Summary
Cheetahs live in African grasslands. Previous estimates of the size of the cheetah population must be in order to survive a natural disaster were too low. The current population of cheetahs barely meets the previous estimates. Currently, there is not enough African grassland to support a cheetah population larger than the current one.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Currently, the cheetah population will be unable to survive a natural disaster.
A
Previous estimates of the size of the existing wild cheetah population were inaccurate.
This answer is unsupported. It’s not that the estimate of the size of the cheetah population was inaccurate. Rather, it was the estimate of the population needed to survive a natural disaster that was inaccurate.
B
The cheetah’s natural habitat is decreasing in size at a faster rate than is the size of the wild cheetah population.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the cheetah’s natural habitat is decreasing in size. We only know that the current habitat is incapable of supporting a larger cheetah population than the current one.
C
The principal threat to the endangered wild cheetah population is neither pollution nor hunting, but a natural disaster.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what the principle threat against the cheetah population is. We know that a natural disaster is a threat, but we don’t know if a natural disaster is the principle threat.
D
In the short term, the wild cheetah population will be incapable of surviving a natural disaster in the African grasslands.
This answer is strongly supported. If the current habitat cannot support a cheetah population larger than the current one, and the cheetah population is too low to survive a natural disaster, then the current cheetah population cannot survive a natural disaster.
E
In regions where land is suitable for cheetah habitation, more natural disasters are expected to occur during the next decade than occurred during the past decade.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus where natural disasters are expected to occur, if any disasters are expected to occur at all.
Objection: Decisions on energy use are best left to the operation of the market.
Summarize Argument
The conclusion we’re focusing on is the objection that energy use should be decided by the market, not government regulation. Why? The only support we’re given is that efficient use of fossil energy would benefit the nation as well as the global environment.
Notable Assumptions
A
It would be unrealistic to expect society to make the changes necessary to achieve maximum energy efficiency all at once.
This does not undermine the objection, because it doesn’t help us determine whether the market or the government is more able to improve energy efficiency. That’s what we need to find out, regardless of whether or not we can maximize efficiency immediately.
B
There are products, such as automobiles, that consume energy at a sufficient rate that persons who purchase and use them will become conscious of any unusual energy inefficiency in comparison with other products in the same class.
Like (D), this does not undermine the objection. In fact, at least for products like cars, it strengthens the objection by explaining how market incentives (i.e. the cost of fuel) could improve energy efficiency. For any other products, we still just don’t know.
C
Whenever a new mode of generating energy, such as a new fuel, is introduced, a number of support systems, such as a fuel-distribution system, must be created or adapted.
This does not undermine the objection. Based on the stimulus, we have no reason to believe that new types of energy are in question at all. Even if they were, this still doesn’t help us decide if the market or the government will most improve efficiency. So, this is irrelevant.
D
When energy prices rise, consumers of energy tend to look for new ways to increase energy efficiency, such as by adding insulation to their houses.
This does not undermine the objection. Instead, like (B), it strengthens the claim that market incentives will lead to greater energy efficiency. This is an even better strengthen answer than (B), because it’s not limited to only certain products. So clearly, it doesn’t weaken.
E
Often the purchaser of a product, such as a landlord buying an appliance, chooses on the basis of purchase price because the purchaser is not the person who will pay for energy used by the product.
This undermines the objection by showing that market incentives of which product to buy often have nothing to do with energy efficiency. This indicates that the market may not effectively improve energy efficiency, thus weakening the objection.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
It would have been smarter to buy a tree last summer instead of this summer. The tree we bought this summer is struggling to survive because of the drought, but if we had bought it last summer, it would have received enough water from last summer’s normal rainfall to grow strong roots, which can better survive droughts.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is Brianna’s opinion that it would have been better to buy a tree last summer rather than waiting until this summer.
A
It would have been better to buy a tree last summer rather than this summer.
This statement captures Brianna’s conclusion that buying the tree last summer would have been smarter. The rest of her argument explains why: the tree would have developed strong roots with the previous summer’s normal rainfall, making it more resilient to this summer’s drought.
B
The tree purchased this summer is struggling to survive this summer’s drought.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion by showing the downside of buying the tree this summer. The tree’s struggle highlights that if they had bought it last summer, it would have developed stronger roots with the normal rainfall, helping it survive this summer's drought.
C
If a tree had been purchased last summer, it would be better able to survive this summer’s drought.
This premise supports the conclusion by highlighting the benefit of buying the tree last summer. It suggests that a tree bought last summer would have grown stronger roots and better survived this summer's drought, reinforcing that buying it last summer would have been wiser.
D
A tree purchased last summer would have established roots.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion by highlighting the benefit of buying the tree last summer. A tree with more established roots would have better survived this summer's drought, reinforcing that buying a tree last summer would have been wiser.
E
Trees with established roots can better withstand droughts.
This premise supports the main conclusion by explaining why buying the tree last summer would have been smarter. With established roots from last summer, the tree would be stronger and more resilient to this summer's drought. Thus, buying it last summer was the wiser choice.