Summary
Physical education should teach people to pursue healthy lifestyles. But focusing on competitive sports causes most of the less competitive students not to pursue sports. This results in these students not exercising enough to stay healthy.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
noncompetitive activities should be taught in physical education.
A
Physical education should include noncompetitive activities.
This answer is strongly supported. If competitive sports causes non-competitive students not to pursue sports, then physical education should include noncompetitive activities to teach these students to pursue a healthy lifestyle.
B
Competition causes most students to turn away from sports.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether competition causes most students to turn away. We only know that competition causes most non-competitive students to turn away.
C
People who are talented at competitive physical endeavors exercise regularly.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t address the group of students that excel at competitive sports.
D
The mental aspects of exercise are as important as the physical ones.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what aspects of exercise are important.
E
Children should be taught the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus only addresses what physical education should accomplish for students.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that nutrition educated was dangerous to health. She provides no support for this claim.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s some reason why nutrition education was dangerous to health. This likely has to do with the division of foods into the four food groups.
A
The division into four groups gave the impression that an equal amount of each should be consumed, but milk and meat tend to contain fats that promote heart disease and cancer and should be eaten in lesser amounts.
Not all foods should be consumed in equal amounts, yet the “four food groups” idea suggested just this. Thus, nutrition education was dangerous to health.
B
The omission of fish, which contains beneficial oils, from the names of groups in the list gave the erroneous impression that it is less healthy as a food than is red meat.
The food groups omitted foods that were actually healthy. That’s not good for health.
C
A healthy diet should include the consumption of several different fruits and vegetables daily, but the recommendation was often interpreted as satisfied by the consumption of a single serving of a fruit or vegetable.
Healthy diets have a mix of fruits and vegetables, but the four food groups suggested simply eating a couple carrots every day would cut it. That’s not the case.
D
The recommendation that some food from the fruit and vegetable group be consumed daily constituted a reminder not to neglect this group, which provides needed vitamins, minerals, and fiber.
Here’s a benefit of the food guide. We’re looking for the opposite.
E
Encouraging the daily consumption of some product from each of the four food groups gave the impression that eating in that manner is sufficient for a healthy diet, but eating in that manner is consistent with the overconsumption of sweets and fats.
The “four food groups” idea gave the impression that a healthy diet is simply a matter of eating dairy, meat, fruits, and grains. Such diets are in fact often terrible.
Q: But any regulations that can potentially prevent money from being wasted are useful. If obeyed, the new safety regulations will prevent some accidents, and whenever there is an accident here at the laboratory, money is wasted even if no one is injured.
Speaker 1 Summary
P says that it’s useless to follow the new safety regulations at the lab. Why? Because the regulations don’t address the causes of a fire that happened last year, and so the regulations wouldn’t have stopped the fire or prevented any injuries.
Speaker 2 Summary
Although not stated, Q’s argument leads to the implicit conclusion that following the new regulations is useful. Q says that any regulations that save money are useful, and the new regulations would prevent some accidents, thus saving money. This implies that, therefore, the new regulations are useful.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. The usefulness of the new regulations is one such point: P thinks they’re useless, but Q thinks they’re useful.
A
last year’s fire resulted in costly damage to the laboratory
Neither of the speakers actually says how costly the damage from last year’s fire was. Q says that every accident wastes money, but doesn’t say how much; P never discusses money at all.
B
accidents at the laboratory inevitably result in personal injuries
Q disagrees with this, discussing the possibility of accidents where no one is injured. P, on the other hand, never states an opinion about any accident other than last year’s fire. We simply don’t know P’s perspective on this.
C
the new safety regulations address the underlying cause of last year’s fire
P explicitly disagrees with this, but we don’t know what Q thinks. Q never weighs in on how the new regulations relate to last year’s fire, which means we can’t say that P and Q disagree.
D
it is useful to comply with the new safety regulations
P explicitly disagrees with this, but Q implicitly agrees, making this the point of disagreement. Although Q never states that they new regulations are useful, Q’s argument logically leads to that conclusion, so we can infer that Q agrees with this claim.
E
the new safety regulations are likely to be obeyed in the laboratory
Neither speaker offers an opinion about how likely people are to obey the new regulations. The conversation is about the regulations’ usefulness, not lab members’ adherence to the regulations.