Sociologist: Some anthropologists claim that cultures can most effectively respond to the threat of cultural decay by replacing or abandoning many of their traditions so that other traditions may endure. But since each of its traditions is essential to a culture’s identity, this strategy _______.
Summary
A sociologist provides the position of anthropologists who claim a culture’s best response to the threat of cultural decay is to replace or abandon many of their traditions so that others can survive. The sociologist responds to this argument by contending that because each of a culture’s traditions is essential to its identity, this strategy… (the correct answer choice will be his conclusion)
Strongly Supported Conclusions
This strategy will destroy a culture’s identity.
A
can save those cultures capable of reflecting on their customs and envisioning alternatives
This is antisupported. The sociologist believes that every tradition in a culture is essential. If any of them are replaced or abandoned, the culture will be destroyed, not saved.
B
will ensure the elimination of a culture rather than prevent its decay
The sociologist’s main premise supports this. Because every tradition is essential to a culture's identity, replacing or abandoning a tradition will immediately destroy the culture.
C
can be implemented by all and only those cultures studied by anthropologists
The sociologist does not support this strategy, and there is no link to its success and the presence of an anthropologist.
D
constitutes the most effective response to the threat of cultural decay
This is antisupported. The sociologist strongly disagrees with this strategy.
E
can succeed if adopted by cultures whose traditions have been adopted only recently
The sociologist strongly disagrees with this strategy, and there is no condition that specifies that it will be successful if its traditions were adopted recently.
This is a Fill in the Blank question.
The blank is preceded by the word “therefore,” so we’re looking for a conclusion. That means this is like a type of MSS question where information in the stimulus builds up to support a conclusion hiding in the answer choices.
The author begins with OPA. The other people here are economists. They argue two things in a super long sentence that you have to break into two by noticing the structural indicator words “both” and “and.” First, the economists argue that the higher turnover rate of part-time workers reveals them to be less satisfied with their jobs than full-time workers. Second, the economists argue that part-time, lower-paid workers threaten full-time workers’ job security.
The author begins the transition from OPA to his argument with the word “but.” He says because job efficiency is positively correlated with job satisfaction, companies are unlikely to replace satisfied employees with dissatisfied ones. Before we move into the answers, we have to put this premise together with OPA in order to formulate a general anticipation of where this argument is going. Look again at the economists’ first point. Who are the more satisfied workers? The full-time ones. Put that together with the author's premise that job satisfaction is positively correlated with efficiency and job security. Who are the more efficient workers? The full-time ones. So who has better job security? The full-time ones. That means part-time workers are not likely to be a threat to full-time workers' job security.
This is what Correct Answer Choice (C) says. Dissatisfied part-time workers are unlikely to threaten the jobs of full-time workers. Were this a Method of Reasoning question, we would say that the author uses one of the economists’ points to argue against another of their points.
Answer Choice (A) says full-time workers are likely to lose jobs to part-time workers. This is just the opposite of what the author is trying to argue.
Answer Choice (B) says the companies earning the greatest profits tend to be those that pay their workers the highest wages. There is no information in the stimulus that allows us to draw a connection between a company's profits and the wages it pays its employees.
Answer Choice (D) says the higher turnover rate of part-time workers is only partly caused by their greater job dissatisfaction. If the author cared primarily about teasing out the causal factors of part-time workers' higher turnover rate, then the information about job security between part-time and full-time workers would be out of place. It would have no connection to what (D) thinks is the conclusion. That's one clue that this is not the right answer. Another clue is revealed by asking yourself what the other partial cause of turnover is. Is it job efficiency? But the premise didn't even establish a correlation between efficiency and turnover. It only established a correlation between efficiency and job satisfaction.
Answer Choice (E) says companies generally hire part-time workers only when they are unable to hire full-time ones. Nothing in the stimulus suggests that part-time workers are hires of last resort. There could be many reasons why companies would prefer part-time workers over full-time workers. For example, part-time workers are a better fit for seasonal jobs.
Cerrato: Economists argue both that the higher turnover rate of part-time workers shows them to be much more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs than full-time workers are and that lower-paid, part-time workers threaten to take jobs from full-time employees. But because job efficiency is positively correlated with job satisfaction, companies are unlikely to replace satisfied employees with dissatisfied ones. Therefore, _______.
Summary
Some economists claim that part-time workers are more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs than full-time workers, and that part-time workers threaten to take jobs from full-time employees. However, companies are unlikely to replace satisfied employees with dissatisfied employees, since job efficiency is positively correlated with job satisfaction.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Therefore, dissatisfied part-time employees are unlikely to be a threat to full-time employees.
A
full-time workers are likely to lose jobs to part-time workers
Full-time workers are not likely to lose their jobs to part-time workers, since part-time workers are more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs, and companies are unlikely to replace satisfied employees with dissatisfied ones.
B
the companies earning the greatest profits tend to be those that pay their workers the highest wages
We don’t know what companies earning the greatest profits pay their employees.
C
dissatisfied part-time workers are unlikely to threaten the jobs of full-time workers
Cerrato uses the economists’ claim regarding part-time workers being more likely to be dissatisfied to suggest that part-time workers are not a threat to full-time workers.
D
the higher turnover rate of part-time workers is only partly caused by their greater job dissatisfaction
Cerrato does not refute the economists’ claim that employee dissatisfaction causes a higher turnover rate for part-time workers.
E
companies generally hire part-time workers only when they are unable to hire full-time ones
We don’t know why companies hire part-time workers over full-time workers.
This is a Main Conclusion question.
The argument is pretty straightforward. First we encounter the main conclusion, followed by the major premise, followed by the minor premise.
The main conclusion is that many people who enjoy popular music don't realize that popular music has been used to express religious and political messages. The next sentence begins with “after all,” which is a premise indicator. After all, popular music has repeatedly been adopted by social movements to express their viewpoints. Why? That's answered by the clause following the word “since.” Since (or because) popular music has the potential to contribute to the conversion of nonmembers and to raise morale and express solidarity of the movement's participants.
These claims together support the idea that popular music has been used to express certain political or religious messages. But it doesn’t support very well the idea that “many people who enjoy popular music do not realize” that it has been serving that purpose. Oh well. Our job isn’t to criticize this argument. Rather, it’s just to analyze its structure. We’ve done that and so we should move on to the answers.
Correct Answer Choice (D) says popular music has purposes other than mere entertainment. This is a more general claim than the actual conclusion. The actual conclusion supports this more general claim. If it's true that people who simply enjoy listening to popular music don't realize that popular music has been used to express religious or political messages, then it's true that popular music has purposes other than mere entertainment. Often on Main Conclusion or Main Point questions, we see an answer like this. Given what the other answers say, this is the best of the options. But it’s certainly not the ideal answer choice. An ideal answer choice would have more closely paraphrased the first sentence.
Answer Choice (A) says popular music accounts for the success of social movements. This statement attributes a causal power to popular music that we don't know it has. What we do know from the stimulus is that popular music has the potential to do a lot of things for a social movement, but not all potentials are actualized.
Answer Choice (B) says popular music's entertainment value has been overemphasized. We don't know this is true. We don't know to what degree popular music's entertainment value has been emphasized nor do we know to what degree it should have been emphasized, so we don't know whether it has been overemphasized.
Answer Choice (C) says popular music is the most effective way of converting people to social movements. This is a worse answer than (A). Again, we know popular music is potentially one way to convert people but we don't know if it's even an effective way, not to mention the most effective way.
Answer Choice (E) says popular music has a profound emotional impact on its listeners. Based on the information in the stimulus, we don't know if this is true. Obviously, we know this to be true, but that doesn’t matter.
A
Popular music accounts for the success of social movements.
B
Popular music’s entertainment value has been overemphasized.
C
Popular music is the most effective way of converting people to social movements.
D
Popular music has purposes other than mere entertainment.
E
Popular music has a profound emotional impact on its listeners.
This is a Main Conclusion question.
This stimulus contains an argument with many complications. The first sentence is context. Next we get the conclusion, which is the negation of a conditional claim. Finally, we get the premise, which is an analogy.
First, the newspaper columnist tells us that the cause of the current recession is being hotly debated. That’s the context. The “however” signals a transition to argument. She tells us that it is a mistake to assume that resolving that question is essential to improving the economy. This is the standard negation of a conditional claim. It’s not the case that B is essential to A. In other words, it’s not the case that A requires B. It’s not the case that improving the economy requires figuring out the cause of the current recession. Improving the economy doesn’t require figuring out the cause of the current recession. That’s her conclusion.
But why should we believe her? Where is her support? That's the final sentence. And the support is via an analogy. She tells us that corrective lenses were an effective treatment for myopia long before the cause of myopia was known to be genetic. The analogy here is between myopia and the current recession. She is suggesting that even if we don't understand the cause of the current recession, we may still be able to find the solution since that’s what happened in the case of myopia and corrective lenses. So perhaps we may discover the corrective lenses for the current recession long before we understand its underlying “genetic” cause.
If this were a Weaken or Strengthen question, then we would engage with the analogy.
Correct Answer Choice (D) states the main conclusion. One need not ascertain the cause of the current recession in order to improve the economy. In other words, improving the economy does not require ascertaining the cause of the current recession. This answer could have been stated in a number of different ways.
Answer Choice (A) says solving a problem never requires finding the root cause of the problem. This is unstated and unsupported. We know that solving a problem sometimes doesn't require finding the root cause. But never? We don't know.
Answer Choice (B) is so goddamn tricky. It says knowing the cause of the current recession would not necessarily enable people to find a solution to it. In other words, knowing the cause won't automatically give you a solution. That means knowing the cause isn't sufficient for finding a solution. But the actual conclusion is saying that knowing the cause isn't necessary for finding a solution. The test writers managed to use the phrase "necessarily enable" to express "sufficient." Rude.
Answer Choice (C) is the context of the argument.
Answer Choice (E) is the premise of the argument.
A
Solving a problem never requires finding the root cause of the problem.
B
Knowing the cause of the current recession would not necessarily enable people to find a solution to it.
C
The question of what caused the current recession is subject to considerable debate.
D
One need not ascertain the cause of the current recession in order to improve the economy.
E
Long before the cause of myopia was known to be genetic, corrective lenses were being used as an effective treatment for the disease.
This is a Main Point question.
The argument in the stimulus contains a lot of complications. First we get the context. Then we see the word “however,” which introduces the transition from context to argument. The argument itself contains a sub-premise supporting a major premise supporting the main conclusion. And on top of all that, it uses the contrapositive argument form.
The context tells us that radioactive elements may have been created when the universe began. The next sentence says “however,” which indicates the transition over to argument, followed by “even if that were true,” which indicates that the information in the context is “throwaway.” We don't really care whether radioactive elements were created at the beginning of the universe, because what we really care about is that radioactive elements are still being created today. And that's the main conclusion. How do we know that? Well, it's the rest of the stimulus that provides the support. Let's skip the next sentence and instead jump to the last sentence, which contains the contrapositive argument. The sufficient condition is introduced by the word “if.” If no new radioactive elements have been created after the universe began, then there would be almost no radioactive elements left in the universe today. Next, we fail the necessary condition. There is an abundance of radioactive elements in the universe today. This allows us to contrapose on the conditional and draw the failure of the sufficient condition as the conclusion. New radioactive elements have been created since the universe began. Okay, so that's good but it's still been billions (13.7) of years since the universe began. How do we know that new radioactive elements are still being created today?
That's where the middle sentence comes in. That sentence does two things. One is that it explains why we should believe the conditional to begin with. It’s support. If you are skeptical about the if-then statement, you can consult this middle sentence. The reason why if no new radioactive elements are being constantly created, then we would run out of radioactive elements is explained by the middle sentence. It's because radioactive elements are really unstable so within a few million years all of them would've disappeared. That's the minor premise that acts as support for the major conditional premise. The other is precisely to fix the timing issue. It's saying that radioactive elements only live for a few million years so the ones we're seeing today can't be that old (in universe time), like at oldest, it's only a few million years old. That's still not today, but it does bring it billions of years closer to today.
Answer Choice (A) would be the correct answer choice to an MSS question. It says that any radioactive element created at the beginning of the universe has probably decayed into other nonradioactive elements. This is supported by the minor premise, which sets a time limit of at most a few million years for decay.
Correct Answer Choice (B) is the most accurate paraphrasing of the main conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) is the major conditional premise.
Answer Choice (D) is the context of the argument.
Answer Choice (E) is the middle statement, which plays the role of minor premise (explaining the major conditional premise) and major premise (fixing the timing issue).
A
Any radioactive elements created when the universe began have probably decayed into other, nonradioactive elements.
B
Radioactive elements are being created in the universe today.
C
If no new radioactive elements had been created after the universe began, almost no radioactive elements would be left in the universe today.
D
It is possible that radioactive elements were created when the universe began.
E
Due to their instability, most of the universe’s radioactive elements decay within at most a few million years into other, nonradioactive elements.
This is a Main Conclusion question.
The stimulus contains an argument with many complications. It starts with other people's argument. OPA is a causal argument moving from a correlational premise to a causal conclusion. The author responds to OPA by pointing out the possibility of an alternate cause. She does so by pointing out another correlation that wasn't considered by OPA. She concludes that OPA wasn't well reasoned.
First, we learned that North Americans are becoming more lethargic. In the third sentence, we find out that North Americans are also consuming more fast food meals. This is the correlational phenomenon which OPA—“one researcher”—uses to support his causal conclusion in the second sentence. OPA concludes that fast food has an adverse effect (casual) on people's health. Note the assumption that lethargy is bad for health.
The author begins her argument with “however.” The first thing she tells us is that few lethargic adults exercise regularly. This is introducing another correlation. OPA told us that lethargy is correlated with increased consumption of fast food. The author is telling us that lethargy is also correlated with less exercise. But more than that, the author says this correlation is actually causal because lack of exercise can contribute to lethargy.
Now we get to the author's conclusion, which is that OPA delivered a weak argument. The lethargy studies do not settle the question of whether fast food is unhealthy. In other words, the correlation between lethargy and fast food isn’t dispositive evidence that fast food causes lethargy and hence poor health. Why? Because an alternative explanation of the lethargy studies is available through its correlative and causal relationship with exercise.
Note that the last sentence of the stimulus is in fact the main conclusion and it has a conclusion indicator “thus” preceding it. This is a good reminder that shortcuts don't always work. In general, we’re better off focusing on the fundamentals rather than playing mind games with the test writers.
Answer Choice (A) is a premise of the author's argument.
Answer Choice (B) states something new and therefore cannot be the conclusion. It says that high consumption of fast food is a health risk only when combined with a lack of regular exercise. Given the information in the stimulus, I have no idea if that's true.
Answer Choice (C) says the researcher’s data show that the consumption of fast food is not the main cause of poor health in North Americans. This might be tempting, but this isn’t the main conclusion. There is a big difference between something not being the main cause versus not knowing whether something is the main cause. The author's conclusion is simply that whether fast food is unhealthy isn't settled by the lethargy studies. That's a much more modest claim than what's present in (C), which says that it is settled and we know definitively that fast food is not the main cause of poor health. That's not what the author was trying to say. The author pointed out exercise simply to reveal OPA's failure to consider alternative causes.
Answer Choice (D) says the lethargy studies failed to consider one probable cause of lethargy. This is not exactly right. The author criticizes OPA for failing to consider one probable cause of lethargy. Both the author and OPA use the lethargy studies as a starting point. Neither criticizes that study.
Correct Answer Choice (E) says the researcher's conclusion was not adequately justified by the lethargy studies. This is exactly right, and if you map the language from this answer onto the content of the argument, you get a correlation-causation flaw. The researcher's conclusion is that fast food causes lethargy. The lethargy studies are what supply half of the correlation between lethargy and fast food consumption. The author is simply saying that the correlation between lethargy and fast food doesn't adequately justify the conclusion that fast food causes lethargy.