Summary
A new computer system will only really increase an organization’s efficiency if the new system forces employees into more productive work habits. The Ministry of Transportation is getting a new system that accommodates its employees’ existing work habits. So, what can we conclude?
In Lawgic:
P1: new system improves efficiency → requires more productive work habits
P2: Ministry’s new system → /requires change in work habits
C: ?
In Lawgic:
P1: new system improves efficiency → requires more productive work habits
P2: Ministry’s new system → /requires change in work habits
C: ?
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Based on these facts, we can conclude that the Ministry’s new system does not force employees into more productive work habits. We can further conclude that it will not meaningfully increase the Ministry’s efficiency.
A
the new computer system will not increase the efficiency of the Ministry of Transportation to any appreciable degree
This is strongly supported. We know that to significantly increase efficiency, a new system must require employees to work more productively. The Ministry’s new system doesn’t require employees to change how they work at all, so it won’t significantly increase efficiency.
B
it is likely that the new computer system will not function correctly when it is first installed
This is not supported. The stimulus suggests nothing about how likely new computer systems are to work or not, so we can’t draw any conclusions about this.
C
the leaders of the Ministry of Transportation must not be concerned with the productivity of the ministry’s employees
This is not supported. The stimulus doesn’t inidcate anything about the intentions or concerns of the Ministry’s leadership, so we just can’t say.
D
the new computer system will be worthwhile if it automates many processes that are currently performed manually
This is not supported. The stimulus isn’t about whether computer systems are worthwhile, it’s about whether they increase efficiency. Because we don’t know what makes a system worthwhile, we cannot support this conclusion.
E
it will be easy for employees of the Ministry of Transportation to learn to use the new computer system
This is not supported. The stimulus doesn’t give us any information about how easily employees can learn to use a new computer system, so this would just be a baseless assumption.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The position that criminals should be punished in proportion to the severity of their crimes but that repeat offenders should receive harsher sentences is flawed. It wrongly assumes that past misdeeds are relevant to the seriousness of an offense. This introduces a vague standard that would make almost every other consideration relevant, making it impossible to apply this proportional principle.
Identify Argument Part
This is a undesirable consequence of believing the argument that the author is refuting.
A
It is a statement the argument provides grounds to accept and from which the overall conclusion is inferred.
The statement is not a premise. It does not support any other claim in the stimulus. It is an undesirable consequence that would result from believing the argument that the author rejects.
B
It is a statement inferred from a position the argument seeks to defend.
The author does not want to defend this statement. The author strongly disagrees with this statement.
C
It is the overall conclusion in favor of which the argument offers evidence.
This is not the main conclusion of the argument. The author does not believe in the truth of this statement, so it cannot be the main conclusion.
D
It is an allegedly untenable consequence of a view rejected in the argument’s overall conclusion.
This is an accurate description of the statement. The author argues that considering remote actions (an untenable consequence) is a result of the rejected view that repeat offenders should receive harsher punishments.
E
It is a premise offered in support of an intermediate conclusion of the argument.
This statement is not a premise and there is no sub-conclusion for it to support.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Increased housing supply generally leads to lower rents for existing apartments, but rents for existing apartments in Brewsterville rose when the housing supply increased.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why, contrary to what usually happens, existing apartments became more expensive when the housing supply increased. This explanation must show some quirk in Brewsterville’s housing situation that causes rents to rise with supply, or else some other factor that affected the prices of existing apartments without factoring in housing supply.
A
Fewer new apartments were constructed than originally planned.
Even if just one new apartment was constructed, existing rents would be expected to drop. We need to know why they rose.
B
The new apartments were much more desirable than the existing apartments.
The new apartments, no matter how desirable, contributed to the housing supply. And yet, rents for existing apartments rose. We need something that explains why that happened.
C
Rents in some areas close to Brewsterville dropped as a result of the construction of the new apartments.
We care about what happened in Brewsterville, not in areas close-by.
D
A sizeable number of people moved out of the existing apartments while the new apartments were being constructed.
Does this mean the rents would rise? We don’t know. This doesn’t give us enough information to be a true explanation.
E
The new apartments were constructed at the outset of a trend of increasing numbers of people seeking residence in Brewsterville.
Even though the housing supply rose, that housing supply was quickly filled by people moving into Brewsterville. The end result was either a net neutral or net negative for the housing supply, hence why rents didn’t drop as expected for existing apartments.