Summary
The US ranks far behind Sweden and Canada in workplace safety. In all three countries, joint labor-management committees have been very successful in reducing workplace injuries. In the US, these communities are only found in the companies that have voluntarily established them, whereas, in Sweden and several Canadian provinces, they are required by law and exist in all medium and large-sized workplaces.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Joint labor-management committees play a role in reducing occupational industries.
A
The establishment of joint safety committees in all medium-sized and large workplaces in the United States would result in a reduction of occupational injuries.
The stimulus says that these committees are successful in reducing occupational injuries. We also know that countries where they are mandatory (Sweden and Canada), have much higher workplace safety.
B
A joint safety committee that is required by law is more effective at reducing occupational injuries than is a joint safety committee that is voluntarily established.
There is no information about the efficacy of joint safety committees established by law vs those voluntarily established. This answer choice requires close reading to eliminate!
C
Workplace safety in Sweden and Canada was superior to that in the United States even prior to the passage of laws requiring joint safety committees in all medium-sized and large workplaces.
There is no information about workplace safety prior to the passage of any laws.
D
Joint safety committees had been voluntarily established in most medium-sized and large workplaces in Sweden and several Canadian provinces prior to the passage of laws requiring such committees.
There is no information about Sweden or Canada before the passage of mandatory joint safety committee laws.
E
The United States would surpass Sweden and Canada in workplace safety if joint safety committees were required in all medium-sized and large workplaces in the United States.
There is no support for the idea that the US would surpass Sweden and Canada in workplace safety. This comparative statement requires a bunch of assumptions to make it work.
Summary
Today, we’re learning about glass. Glass is a fluid, so when it’s put under pressure, its volume stays the same but it flows slowly to an area of lesser pressure. The stimulus proposes an example where an extremely heavy object is placed on the middle of a sheet of glass. So what happens?
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Based on the scenario given, we can see that a heavy object would put pressure on the middle of the sheet of glass. Because glass flows away from pressure without changing in volume, we can infer that over time the sheet of glass would shift away from the pressure, becoming thinner in the middle where the object is, and thicker around the edges.
A
become larger in size yet still be of uniform thickness
This is anti-supported. Because fluid flows away from areas of higher pressure, the glass would thin out in the part under the heavy object and become thicker in the non-pressured areas. Thus, it would not remain uniformly thick.
B
flow toward the point at which the pressure of the object is greatest
This is anti-supported. The stimulus directly states that fluids flow away from areas of higher pressure. Since glass is a fluid, it would therefore flow away from the point of greatest pressure, not towards.
C
compress, although not as much as a piece of steel would
This is anti-supported. The stimulus explains that glass, as a fluid, does not compress; instead, it flows. Because fluids do not compress, glass would not compress under pressure.
D
divide into exactly two pieces that are equal in neither size nor shape to the original piece of glass
This is not supported. The stimulus specifically sets out the condition that the glass would not crack, so it could only divide into two pieces if the glass flowed fully out from underneath the object. And we just don’t have a good sense of whether or not that would happen.
E
be thinner in the portion of the glass that is under the pressure of the object than in those portions of the glass that are not under that pressure
This is strongly supported. We know that glass flows away from pressure. This means it would slowly move away from the pressure created by the object and towards non-pressured areas, causing the sheet to be thinner where there’s pressure and thicker where there isn’t.
Summary
Despite what some anthropologists claim, agriculture must not have begun under conditions of drought and hunger. Why? Because agricultural discoveries are the result of the study of natural processes. People cannot study natural processes without leisure, and people have leisure only when resources are plentiful.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Agriculture began under societies that had plentiful resources.
A
whenever a society has plentiful resources, some members of that society devote themselves to the study of natural processes
Plentiful resources are a necessary condition for people to devote themselves to studying natural processes. We don’t know whether a sufficient condition occurs just because a necessary condition occurs.
B
plants cannot be cultivated by someone lacking theoretical knowledge of the principles of plant generation and growth
We don’t know whether plants cannot be cultivated if a person lacks theoretical knowledge. The stimulus also does not address what would be considered theoretical knowledge.
C
agriculture first began in societies that at some time in their history had plentiful resources
Since some anthropologists are wrong, agriculture must have begun when a society had plentiful resources.
D
early agricultural societies knew more about the natural sciences than did early nonagricultural societies
We don’t know anything about nonagricultural societies. Additionally, the stimulus is limited to agriculture, whereas “natural sciences” is too broad.
E
early societies could have discovered by accident how the plants they cultivated reproduced and grew
We don’t know whether early societies discovered agriculture by accident.