Summary
The level and rate of growth of aggregate output are the most significant indicators of the viability of a nation’s economy. Unemployment and inflation rates are also important indicators. Some countries have viable economies even though they do not have very large populations. For example, Switzerland and Austria have viable economies, but only about seven million people. Israel, Ireland, Denmark, and Finland all have viable economies, but less than seven million people.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Having a very large population isn’t required to have a viable economy.
If the size of a country’s population is an indicator of the viability of a nation’s economy, it is not the most significant indicator.
If the size of a country’s population is an indicator of the viability of a nation’s economy, it is not the most significant indicator.
A
A nation’s economic viability is independent of the size of its population.
Unsupported. Although having a very large population isn’t required for a viable economy, that doesn’t imply that population size is completely independent of the viability of an economy. Maybe a population of one million, for example, is required for viability.
B
Having a population larger than seven million ensures that a nation will be economically viable.
Unsupported. We don’t have any evidence that every nation with more than seven million people is economically viable.
C
Economic viability does not require a population of at least seven million.
Strongly supported. We have several examples of countries with populations smaller than seven million that are nonetheless still economically viable.
D
A nation’s population is the most significant contributor to the level and rate of growth of aggregate output.
Unsupported. We are not told what are the most important contributors to the level and rate of growth of aggregate output.
E
A nation’s population affects the level and rate of growth of aggregate output more than it affects unemployment and inflation rates.
Unsupported. We do not have any evidence that a nation’s population affects aggregate output, unemployment, or inflation rates.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Some advertising for heartburn medications is false because unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause esophageal cancer. In reality, only about 5 percent of people with severe heartburn have a condition that raises the risk of cancer. So, only about 5 percent of people—those with this condition—are at a higher risk of developing cancer due to heartburn.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s contention that some heartburn medications are falsely advertised because it is not true that unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer.
A
Only those people with Barrett’s esophagus can suffer an increased risk of developing cancer from heartburn.
This is a premise. The stimulus notes that only 5% of people—those with Barrett's esophagus—have a higher risk of cancer to support the conclusion that heartburn isn’t "likely" to increase the risk of cancer. If only 5% of people are at risk, it’s unlikely for the average person.
B
An increase in the risk of esophageal cancer arises from cells similar to those in the stomach’s lining developing in the lower esophagus.
This is a premise. It provides background on a condition called Barrett's esophagus, which the author mentions to support her conclusion. Since readers may be unfamiliar with Barrett’s esophagus, this claim gives them the information needed to follow the author’s argument.
C
Unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause esophageal cancer.
This accurately states the main conclusion. The author argues that some heartburn-medication ads are untrue because unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause esophageal cancer. Since only 5% of people are at risk, the average person is not "likely" to have an increased risk.
D
Some heartburn-medication advertisements imply that unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer.
This is context. The claim that some heartburn-medication ads imply unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer helps explain the author's argument, which concludes that this advertising is false since heartburn only increases cancer risk in about 5% of people.
E
The dangers touted by heartburn-medication advertisements will affect relatively few of the people who see those advertisements.
The stimulus doesn’t make this claim. A premise states that only 5% of people will have a higher risk of esophageal cancer from heartburn but doesn’t suggest that only 5% of people who see the ads have this condition. People with the condition may be more likely to see the ads.