Economist: If the belief were to become widespread that losing one’s job is not a sign of personal shortcomings but instead an effect of impersonal social forces (which is surely correct), there would be growth in the societal demand for more government control of the economy to protect individuals from these forces, just as the government now protects them from military invasion. Such extensive government control of the economy would lead to an economic disaster, however.
Summary
The stimulus gives us a causal chain. If the belief that getting fired is a product of social forces becomes widespread, that will increase demands for more extensive government control of the economy. If the government begins to control the economy more extensively, that will lead to economic disaster. We’re also told that the belief that getting fired is a product of social forces is accurate.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Some accurate beliefs that become widespread might lead to negative consequences.
A
Increased knowledge of the causes of job loss could lead to economic disaster.
Strongly supported. We’re told that the belief social forces are responsible for job losses is correct. We also know that this belief, if widespread, can lead to economic disaster. So, if more people start to hold this correct belief, that might lead to economic disaster.
B
An individual’s belief in his or her own abilities is the only reliable protection against impersonal social forces.
Unsupported. We don’t know what can reliably protect against social forces. If anything, this is antisupported, because we know job losses aren’t caused by personal shortcomings. This suggests even if people didn’t have those shortcomings, that wouldn’t prevent job loss.
C
Governments should never interfere with economic forces.
Unsupported. Although extensive government control can lead to economic disaster, that doesn’t suggest other, less extensive, kinds of government involvement with the economy would be harmful.
D
Societal demand for government control of the economy is growing.
Unsupported. The stimulus says this will happen if the belief mentioned becomes widespread. But we don’t know if the belief is becoming more widespread.
E
In general, people should feel no more responsible for economic disasters than for military invasions.
Unsupported. Military invasions are mentioned as something that the government protects us against. But there’s no comparison made between military invasions and economic disasters concerning the responsibility people should feel.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why is it more likely for a car thief to be convicted now than five years ago, even though car thefts have been steadily decreasing?
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference between car theft five years ago and car theft now. The difference will be one that causes car thieves to be more likely to be caught and convicted now than they were five years ago.
A
Although there are fewer car thieves now than there were five years ago, the proportion of thieves who tend to abandon cars before their owners notice that they have been stolen has also decreased.
This is a difference that explains why car thieves today are more likely to be caught than car thieves five years ago. Instead of abandoning stolen cars quickly, thieves now keep stolen cars for longer, making it easier to catch them.
B
Car alarms are more common than they were five years ago, but their propensity to be triggered in the absence of any criminal activity has resulted in people generally ignoring them when they are triggered.
This does not contribute to an explanation for why car thieves are more likely to be caught today. Even though there are more car alarms, people generally ignore triggered car alarms, so they are not causing car thieves to be caught.
C
An upsurge in home burglaries over the last five years has required police departments to divert limited resources to investigation of these cases.
If police are prioritizing the investigation of home burglaries over the last five years, there are fewer resources to investigate car theft. So we can’t conclude that car thieves are more likely to be caught today based on this explanation.
D
Because of the increasingly lucrative market for stolen automobile parts, many stolen cars are quickly disassembled and the parts are sold to various buyers across the country.
This does not contribute to an explanation for why car thieves are more likely to be caught today. If anything, the dispersal of stolen car parts might make it less likely for car thieves to be caught. We need a reason why it is more likely.
E
There are more adolescent car thieves now than there were five years ago, and the sentences given to young criminals tend to be far more lenient than those given to adult criminals.
The fact that there are more adolescent car thieves now doesn’t explain why car thieves are more likely to be convicted now. Also, whether a car thief receives a lenient sentence doesn’t provide information about the number of convictions or the reasons behind them.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
There should not be prohibitions against pets in nursing homes. This is because pets can relieve stress and thereby improve a person’s health. Pets can also make time at a nursing home more fulfilling.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that there should not be prohibitions against pets in nursing homes: “these should be lifted.”
A
As the average life span increases, it will be important to more people that life in nursing homes be rewarding.
This is context. It provides background for why it is important to take measures to make living in a nursing home more rewarding, such as by allowing pets.
B
Residents of nursing homes should enjoy the same rewarding aspects of life as anyone else.
This is not mentioned in the stimulus.
C
The policy that many nursing homes have should be changed so that residents are allowed to have pets.
This rephrases the conclusion.
D
Having a pet can reduce one’s stress and thereby make one a healthier person.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that prohibitions against pets in nursing homes should be lifted.
E
The benefits older people derive from having pets need to be recognized, especially as the average life span increases.
The conclusion of the argument is not that these benefits should be recognized, but that the prohibitions against pets in nursing homes should be lifted. The author provides evidence for this conclusion by outlining some of the benefits older people derive from having pets.
Summarize Argument
Water itself is one of the biggest water polluters. Why? Around many cities, pollution from runoff is greater than from industrial discharge. How? Water running over buildings and pavements picks up oil and other pollutants.
Identify Argument Part
This is evidence used to support that water is one of the biggest water polluters by showing water pollutes more than another big pollution source. It is also a sub-conclusion. The statement explaining how water picks up oil and contaminants supports it.
A
It is a conclusion for which the claim that water itself should be considered a polluter is offered as support.
The support relationship works the other way. The fact that water pollutes more than industrial discharge is evidence for why water is one of the biggest polluters.
B
It is cited as evidence that pollution from rainwater runoff is a more serious problem than pollution from industrial discharge.
The stimulus makes no claims about how serious the pollution is from any given source. It talks only about the amount of pollutants.
C
It is a generalization based on the observation that rainwater runoff picks up oil and other pollutants as it washes over buildings and pavements.
While that observation helps explain why water pollutes so much, the statement in question is not a generalization stemming from that observation. It is a comparative measurement against industrial pollution.
D
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that water itself is among the biggest water polluters.
This evidence, that water pollutes more than industrial discharge, helps make the case that water is one of the biggest water polluters.
E
It is stated to provide an example of a typical kind of city pollution.
It notes a pattern that appears near many cities. It works to support the conclusion, not illustrate an example of city pollution.
Tate: The freedom and autonomy that democracy provides are of genuine value, but the simple material needs of people are more important. Some countries can better meet these needs as autocracies than as democracies.
Speaker 1 Summary
Wong doesn’t make an argument, because there’s no structure of support for a conclusion. Instead, Wong just makes two factual claims: first, that all countries are better off as democracies, and second, that sometimes a period of autocracy is required for a country to transition to democracy.
Speaker 2 Summary
Tate’s claims support the unstated conclusion that some countries are better off as autocracies. Tate states that people’s material needs are more important than democratic freedom and autonomy. Furthermore, sometimes an autocratic government is more able to meet people’s material needs. From these, it follows that autocracy is sometimes a better option to meet people’s most important needs.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement between Wong and Tate. They disagree about whether countries are ever better off as autocracies.
A
There are some countries that are better off as autocracies than as democracies.
Wong disagrees with this but Tate agrees, so this is the point of disagreement. Wong says explicitly that this claim is false. Tate, however, implies that some countries are better off as autocracies by saying that sometimes autocracies better meet people’s most important need.
B
Nothing is more important to a country than the freedom and autonomy of the individuals who live in that country.
Tate disagrees with this, but Wong never states an opinion. Wong just claims directly that countries are always better off as democracies, but doesn’t back that up with any specifics of what democracy can offer.
C
In some cases, a country cannot become a democracy.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Wong says that sometimes a country requires a period of autocracy first to become a democracy, and Tate never talks about the requirements of becoming democratic. Certainly neither says it’s ever impossible.
D
The freedom and autonomy that democracy provides are of genuine value.
Tate agrees with this, but Wong never states an opinion. Wong clearly supports democracy, but never says why, so we don’t know if it’s because Wong values freedom and autonomy or if it’s for some other reason.
E
All democracies succeed in meeting the simple material needs of people.
Neither speaker claims this. Only Tate discusses material needs at all, and still never states an opinion about whether or not all democracies can meet material needs. All Tate says is that sometimes autocracies are better at doing so.