Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The author is attempting to provide an explanation for Mozart’s death. He hypothesizes that it involved the recently detected fracture in his skill. Why should we believe this explanation? The crack could easily tear veins in the brain, causing blood to leak and dry in the brain, damaging brain function. This process commonly leads to death, but not immediately. Therefore, the partial healing of the fracture supports this explanation.
Identify Argument Part
This is evidence that supports the author’s explanation of Mozart’s death. The stimulus tells us that the skull fracture would lead to death on a delay. Therefore, the partial healing shows there was time between when the fracture occurred and Mozart’s later death. This makes the author’s explanation more plausible by giving us information about when the fracture occurred.
A
It shows that Mozart’s death could have been avoided.
This is not the point of the argument - the argument is trying to provide an explanation for Mozart’s death. No claims are made about whether it could have been avoided.
B
It shows that the fracture did not occur after Mozart’s death.
We know this supports the argument by providing information about when the fracture occurred: sometime prior to Mozart’s death. Therefore, it does let us know that it did not occur after his death, which would have been a problem, since then it could not be the cause.
C
It shows that the dried blood impaired Mozart’s brain’s faculties.
The fact that the fracture was healing does not give us information about Mozart’s faculties. It only gives us information about when the fracture occurred.
D
It shows that Mozart’s death occurred suddenly.
The opposite is true - the author tells us that death caused by this fracture is delayed. By placing the fracture sometime before his death, it makes the delayed cause of mortality more likely.
E
It suggests that Mozart’s death was accidental.
There is no support for the author’s claim that the crack was likely due to an accident - that is just context about where a crack would come from. The healing supports the fracture hypothesis, not whether it was accidental.
Summary
During the Industrial Revolution, employers utilized newly invented machines to replace many unskilled workers with just a few skilled workers to save money. Today, managers are looking for new technologies to replace highly paid skilled workers with fewer less-skilled workers.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Employers can use technology to save money.
Employers during the Industrial Revolution and in the present day share similar qualities.
Employers during the Industrial Revolution and in the present day share similar qualities.
A
Employers utilize new technology because it allows them to reduce labor costs.
The stimulus says that past employers used technology to replace many low-skill workers because it was “economically attractive.” And today’s managers seek technology to reduce labor costs.
B
Workers will need to acquire more education and skills to remain competitive in the labor market.
This is too broad to support. While the stimulus mentions that some low-skilled workers were fired in the Industrial Revolution, there is no support that they will need these qualities to stay competitive.
C
In seeking employment, highly skilled workers no longer have an advantage over less-skilled workers.
This is too broad to support. The stimulus only suggests that technology is sought to reduce the highly skilled workers needed, not that they no longer have an advantage. That could still be true.
D
Technology eliminates many jobs but also creates just as many jobs.
This is (at worst) anti-supported. Both examples show how technology is utilized to eliminate jobs so managers can hire fewer people.
E
Whereas technological innovations were once concentrated in heavy industry, they now affect all industries.
This is too strong to support. There is no indication that technological innovations were only heavily present in heavy industry. This is an assumption you have to make. There is also no support for their impact on all industries now.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why have farmers in many parts of the world who transitioned from traditional nonhybrid crops to hybrid crops not seen an increase in crop yields after transitioning?
Objective
The correct answer must identify why transitioning to hybrid crop strains has not increased crop yields for farmers in many areas of the world when hybrid crops produced significantly higher crop yields than traditional nonhybrid crops planted alongside them in test plantings.
A
Most farmers who plant the hybrid strains of their crops have larger farms than do farmers who continue to plant traditional nonhybrid strains of the same crops.
The size of the farms that hybrid strains are planted on relative to the size of the farms their nonhybrid alternatives are planted on tells us nothing about why transitioning to hybrid strains has not increased crop yields for farmers in many parts of the world.
B
Hybrid strains of crops produced higher yields in some areas than did nonhybrid strains in those areas.
Knowing that hybrid strains have produced higher yields than nonhybrid strains in some areas doesn’t help explain why the farmers discussed in the stimulus have seen no increase in their crop yields.
C
The hybrid strains were tested under significantly better farming conditions than are found in most areas where farmers grow those strains.
If this is true, the production levels of hybrid crops during the test plantings could’ve been unrepresentative of how much hybrid crops typically produce in the areas where farmers grow those hybrid crops.
D
Many traditional nonhybrid strains of plants produce crops that taste better and thus sell better than the hybrid strains of those crops.
The taste and salability of nonhybrid strains of plants tell us nothing about the size of yields produced by those plants or hybrid strains of those plants.
E
Many governments subsidize farmers who plant only hybrid strains of staple crops.
Government subsidies given to farmers of hybrid crops have nothing to do with the yield size of those crops.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The researchers hypothesize that folate and B6 hinders the development of heart disease in women. This is based on a phenomenon shown in a recent study of female physicians: the more folate and B6 they had in their diet, the less likely they were to develop heart disease (and vice versa).
Notable Assumptions
The researchers assume that it is the folate and B6 in the female physicians’ diets that are preventing them from developing heart disease, as opposed to some other factor(s) in their diets or lifestyles.
A
The foods that contain significant amounts of the vitamins folate and B6 also contain significant amounts of nonvitamin nutrients that inhibit heart disease.
This weakens the researchers’ conclusion. It attacks their assumption that the B6 and folate are the critical factors that inhibit heart disease in the female physicians, as opposed to some other factor—in this case, significant amounts of nonvitamin nutrients.
B
It is very unlikely that a chemical compound would inhibit coronary disease in women but not in men.
This does not affect the argument. It may be that the researchers’ hypothesis is very unlikely, but that alone doesn’t make it any less convincing.
C
Physicians are more likely than nonphysicians to know a great deal about the link between diet and health.
This does not affect the argument. While physicians’ knowledge about how diet impacts health may influence their dietary choices, it should not affect how the vitamins in their diet influence their health, which is what the study is about.
D
The physicians in the study had not been screened in advance to ensure that none had preexisting heart conditions.
This does not affect the argument. (D) does not offer reason to suspect that physicians with preexisting heart conditions confounded the study’s results—we would have to assume that they also didn’t eat a lot of B6 and folate for there to be any potential weakening effect.
E
The vitamins folate and B6 are present only in very small amounts in most foods.
This does not affect the argument. The amount of folate and B6 in most foods can be minimal without weakening the researcher’s hypothesis that they still have the effect of inhibiting the development of heart disease.
Summarize Argument
The author argues that a decrease in an indicator species’ population should not always be attributed to pollution. While a decline in one of these species could be because of pollution, it could also result from the ecosystem naturally evolving, as change and evolution are constant, natural processes.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that a decrease in the population of an indicator species should not always be credited to pollution: “environmentalists would be misguided if they attributed the loss of a population to pollution in all cases.”
A
Environmentalists sometimes overreact to the loss of a specific population.
The author does not claim that environmentalists overreact to the loss of a specific population.
B
The loss of a specific population should not always be interpreted as a sign of environmental degradation.
This rephrases our conclusion. It tells us that a decrease in a specific population should not be attributed to pollution in every case.
C
Environmentalists’ use of indicator species in tracking the effects of pollution is often problematic.
The author’s conclusion is not that the use of indicator species in tracking the effects of pollution is inherently problematic, but that environmentalists should not attribute population loss to pollution in every single case.
D
The loss of a specific population is often the result of natural changes in an ecosystem and in such cases should not be resisted.
The author does not make any claim about whether population loss should be resisted.
E
The loss of a specific population as a result of pollution is simply part of nature’s status quo.
The author makes a distinction between population loss due to environmental degradation and population loss due to natural evolution. (E) confuses these ideas and makes an incorrect claim.