Summarize Argument
The analyst concludes Johnson’s campaign doesn’t actually believe his opponent’s quote was more damaging in context. Why not? Because they’ve passed on several more opportunities to quote her statement in context.
Notable Assumptions
The analyst assumes Johnson’s campaign continues to take the quote out of context because it believes the quote would be no more damaging in context. This means assuming there’s no other reason the campaign would continue to give the quote without context—such as convenience, for example.
A
In criticizing an opponent, political campaigns will pursue the line of attack they believe to be most politically damaging.
This makes concrete the analyst’s assumption that the campaign would only continue to use the quote out of context if it were at least as damaging as the quote in context. It rules out the possibility that considerations other than political damage are more important.
B
In criticizing an opponent, political campaigns do not use techniques that they would find objectionable if used against their candidate.
This principle doesn’t apply. There’s no indication Johnson’s campaign would find it objectionable if his opponent quoted him in context.
C
In criticizing an opponent, political campaigns are expected by voters to make sure that the quotes to which these campaigns refer are not taken out of context.
This principle doesn’t affect the argument. It implies the campaign must have some motivation for taking the quote out of context—but doesn’t make the particular motivation suggested by the analyst any more likely.
D
In criticizing an opponent, political campaigns will not be strongly criticized as long as the words attributed to their opponent were actually said by their opponent.
This doesn’t affect the argument. It implies Johnson’s campaign won’t be criticized either way—it doesn’t make it any more likely the campaign is lying.
E
In criticizing an opponent, political campaigns will avoid using techniques that leave their candidate open to effective counterattacks.
This principle doesn’t apply. There’s no indication that quoting Johnson’s opponent in context—as opposed to out of context—would make Johnson vulnerable to counterattack.
Santiago: I’m uncomfortable with the idea of calculating the biosphere’s dollar value in order to justify protecting it. Such an approach implies that the biosphere’s most important value lies in the “services” it provides us.
Speaker 1 Summary
Ellen says that we should prioritize protecting Earth’s biosphere. This is supported by a recent estimate by a group of experts that the biosphere provides $33 trillion worth of “services” to humans each year.
Speaker 2 Summary
Santiago concludes that we should not use an economic approach to justify protecting the biosphere. Why not? Because taking that approach implies that the biosphere is primarily important due to the “services” it provides. Santiago presumably thinks that the biosphere’s truest value lies elsewhere.
Objective
We want to find a disagreement between Ellen and Santiago. They disagree about whether economic valuation is a good justification for protecting Earth’s biosphere.
A
Estimating the dollar value of the biosphere’s essential services is an appropriate way of providing a rationale for making protection of the biosphere a high priority.
Ellen agrees and Santiago disagrees, so this is the disagreement. Ellen’s argument does exactly this, using an estimated dollar value to rationalize protecting the biosphere. Santiago, though, says that economic value is not how we should justify protecting the biosphere.
B
The biosphere’s most important value lies in something other than the services it provides to human beings.
Santiago agrees with this, but Ellen never disagrees. Ellen focuses on the value of the “services” provided by the biosphere, but doesn’t eliminate the possibility of a more important value.
C
Calculating the dollar value of the biosphere’s essential services is the most effective way to ensure that protecting the biosphere is treated as a matter of urgency.
Neither speaker talks about what would be the most effective way to ensure that the biosphere is urgently protected, so we can’t say that either Ellen or Santiago expresses an opinion.
D
The idea that the dollar value of the biosphere’s essential services can be accurately calculated is unrealistic.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Ellen accepts the idea of estimating this dollar value, and even Santiago doesn’t take issue with whether the calculation is realistic.
E
Calculating the dollar value of the biosphere’s essential services implies that the biosphere’s most important value lies in the services it provides to human beings.
Santiago agrees with this, but Ellen doesn’t disagree. Ellen doesn’t talk at all about the implications of doing this calculation, or about what the biosphere’s most important value is.
Summary
Most people’s bodies make enzyme CYP2A6, which plays a crucial role in eliminating nicotine from the body. Nicotine is the addictive drug in cigarettes. Smokers whose bodies make the most common form of this enzyme tend to smoke more than smokers whose bodies make some other form of the enzyme. Why? Because the faster nicotine is eliminated from the body, the faster a person will crave another cigarette.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The most common form of the enzyme CYP2A6 is also the form that eliminates nicotine from the body the fastest.
A
the most common form of CYP2A6 is the one that most rapidly eliminates nicotine from the body
This answer is strongly supported. Since smokers with the most common form of the enzyme smoke more due to nicotine being eliminated from the body faster, the most common form of the enzyme must cause the rapid elimination of nicotine.
B
most people whose bodies make the rarest form of CYP2A6 do not smoke at all
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what happens in people with the rarest form of CYP2A6.
C
if one’s body does not make CYP2A6, nicotine will still be eliminated, although very slowly
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what occurs in people whose bodies do not produce the CYP2A6 enzyme.
D
the greater the quantity of CYP2A6 that one’s body makes, the faster nicotine will be eliminated
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if there’s a proportional relationship between the quantity of the enzyme and nicotine being eliminated from the body.
E
helping to eliminate nicotine is not the only function that CYP2A6 serves
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if there are any other functions the enzyme serves.
Summary
The clock evolved from more complex to more simple. The earliest clocks were the most complicated, because they were used mainly for predicting astronomical phenomena. As timekeeping functions became more important, and astronomical functions less important, clocks became more simple.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The level of clock complexity required for astronomical predictions is higher than that required for keeping time.
A
Present-day clocks are of no use in the prediction of astronomical phenomena.
Unsupported, because these clocks might have some use for astronomical predictions. We know that their primary purpose isn’t astronomical, but they might still be usable for some astronomical purposes.
B
The mechanisms used to predict astronomical phenomena in at least some clocks were more complicated than most more recent mechanisms used for this function.
Unsupported. We don’t know about mechanisms for predicting astronomical stuff outside of clocks. Non-clock mechanisms might be far more complicated than the mechanisms in clocks.
C
Clocks used only for keeping time do not differ appreciably in their mechanical complexity.
Unsupported, because there can still be differences in complexity among time-keeping clocks. On average, this category of clocks isn’t as complex as the clocks used to predict astronomical phenomena, but that doesn’t mean they all have the same complexity.
D
The mechanisms that the earliest clocks used to predict astronomical phenomena were more complicated than the mechanisms used for timekeeping functions in some more recent clocks.
Strongly supported, because we know that the earliest clocks were the most complex, because they were primarily used for astronomical predictions. More recent clocks are mainly used for time-keeping, which allows for less complex mechanisms.
E
Interest in predicting astronomical phenomena has declined steadily since the invention of the first mechanical clocks.
Unsupported, because people may simply be using other devices to satisfy their interest in astronomical predictions. Clocks are being used less for this purpose, but that doesn’t imply that overall interest in astronomical predictions is lower.
Summary
Consumers should be provided with relevant information in situations where it is difficult to make informed decisions about products. Requiring food manufacturers to print nutrition information on packaging solved the problem of consumers having difficulty determining whether a food contained nutritious ingredients. Many consumers are interested in conserving energy. There is no way for consumers to determine how much energy was required to make a product.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Manufacturers should be required to label products based on how much energy was required to produce it.
A
consumers who are informed of the amount of energy used to produce a product should choose energy efficient products
This is unsupported because the problem is that consumers have difficulty becoming informed about the amount of energy used to produce a product in the first place.
B
manufacturers should use less energy while producing products
This is unsupported because the problem described is that consumers don’t have enough information about the products, not necessarily that too much energy is being used.
C
providing consumers with information about the energy used to produce a product would reduce the impact of fossil fuels on our lives and economy
This is unsupported because we don’t know how consumers would respond if the energy inputs were printed on products.
D
consumers should demand products that require less energy to produce
This is unsupported because the problem the author is trying to solve is consumers not having information on how much energy it took to make products. Demanding that products require less energy to produce doesn’t solve this information gap.
E
manufacturers should be required to label their products with information about the amount of energy used to produce those products
This is strongly supported because we get an analogous situation where printing nutrition information solved a consumer difficulty. Printing the energy used to produce products would solve a consumer difficulty as well.