Primatologist: Although I agree that your assumption helped you make those predictions, your conclusion does not follow. You might as well argue that since we can predict the output of some bank cash machines by assuming that these machines actually want to satisfy the customers’ requests, these cash machines must really have desires.
A
whether the anthropologist successfully predicted the behavior of individual monkeys by use of the map of the troupe’s dominance hierarchy
B
whether the output of a bank cash machine can be accurately predicted on the basis of knowledge of the requests made to it by customers
C
whether vervet monkeys can have knowledge of the complete hierarchy of dominance relations that exists within their own troupe
D
whether the fact that the anthropologist’s assumption led to such successful predictions provides sufficient grounds for the claim that the vervet monkeys had knowledge of their dominance hierarchy
E
whether the behavior exhibited by vervet monkeys in experimental situations can be used as the basis for a generalization concerning all vervet monkeys
(1) Marion hates taking the train.
(2) If she doesn’t take the train, she must leave 45 minutes early to be on time for work.
(3) If she leaves 45 minutes early, her bank won’t be open yet.
(4) She must stop at her bank before leaving for work (so she can’t leave 45 minutes early).
A
mistakes a situation that almost certainly affects many people for one that affects a particular person alone
B
ignores the fact that people often know that something is the case without considering all the consequences that follow from its being the case
C
assumes without justification that because people generally have an interest in avoiding a given result, any particular person will have an interest in avoiding that result
D
treats evidence that someone will adopt a particular course of action as though that evidence excluded the possibility of an alternative course of action
E
overlooks the possibility that someone might occasionally adopt a given course of action without having a good reason for doing so
This is a must be true question, as it asks: If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of them?
This stimulus is full of conditionals with comparisons. The first sentence and the second half of the second sentence both begin with the conditional indicator “when”, which gives us three conditionals in addition to the “but if” beginning the second sentence. All three conditionals involve comparisons indicated by “than” or “as”. If we notice that the “fall more slowly” of the necessary condition of the first conditional is equivalent to the “fall less rapidly” of the second conditional, and that the “unable to lower prices” of the second conditional is equivalent to the “cannot lower prices” of the third, we should recognize that the three conditionals form a chain: slower adoption → slower falling costs → cannot lower prices → squeezed out. The contrapositive of this chain is: not squeezed out → can lower prices → not slower falling costs → not slower adoption. Since this is a must be true question with a chain of conditionals, we should be looking for answers which say something about a condition earlier in this chain or the contrapositive chain that guarantee a condition further down the chain. Let’s see if any answers take this form:
Answer Choice (A) We are told nothing about raising prices, only stuff about being unable to lower them.
Answer Choice (B) This answer is a classic case of confusing sufficiency for necessity. Just because foreign competitors (FCs) adopting technologies faster is sufficient to squeeze a country out of the global market, doesn’t mean that it is required for a country to be squeezed out of the market.
Answer Choice (C) This answer makes the same mistake as B, just with different parts of our chain of conditionals.
Answer Choice (D) The problem with this answer is that it gives us the negation of the first condition of our conditional chain, because “the same rate” is equivalent to “not slower”, but we can only use the negation in the contrapositive where it is the final necessary condition. Even if A→B is true, we can’t infer anything from B alone. In this case we certainly cannot infer that neither group will be squeezed out of the market. It is entirely consistent with what we are told in the stimulus that there are a million ways a manufacturer can be squeezed out of the market even when it has the same tech adoption rate as its FCs.
Correct Answer Choice (E) Our contrapositive chain comes in handy here. If we look at it, we’ll notice that if a manufacturer can lower prices as rapidly as their foreign competitor, then they must not have slower falling costs, which means that they must not be adopting tech at slower rate. If it is true that a manufacture can lower prices as rapidly as its FCs, then it is required that it is not adopting tech at a slower rate.
This is a Method of Reasoning question, and we know this because of the question stem: “The argument counters the objection by...”
The author starts out by laying out an objection to making the US school year align with Japanese/European school calendars. This objection to this proposal is that it violates a tradition that was established in the 19th century. The author then says that this objection “misses its mark,” or that their proposed reasoning that not establish support for their objection. This is our author’s main conclusion. His reasoning is that our calendar year aligned to fit harvesting time in rural areas that depended on children working. So, if we’re appealing to tradition, the tradition is actually based on economic needs and that’s what we should look to. The author is saying that the objection mistakes what the purpose of the traditions actually was.
Answer Choice (A) There is no misunderstanding about the amount of time schools have been closed.
Answer Choice (B) The stimulus is not calling into question the relevance of tradition; the author is calling into question their understanding of what said tradition means.
Correct Answer Choice (C) Note that the author’s argument takes issue with the reasoning behind the objection. This explains exactly how the author shows that the opponents of the change are misunderstanding what traditions imply for this social change.
Answer Choice (D) The author does not call into question the opponents’ genuine concern.
Answer Choice (E) The issue here is that the author isn’t saying change should be justified by tradition. If it is, however, the purpose behind the traditions the opponents put forward is not correct.