Summarize Argument
Election results don’t represent people’s raw opinions. This is because strategists employ techniques to manipulate public opinion for political campaigns.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that political strategists’ efforts actually impact people’s behaviours. It could be that the strategists adopt the advertisers’ strategies, and people aren’t affected.
A
Public opinion can be manipulated more easily by officials of nondemocratic governments than by those of democratic governments.
This does not affect the argument. Nondemocratic governments—and how easily they can influence opinion—is not relevant to the argument, which only discusses democratic governments.
B
Advertisers’ techniques are often apparent to the people to whom the advertisements are directed.
This does not affect the argument. We don’t know if people being aware of techniques impacts whether they’re influenced or not. People may be aware of these tactics and still be influenced (or not). We’d have to make too many assumptions for this to have an impact.
C
Many democratic countries have laws limiting the amount that may be spent on political advertisements in any given election.
This does not affect the argument. There may be a huge budget or a small one—we’d have to make too many assumptions for this to have any impact.
D
People who neither watch television nor read any print media are more likely to vote than people who do one or both of these activities.
This does not affect the argument. The possibility that there are people who do not consume media, and thus aren’t exposed to the strategists’ techniques, does nothing to strengthen the argument that election results don’t represent people’s raw preferences.
E
Unlike advertisements for consumer products, most of which only reinforce existing beliefs, political advertisements often change voters’ beliefs.
This strengthens the argument that election results don't represent people’s raw beliefs by telling us that political ads often change people’s preexisting beliefs. Thus, the conclusion (and its link to the impact of political ads) is strengthened.
Summary
From the stimulus, we learn that all journalists are against lying. However, journalists aren’t in total agreement about everything. Some journalists think that spoken words should always be quoted verbatim, and other journalists think that it’s fine to tighten up the wording if necessary. Also, some journalists believe that it’s lying to not identify oneself as a journalist, while others believe that it’s acceptable to do so to expose wrongdoing.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
We can infer that not all journalists agree about what counts as lying. We know this because all journalists oppose lying, but only some journalists think that tightening quotes or obscuring their status as journalists would be prohibited by that rule.
A
Reporters make little effort to behave ethically.
This is anti-supported by the stimulus. The author explains that reporters try to act ethically by avoiding lying, as well as providing some details about what that means to different reporters. This all entails at least some effort to behave ethically.
B
There is no correct answer to the question of whether lying in a given situation is right or wrong.
The stimulus does not support this conclusion. The author is just talking about what journalists believe, and makes no absolute moral claims about right and wrong. Also, even if the journalists’ beliefs are “correct,” they’re pretty clear that lying is always wrong.
C
Omission of the truth is the same thing as lying.
This is not supported by the stimulus. While the author tells us that some journalists believe this, some also do not. Because the author doesn’t directly take a stance, we can’t say whether or not an omission truly counts as a lie.
D
Since lying is permissible in some situations, reporters are mistaken to think that it is absolutely taboo.
This is not supported. The author never directly says whether lying is ever permissible—all we know is the journalists’ opinion, so it’s impossible to compare that to an absolute moral truth.
E
Reporters disagree on what sort of behavior qualifies as lying.
This inference is strongly supported. The author explains that all journalists oppose lying. However, some journalists think omission can be acceptable (meaning, it’s not lying), while others think it counts as lying. So, journalists (or reporters) can disagree.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the masonry house withstand the recent earthquake better than the adjacent wood-frame house, when wood-frame houses are generally better-equipped to withstand earthquakes?
Objective
Any hypothesis that will resolve this will need to explain why, in this certain situation, the two houses didn’t demonstrate what we know about masonry and wood-framed houses in general. The explanation must account for some quirk about the houses themselves that allowed the masonry house to withstand the earthquake better than the wood-frame house.
A
In earthquake-prone areas, there are many more wood-frame houses than masonry houses.
We need to know why the wood-frame houses didn’t perform as well as the masonry house, despite what we know about the two house types. We don’t care about how many houses there are in earthquake zones on average.
B
In earthquake-prone areas, there are many more masonry houses than wood-frame houses.
Same as with answer (A), we don’t care about earthquake zones in general. We need to know about these specific houses.
C
The walls of the wood-frame house had once been damaged in a flood.
If the walls of the wood-frame house had been damaged in a flood, its ability to withstand an earthquake would certainly be weakened. This explains why it didn’t hold up as well as the masonry house did.
D
The masonry house was far more expensive than the wood-frame house.
We don’t care how much the masonry house cost. A masonry house is still a masonry house, and those shouldn’t hold up as well as wood-frame houses during earthquakes.
E
No structure is completely impervious to the destructive lateral forces exerted by earthquakes.
Well, this would be true for both houses. We need something that explains why the wood-frame house underperformed versus the masonry house, given what we know about wood-frame and masonry houses in general.
Erin: Scientists also blame PAHs for 10,000 premature deaths in this country each year from lung and heart disease. So the proposed regulations would save thousands of lives.
Summarize Argument
Erin concludes that the proposed regulation decreasing PAH emissions from automobile exhaust would save thousands of lives. This is because scientists blame PAHs for many premature deaths from lung and heart disease.
Notable Assumptions
Erin assumes that the same problem Albert notes in his argument—that no causal link between PAHs and cancer have been proven—isn’t relevant to the diseases she mentions. This means she either thinks that there is a causal link between PAHs and lung and heart disease, or that it’s unimportant to establish such a link when scientists blame several major health problems on PAHs.
A
Most automobile manufacturers are strongly opposed to additional automobile emissions regulations.
We can imagine automobile manufacturers don’t like regulations. But we’re not interested in what they like or don’t like. We need to know about the link between PAHs from automobile emissions and various diseases.
B
It is not known whether PAHs are a causal factor in any diseases other than heart and lung disease and cancer.
We don’t know if PAHs are a causal factor in heart and lung disease and cancer. This just tells us that other diseases fall into the same “unknown” category.
C
Even if no new automobile emissions regulations are enacted, the amount of PAHs released into the atmosphere will decrease if automobile usage declines.
There would still be a benefit to regulating PAHs further, given their link to diseases. Thus, this doesn’t weaken the notion that PAHs should be regulated.
D
Most of the PAHs released into the atmosphere are the result of wear and tear on automobile tires.
Even if PAHs from automobile exhaust were banned, the majority of current PAH production would continue through wear and tear on automobile tires. Thus, the regulation wouldn’t in fact save “thousands of lives.”
E
PAHs are one of several components of automobile exhaust that scientists suspect of causing cancer.
This doesn’t tell us that PAHs constitute only a small or insignificant fraction of the carcinogenic effects of automobile exhaust, so we can’t assume Erin would be wrong about the regulation. Banning PAHs may still save thousands of lives.