Summarize Argument
The Psychologist concludes that thinking can occur without language. Why? Because infants with no knowledge of language can spot irregularities in pictures. To do this, the infants probably compare the picture with an internal representation of what is typical, and so a thought of what is typical must exist in the infants’ minds.
Identify Argument Part
The statement in the last sentence is a sub-conclusion used to support the Psychologist’s main conclusion.
A
It is a conclusion drawn and used in turn as a premise to support a more general conclusion.
The statement is a sub-conclusion used as support for the Psychologist’s general conclusion: thinking can occur without language.
B
It is attributed to certain researchers as the main conclusion of their reasoning.
The statement is not the Psychologist’s main conclusion.
C
It is the main point of the psychologist’s argument.
The statement is not the Psychologist’s main conclusion.
D
It is used to refute the claim that infants have no knowledge of language.
The claim that infants have no knowledge of language is never refuted.
E
It states the hypothesis to be explained by the psychologist’s argument.
The statement is not a hypothesis.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why have auto thefts dropped dramatically in cities where car owners have the antitheft device installed, even though only a small % of car owners in those cities have installed the device?
Objective
The correct answer should help explain how only a small proportion of cars being equipped with antitheft devices can still lead to a significant decrease in the car theft rate.
A
Car thieves will tend to be less cautious if they are unaware that a car they have stolen contains a homing beacon.
But there’s still only a small % of cars with the device. Car thieves might be less cautious if they don’t know about these devices, which might mean these thieves get caught, but how could this dramatically decrease overall theft rates?
B
Typically, the number of cars stolen in cities where the homing beacons are in use was below average before the device was used.
We’re trying to explain how theft rates could have decreased. Whether theft rates started below, at, or above the average theft rates for cities doesn’t explain how those rates could have declined dramatically.
C
Before the invention of the homing beacon, automobile thieves who stole cars containing antitheft devices were rarely apprehended.
Even if we interpret this answer as suggesting thieves today are more frequently apprehended, wouldn’t we expect only a small proportion of thieves to be caught, since the device is installed in only a small proportion of cars? How could this significantly decrease cars stolen?
D
A large proportion of stolen cars are stolen from people who do not live in the cities where they are stolen.
We know only a small % of cars have the device installed in the relevant cities. Whether thieves live in other cities doesn’t affect our expectation that a small % of cars with the device should have only a small impact on overall theft rate.
E
In most cities the majority of car thefts are committed by a few very experienced car thieves.
If only a few car thieves are responsible for a large portion of car thefts, catching only a few car thieves can lead to a dramatic decline in thefts. This is how the devices could decrease thefts significantly despite being in only a small % of cars.