Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that there’s not much evidence to support the belief that migratory birds have an innate homing sense that allows them to return to the same places each year. The author supports her conclusion by pointing out that the studies exploring whether birds have an innate homing sense don’t rule out other potential explanations for how the birds might navigate. Because these studies are inconclusive, there’s not much evidence for the belief.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s assertion that there’s not much evidence to support the belief that migratory birds have an innate homing sense: “there is little evidence to support this belief.”
A
Neither migratory birds nor humans have an innate homing sense.
This goes too far. The author never asserted that birds don’t have an innate homing sense. Only that there’s not much evidence for it.
B
There is as yet little reason to accept that birds have an innate homing sense.
This is a paraphrase of the main conclusion that there’s not much evidence to support a belief in migratory birds’ innate homing sense.
C
Studies testing whether the accuracy of birds’ migratory patterns is due to an innate homing sense are inconclusive.
This is support for the author’s conclusion. The author uses the fact that the studies are inconclusive to argue that there’s little evidence to support a belief in migratory birds’ innate homing sense.
D
The ability to use landmarks to find one’s way home is probably not an innate ability in birds.
The author never stated or implied this, so it can’t be the conclusion. The author uses the possibility of navigation by landmarks to explain how the studies are inconclusive, which in turn supports the conclusion.
E
It is as false to claim that humans have an innate sense of direction as it is to claim that birds have an innate homing sense.
This goes too far. The author never suggests that it’s false to think birds have an innate homing sense. She concludes only that there’s not much evidence for this belief.
Summary
Fishery officials are still considering options to eliminate a breed of pike from Lake Davis. Introducing disease and draining the lake have been ruled-out as options. Four years ago, poison was added to the lake and caused an outrage among residents.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The poison added to Lake Davis four years earlier must not have been successful in eliminating the pike.
A
Draining the lake would not cause the region’s tourism economy to suffer.
We know that draining the lake is not an option for eliminating the pike from Lake Davis, but we do not know why this option was ruled out by Fishery officials.
B
Four years ago was the only time that poison was used against the pike in the lake.
We don’t know whether or not poison was introduced into Lake Davis only once in attempt to eliminate the pike.
C
The poison added to the lake four years ago was not successful in ridding the lake of the pike.
The poison added to Lake Davis must not have been successful in eliminating the pike, since Fishery officials are still considering options for the pike’s elimination.
D
Four years ago, fishery officials did not consider any options other than using poison.
We don’t know what options Fishery officials were considering four years ago in order to eliminate the pike from Lake Davis. We know that they eventually decided to use poison, but there could have been other options they were considering.
E
Salmon and trout populations in the Lake Davis area are essential to the region’s economy.
We know that the pike in Lake Davis threatens the lake’s population of salmon and trout, but we do not know if these two fish species are essential for the economy.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Personal conflicts aren’t unavoidable; they usually happen because people act irrationally. For example, it’s easier for people to assume someone has bad qualities rather than good ones, even if there is more evidence of the person’s good qualities. If someone thinks a friend is unreliable, one mistake can confirm that belief. However, it usually takes years of seeing a friend act reliably to feel certain that the friend is reliable.
Identify Conclusion
Personal conflicts are not inevitable.
A
Many people assume that personal conflicts are inevitable.
This is context. It explains a common belief, setting up the author’s argument that this belief is wrong. While many people think personal conflicts are unavoidable, the main conclusion is the author’s argument against this belief: that personal conflicts aren't inevitable.
B
Even when there is more evidence of good qualities than of bad ones, people find it easier to ascribe bad qualities than good ones.
This is a premise. It supports the author’s conclusion that personal conflicts aren't inevitable but arise because people act irrationally. The statement that people “find it easier to ascribe bad qualities than good ones” gives an example of this irrational behavior.
C
It is irrational to allow a single instance to turn one’s suspicion that a friend is unreliable into a feeling of certainty.
This is a premise. The idea that it's irrational to let one instance make one certain a friend is unreliable backs up the author’s claim that humans act irrationally. This, in turn, supports the main argument that personal conflicts happen because of this irrational behavior.
D
Personal conflicts are not inevitable.
This accurately rephrases the main conclusion. The author argues that personal conflicts are not inevitable, even though many people think they are, and concludes that the belief in their inevitability is "just not so."
E
Unlike a suspicion that a friend is unreliable, a belief that someone is reliable is normally built up only after many years of personal interaction.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that personal conflicts aren't inevitable but arise because people act irrationally. The idea that it takes years to trust a friend but only one mistake to doubt that friend provides an example of people’s irrational behavior.