Summary
Hot spots are places with the highest concentrations of endemic species. Habitats at many hot spots are threatened by commercial development. This threatens the endemic species in these hot spots. Most extinctions involve loss of endemic species.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
We’re looking to fill in a blank concerning what would be reasonable to do for organizations dedicated to preserving species, given that these organization can’t fight for every environmental cause. The evidence suggests it’s reasonable for these organizations to try to protect hot spots from commercial development.
A
try to help only those species who are threatened with extinction because of habitat loss
Unsupported. The stimulus gives us evidence about hot spots and the threats to species in hot spots. This conclusion isn’t focused on hot spots. Species threatened because of habitat loss includes more than just species threatened in a hot spot. So this conclusion is too broad.
B
concentrate their resources on protecting hot spot habitats
Strongly supported. The evidence concerned endemic species in hot spots, and a significant proportion of extinctions involve endemic species. So there’s strong reason to focus on protecting hot spots, which are defined as the places with the most endemic species.
C
treat all endemic species as equally valuable and equally in need of preservation
Unsupported. The stimulus may support that idea that endemic species are more in need of protection than non-endemic species. But we don’t have enough to draw conclusions about individual endemic species compared to other endemic species. Some may be more important than others.
D
accept that most endemic species will become extinct
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t support giving up. It supports directing efforts to hot spots. We don’t have any basis to say these effort are likely to fail or that organizations should just accept species loss. Maybe there efforts can succeed and save most endemic species.
E
expand the definition of “hot spot” to include vulnerable habitats that are not currently home to many endangered species
Unsupported. The stimulus supports a conclusion about where organizations should focus their efforts concerning species protection. Expanding the definition of hot spot wouldn’t help protect more species, because we don’t know if anyone is trying to protect hot spots yet.
Summary
Engine noise from boats traveling through killer whales’ habitats ranges from a frequency that overlaps with the acoustical range in which the whales communicate with each other. Although the whales do not act differently when the engine noise is present, the noise can be loud enough to cause hearing damage over time. Therefore… (the correct answer will be the conclusion).
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The engine noise could impact how killer whales communicate with each other after enough time.
A
younger killer whales are better able to tolerate engine noise from boats than older whales are
This is not supported by the stimulus and requires some unreasonable assumptions to make it work. You must assume that younger killer whales have been exposed to engine noise for a shorter period of time than older ones.
B
killer whales are less likely to attempt to communicate with one another when boat engines are operating nearby
The stimulus does say anything about what killer whales prefer.
C
noise from boat engines may impair killer whales’ ability to communicate
The stimulus says that engine noise *can* damage hearing loss over time. Killer whales communicate through screams and squeals. So, it is easy to support that boat engines could eventually impair the whales’ ability to communicate.
D
killer whales are most likely to prefer areas where boat traffic is present, but light
There is no support anywhere in the stimulus about what killer whales “prefer.”
E
killer whales would probably be more successful in finding food if boats did not travel through their habitats
You have to assume that killer whales communicate to find food. There is no evidence in the stimulus that supports this assumption.
Yoko: Children’s stories still tend to have clearly immoral characters in them, but now these characters tend not to be the sort that frighten children. Surely that’s an improvement.
Speaker 1 Summary
Peter argues that children’s stories should include clearly immoral characters (which they usually did in the past, but now do not). Why? Because it’s important to teach children the consequences of being bad.
Speaker 2 Summary
Yoko doesn’t make an argument, but does make several factual claims. First, modern children’s stories usually do have clearly immoral characters. Second, these characters are less frightening than in the past. And finally, it’s a good thing to avoid frightening children.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement between Peter and Yoko. The two disagree about whether modern children’s stories usually contain clearly immoral characters.
A
should be less frightening than they are
Neither speaker makes this claim. Yoko is the only one to talk about stories being frightening, but never says that stories should be less frightening than they currently are.
B
tend to be less frightening than earlier children’s stories were
Yoko agrees with this, but Peter doesn’t express an opinion. Peter doesn’t talk about children’s stories being frightening at all, either now or in the past.
C
differ significantly in overall quality from earlier children’s stories
Neither speaker talks about the overall quality of children’s stories, currently or in earlier times, let alone to compare the two.
D
tend to have clearly immoral characters in them
Peter disagrees with this but Yoko agrees, so this is the speakers’ disagreement. Peter states that modern stories, unlike earlier ones, don’t usually have clearly immoral characters. Yoko, however, says that modern stories usually do have clearly immoral characters.
E
should help children learn the consequences of being bad
Peter agrees with this, but Yoko doesn’t express an opinion. Yoko never discusses what kinds of lessons children’s stories should impart on their readers.
Saldana: Political debates almost always benefit the candidate who has the better debating skills. Thus, they don’t really help voters determine which candidate is most qualified for office.
Speaker 1 Summary
The public should demand political debates before elections. Why? Because by watching a debate, voters are better able to choose which candidate is best suited for office.
Speaker 2 Summary
Political debates don’t help voters determine which candidate is best suited for office. Why? Because debates benefit the candidate who has the better debating skills.
Objective
We need a statement that Tanner and Saldana disagree on. Tanner thinks that debates help voters determine which candidate is best suited for office. Saldana thinks that debates don’t really help voters make this determination.
A
Political candidates with strong debating skills are more likely to win elections than those with weak debating skills.
Tanner does not express an opinion on this statement. We only know that Tanner believes political debates help voters make their decisions.
B
A voter who watches a political debate will likely be better able, as a result, to determine which candidate is more qualified for office.
Tanner and Saldana disagree on this statement. Tanner agrees and that’s why he thinks there should be political debates before every election. Saldana disagrees because she thinks debates only reflect a candidate’s debating skills, not whether they are best suited for office.
C
Debating skills are of little use to politicians in doing their jobs once they are elected to office.
Tanner does not express an opinion on this statement. Tanner may think that debating skills help voters determine a candidate’s suitability, but he does not express whether these skills are useful or not after candidates are elected.
D
The candidates with the best debating skills are the ones who are most qualified for the political offices for which they are running.
Tanner does not express an opinion on this statement. We only know that Tanner thinks that debates are informative for voters. We don’t know whether Tanner thinks the debating skills specifically are indicative of a candidate’s suitability.
E
Political debates tend to have a major effect on which candidate among those participating in a debate will win the election.
Tanner does not express an opinion on this statement. We don’t know whether Tanner thinks that debates causally effect a candidate’s chances of winning an election.