice-age nomads would generally avoid big-game hunting.
Identify Argument Part
The text indicated by the question stem is the position the argument seeks to counter. The common portrayal of ice-age nomads as big-game hunters is shown to be a misconception by the anthropologist’s argument.
A
It is a premise used as support for the overall conclusion of the anthropologist’s argument.
The statement about ice-age nomads’ portrayal is not a premise, because it doesn’t support the argument’s conclusion. The claim that many people think ice-age nomads were big-game hunters gives us no reason to believe that nomads mostly got food from other sources.
B
It is a clarification of one of the premises of the anthropologist’s argument.
The statement that ice-age nomads are commonly portrayed as big-game hunters is unrelated to the argument’s premises, and definitely doesn’t clarify them. The premises are about how ice-age nomads actually lived, not about their popular depiction.
C
It is an objection that the anthropologist raises against an opposing theory.
Firstly, the argument doesn’t present an opposing theory, just a common misconception and an explanation of why it’s wrong—so this can’t be true. Secondly, the anthropologist doesn’t use this statement to make any kind of point; it’s not a premise of any kind.
D
It is the overall conclusion of the anthropologist’s argument.
The statement about common depictions of ice-age nomads isn’t the conclusion because nothing else in the argument supports it. The anthropologist’s conclusion, supported by factual premises, is that ice-age nomads mostly got their food from plants and small animals.
E
It describes a claim that the anthropologist attempts to refute.
This is exactly the role played by the claim that ice-age nomads are often portrayed as big-game hunters. The anthropologist’s argument is focused on proving why that portrayal is wrong, by showing that ice-age nomads mostly ate plants and small animals.