Summary
In a recession, decreases in consumer spending causes some businesses to lay off workers or close. Workers who are laid off usually cannot find new jobs. This results in an increase of the total number of people who are jobless. Recovery from a recession involves an increase of consumer spending and increased business activity that requires more workers. However, businesspeople are not confident with the economy after a recession and as a result are slow to hire more workers.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Sometimes when an economy recovers from a recession, the number of people who are jobless does not immediately decrease.
A
Recessions are usually caused by a decrease in businesspeople’s confidence in the economy.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what factors cause an economy to enter into a recession. From the stimulus, we only know what results from an economy already in a recession.
B
Governmental intervention is required in order for an economy to recover from a recession.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if government intervention is required for an economy to recover. We only know what factors define an economy’s recovery from a recession.
C
Employees of businesses that close during a recession make up the majority of the workers who lose their jobs during that recession.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if workers that are laid off make up the majority of jobless people. We only know from the stimulus that businesses laying off workers causes the total number of jobless people to increase.
D
Sometimes recovery from a recession does not promptly result in a decrease in the number of people who are jobless.
This answer is strongly supported. Since businesspeople delay hiring for as long as possible, we know that there is not an immediate decrease in the total number of people who are jobless.
E
Workers who lose their jobs during a recession are likely to get equally good jobs when the economy recovers.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what types of jobs workers are likely to find when an economy recovers from a recession.
Summary
The government is considering approving a synthetic hormone, BST, for use in dairy cows. BST increases milk production, but also leads to several adverse side effects for dairy cows. The side effects can be controlled with constant veterinary care, but constant care would cost big farms far less per dairy cow than small farms.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If the BST hormone is approved, big farms could gain more benefits from its approval compared to small farms.
A
The government is unlikely to approve the synthetic hormone BST for use in cows.
We don’t know whether the government is unlikely to approve BST. We only know that the government is considering its approval, not that the government would actually approve or disapprove the hormone.
B
The proportion of cows that suffer from udder inflammation, decreased fertility, and symptoms of stress is currently greater on big dairy farms than on small ones.
We don’t know whether the proportion of cows that suffer from adverse side effects is greater on big farms compared to small farms. We know that BST leads to adverse side effects, but we do not know if any cows are currently suffering.
C
At the present time milk from cows raised on small farms is safer to drink than milk from cows raised on big farms.
We don’t know whether milk produced from small farms is safer to drink compared to milk from big farms. The stimulus does not address whether BST affects the safety level of consuming milk the dairy cows produce.
D
The milk from cows who receive BST will not be safe for people to drink.
We don’t know whether milk from cows who receive the BST hormone would be unsafe to drink. The stimulus does not address whether BST affects the safety level of consuming milk the dairy cows produce.
E
Owners of big farms stand to gain more from government approval of BST than do owners of small farms.
If the constant veterinary care for the cows will cost big farms less per cow than small firms, then big farms could gain more benefits from governmental approval of BST since cows treated with BST produce more milk.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The city council member argues that the mayor is disregarding the city’s interests in order to pursue her own financial interests. To support this, the city council member says that the city desperately needs to take advantage of any source of revenue, but the mayor is blocking real estate development fees that would provide this much-needed revenue. The city council member then implies that the mayor’s family’s investment in real estate is influencing her decision to block the development fees, thus putting her own financial interests above the interests of the city.
Identify Conclusion
The city council member’s conclusion is that the mayor is betraying the city’s interests: “the mayor is sacrificing the city’s interests to personal interests.”
A
Imposing real estate development fees is the best way for the city to exploit the available sources of revenue.
This is not a claim made in the argument. We know that the development fees would provide revenue, but we do not know if this is the best way to do so.
B
The city would benefit financially from the passage of legislation imposing real estate development fees.
The council member seems to believe this, but it is not his main conclusion. In fact, he never actually claims this. At best, this is an assumption that supports the main conclusion.
C
In blocking council members’ attempts to impose real estate development fees, the mayor is sacrificing the city’s interests to personal interests.
This is the main conclusion that the argument is trying to support. This claim is supported by the fact that the mayor has personal interests in blocking real estate tax, while the city has an interest in imposing the tax, and the mayor is siding with her own interest.
D
Significantly reducing the number of building starts would not, on balance, result in revenue loss to the city.
This answer is a rejection of the claim made by the mayor. However, the argument does not attempt to directly reject this claim by the mayor, so this answer is not supported by the argument. The argument of the city council member does not address this topic.
E
The mayor’s family has a strong financial interest in preventing the passage of legislation that would impose real estate development fees.
This is a sub-conclusion. This AC is supported by the fact that the mayor’s family is involved in real estate development. However, it is not the main conclusion, because this AC provides support for the overall conclusion that the mayor is favoring her interests over the city’s.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The author presents an explanation for the media’s increase in crime coverage: it’s the result of increased public interest in crime, rather than the result of actual increases in crime itself. Why would increased public interest in crime have an effect on media coverage? Because the media base their coverage largely on their audiences’ interests.
Identify Argument Part
The text in the question stem is part of the conclusion. It’s the author’s preferred explanation for why the media are devoting more coverage to crime.
A
It supports the conclusion that the media now devote more coverage to crime than the crime rate alone justifies.
It is part of the main conclusion—it doesn’t support any other conclusion. Also, there is never any claim that the media give more coverage to crime than the crime rate justifies.
B
It is presented as evidence that the media decide what to cover and to what extent to cover it depending on the interests of the public.
This gets the argument’s support structure backward. The fact that “the media decide what to cover and to what extent to cover it” provides evidence to believe the proposition in the question stem: the true cause of the media’s growing crime coverage is increased public interest.
C
It is a counterexample to the claim that the media devote more coverage to crime now than they did ten years ago.
It is an explanation for the phenomenon described here—not a counterexample. The author agrees that the media devote more coverage to crime now, and then explains why this is so.
D
It is a generalization based on the claim that the crime rate has increased over the past ten years.
It can’t be a generalization based on this claim, because this claim is never made in the stimulus. The proposition in the question stem is a hypothesis.
E
It is offered as an alternative explanation of why the media devote more coverage to crime now than they did ten years ago.
This describes the role of the proposition in the question stem. It’s the author’s explanation, which he offers as an alternative to the theory that the media’s growing crime coverage is due to an increase in crime itself.