A
Residents of area L typically value aspects of living conditions different from the aspects of living conditions that are valued by residents of adjacent areas.
B
Between the times that the two surveys were conducted, the average living conditions in L’s country had substantially declined.
C
Optimal living conditions were established in the survey by taking into account governmental policies and public demands on three continents.
D
Living conditions in an area generally improve only if residents perceive their situation as somehow in need of improvement.
E
Ten years ago the residents of area L were not aware that their living conditions were below the national average.
Examine (D) closely to understand what it's actually saying.
According to the passage: The BWR makes enough money from sales of its anthologies to cover most operating expenses.
Say its "operating expenses" are $105. That's internet, rent, electricity, etc. costs. Further, say, income from "sales of anthologies" is $100. That means "most" ($100) of the $105 is covered by income from anthology sales.
We still have $5 left that's not covered. Let's give this $5 a name. How about "operating expenses not covered by income from anthology sales?" Because that's what it is.
Now look at (D).
The BWR depends on donations to cover most operating expenses not covered by income from anthology sales.
In other words, (D) says: The BWR depends on donations to cover most of $5. So... what, like $3.67?
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
(E) is right. Drawing relevant distinctions is how we weaken arguments by analogy. (E) draws the distinction between "your" magazine's anthology and the BWR's anthology. We just kind of presumed that the BWR's anthology would contain only a reprint of stuff already previously printed, which brings up the question "why in the world would anyone spend money on the anthology when it contains only stuff that I already have in separate editions of the magazine?" (E) tells wrecks that presumption. There's new stuff in the BWR's magazine. That's maybe (likely) why people are paying money to buy it. That means the original suggestion in the passage for "your" magazine to just do a reprint will result in an anthology very much unlike the BRW's anthology.
(A) is also incorrect. Parse out what (A) is saying. Like in (D) we have this concept of "most operating expenses". (A) tells us the money that covers "most operating expenses" isn't donation money. Okay, so what about the remaining expenses? Is that donation covered? We don't know. So could it be that the BWR and your magazine still depend on donations? Yes.
That's even besides the point. The point is what I said in (E) about how you weaken arguments by analogy.
Poetry journal patron: Everybody who publishes in The Brick Wall Review has to agree in advance that if a poem is printed in one of its regular issues, the magazine also has the right to reprint it, without monetary compensation, in its annual anthology. The Brick Wall Review makes enough money from sales of its anthologies to cover most operating expenses. So, if your magazine also published an anthology of poems first printed in your magazine, you could depend less on donations. After all, most poems published in your magazine are very similar to those published in The Brick Wall Review.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if the patron’s magazine published an anthology of poems that were previously printed in regular issues of the magazine, it could depend less on donations. This is because most of the poems published in the magazine are similar to those published in a different magazine, the Brick Wall Review, and that magazine makes a lot of money from publishing an anthology.
Notable Assumptions
The argument assumes that what the Brick Wall Review experiences concerning its anthology issue is similar to what the patron’s magazine would experience by publishing an anthology issue.
A
Neither The Brick Wall Review nor the other magazine under discussion depends on donations to cover most operating expenses.
The conclusion is just that the anthology would allow the patron’s magazine to depend less on donations. Even if donations cover only half or less of operating expenses, an anthology might still decrease the need for donations.
B
Many of the poets whose work appears in The Brick Wall Review have had several poems rejected for publication by the other magazine under discussion.
We know most poems published in the patron’s magazine are similar to those in the BWR. That doesn’t imply the poets who publish in the BWR never get rejected by the patron’s magazine. Maybe only 10% of submissions are accepted; they’re still similar to what’s in the BWR.
C
The only compensation poets receive for publishing in the regular issues of the magazines under discussion are free copies of the issues in which their poems appear.
We already know that the poets in the BWR give up the right to monetary compensation for the anthology. So we already know that the cost is nonexistent or negligible when it comes to paying the poets.
D
The Brick Wall Review depends on donations to cover most operating expenses not covered by income from anthology sales.
We’re told the BWR makes enough from the anthology to cover most operating expenses. That acknowledges that there may be operating expenses not covered by the anthology. Pointing out something the author already acknowledges doesn’t weaken the argument.
E
The Brick Wall Review’s annual poetry anthology always contains a number of poems by famous poets not published in the regular issues of the magazine.
This points out a difference that could affect sales between the BWR’s anthology and an anthology made by the patron’s magazine. The BWR anthology contains stuff from famous poets that didn’t appear before. That’s not just an anthology of poems first printed in the magazine.
Note: Another difficulty in this question has to do with the fact that we have to first do an MSS question on Sara's statements before we can do the Disagree question. See, Sara never explicitly disagrees with Glen on (E). She does implicitly disagree. It's hard to see her implicit disagreement because of the way the question is formatted. Let me reformat the question.
Sara: Some people (named Glen) would say that law's primary role should be to create virtuous citizens. But such a role would encourage government to decide which modes of life are truly virtuous; that would be more dangerous than government's being overprotective of individuals' rights.
Can you draw the MSS-style-inference from the stimulus above? Or in other words, can you see where this argument is heading? Or in other words, what's Sara's conclusion that she hasn't stated? These three questions are fishing for same thing.
The reformatted stimulus is very formulaic. We often see arguments begin with "some people say X..." and 9/10 they end up being "X is wrong" is the conclusion. It's no different here.
Sara does not think that the law's primary role should be to create virtuous citizens. There's the implicit conclusion. There's the point of disagreement.
This question is similar to Question 21 in the same section in so far as the disagreement is implicit and we first have to an MSS question.
Sara: But such a role would encourage government to decide which modes of life are truly virtuous; that would be more dangerous than government’s being overprotective of individuals’ rights.