Shareholder: The company’s current operations are time-proven successes. The move into food services may siphon off funds needed by these other operations. Also, the food service industry is volatile, with a higher inherent risk than with, for instance, pharmaceuticals, another area into which the company has considered expanding.

Summary

Current operations are successful. Moving into food services may take away funds needed by other operations. Moreover, the food service industry is volatile and has a higher risk than pharmaceuticals. The company has considered expanding into pharmaceuticals.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Moving into food services would be a greater risk for the company compared to moving into pharmaceuticals.

A
The company’s present operations require increased funding.

This answer is unsupported. The shareholder tells us that current operations are a success.

B
Investment into pharmaceuticals would not siphon off money from other operations.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether pharmaceuticals would not require funds to be taken from other operations. We know that expansion into food services would, but this does not imply that pharmaceuticals would not.

C
The company will lose money as it expands into the food service industry.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the company would for a fact lose money. We only know that this move is risker than a move into pharmaceuticals.

D
Only if the company expands its operations into pharmaceuticals are increased profits possible.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether expansion into pharmaceuticals is a necessary condition for the company to increase their profits.

E
The company has a greater chance of losing money in food services than in pharmaceuticals.

This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that food service is volatile and risker than moving into pharmaceuticals. Therefore, since it is a risker expansion, food service represents a greater chance of losing money.


11 comments

Gardener: Researchers encourage us to allow certain kinds of weeds to grow among garden vegetables because they can repel caterpillars from the garden. While it is wise to avoid unnecessary use of insecticides, the researchers’ advice is premature. For all we know, those kinds of weeds can deplete the soil of nutrients and moisture that garden crops depend on, and might even attract other kinds of damaging pests.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The gardener claims that researchers’ advice to allow certain caterpillar repelling weeds to grow with garden vegetables is premature. It is possible that growing those weeds has downsides that are unknown - like increasing the presence of other pests or depleting the soil - and could damage the garden crops.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the gardener’s claim about the cited advice: “the researchers' advice is premature.”

A
To the extent that it is possible to do so, we should eliminate the use of insecticides in gardening.
This inaccurately rephrases a concession point in the author’s argument. The author agrees that unnecessary insecticide use should be avoided, but doesn’t go as far as to say use should be eliminated.
B
Allowing certain kinds of weeds to grow in vegetable gardens may contribute to a net increase in unwanted garden pests.
This is a possibility the gardener addresses in the premises to show that the advice is premature because it may have big drawbacks.
C
Allowing the right kinds of weeds to grow in vegetable gardens can help toward controlling caterpillars without the use of insecticides.
This is the researchers’ reasoning in the context for why they recommend growing certain weeds. The gardener brings up other considerations against that recommendation.
D
We should be cautious about the practice of allowing certain kinds of weeds to grow among garden vegetables.
This answer choice accurately rephrases the gardener’s conclusion. The researcher’s advice (growing certain weeds among garden vegetables) is premature (we should be cautious about it).
E
We should be skeptical about the extent to which certain kinds of weeds can reduce the presence of caterpillars in gardens.
The gardener does not refute the researchers’ claim that the weeds reduce caterpillars. She claims that although there may be that benefit, the advice is premature because it may have other downsides.

6 comments