"Surprising" Phenomenon
Some areas outside of a conservation park have substantially higher populations of certain bird species than the park does.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why certain species are more prevalent outside the park than inside the park. The explanation must account for some quirk about the species themselves, or some quirk about the park that makes it less hospitable to these species than one would assume.
A
Moose are much more prevalent inside the park, where hunting is prohibited, than outside the park, and moose eat much of the food that the birds need to survive.
The park has a moose problem, which reduces food available for the birds. This isn’t true of areas outside the park, hence why certain bird species make their homes there.
B
The researchers also found that some unprotected areas outside of the park have substantially higher numbers of certain reptile species than comparable areas inside the park.
Rather than clearing anything up about the birds, we also have to account for reptiles. We want something that addresses the surprising fact about birds.
C
Researchers tagged a large number of birds inside the park; three months later some of these birds were recaptured outside the park.
Why did the birds leave? We’re looking for something that tells us why birds prefer to live outside the park.
D
Both inside the park and just outside of it, there are riverside areas containing willows and other waterside growth that the bird species thrive on.
This points to a similarity between the two areas in question. We need a difference that helps explain why some birds prefer not to live in the protected park.
E
The park was designed to protect endangered bird species, but some of the bird species that are present in higher numbers in the unprotected areas are also endangered.
Why don’t those birds go into the park? Like (D), this is missing a comparative aspect between the park and the unprotected areas.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes Roadwise auto insurance is smart to make commercials that are unusually varied in their tone. Why? Because people from many different demographics buy auto insurance.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes it’s a good idea for Roadwise to make commercials that appeal across its base of potential customers, rather than target a particular demographic. This means assuming the benefits of a wide campaign outweigh any disadvantages caused by an inconsistent tone. It also means assuming that demographically different customers will be attracted to different styles of advertisements, that they won’t be turned off by that difference in tone, and that this diversity will help Roadwise either attract new customers or maintain its existing ones from various demographics.
A
Advertising campaigns designed to target one demographic sometimes appeal to a wider group of people than expected.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests Roadwise might appeal to more customers than it expects by tailoring its advertisements to just one demographic.
B
Consistent efforts to establish a brand identity are critical for encouraging product interest and improving company recognition.
This weakens the argument. It implies Roadwise will suffer from poor interest and poor recognition since it isn’t consistently working to establish a brand identity.
C
Fewer people are influenced by auto insurance commercials than by commercials for other types of products.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t imply a company that makes diverse auto insurance commercials increases its chances of influencing potential customers.
D
Advertising campaigns that target one demographic often alienate people who are not part of the target demographic.
This supports Roadwise diversifying its advertisements. It suggests a diverse advertising campaign is less likely to turn off potential customers than a targeted one.
E
Efforts to influence a target demographic do not pay off when the content of the advertising campaign falls short.
This implies Roadwise must ensure its advertisements have strong content, not that a diverse campaign is a good idea. It does not imply the reverse—that any advertisement campaign with good content will succeed in influencing its target demographic.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
We need a system that charges people for using the roads during rush hour traffic. Why? Because when something valuable is free, overconsumption and long lines are the result. Just as showing up for free ice cream costs time, congestion during rush hour traffic costs time.
Identify Argument Part
The claim is a general statement used as support for the Mayor’s main conclusion.
A
It is a hypothesis that is rejected in favor of the hypothesis stated in the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim is not rejected in the Mayor’s argument.
B
It is a concession made to those who dispute an analogy drawn in the argument.
The analogy between ice cream and traffic is not being disputed.
C
It helps establish the importance of the argument’s overall conclusion, but is not offered as evidence for that conclusion.
The claim does not establish the importance of the Mayor’s main conclusion.
D
It is a general claim used in support of the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim does support the Mayor’s main conclusion.
E
It is the overall conclusion of the argument.
The claim is not the Mayor’s main conclusion.
Summarize Argument
The economist concludes raising the minimum wage would provide a net benefit to the economy, despite possibly increasing unemployment. Why? Because it would result in higher productivity, and the current low minimum wage incentivizes businesses to hire more workers rather than invest in technology that would improve productivity and allow for higher living standards.
Notable Assumptions
The economist assumes raising the minimum wage would not cause large enough hiring cutbacks to outweigh the benefits of productivity growth. This means assuming the country’s overall economic health depends at least partly on productivity growth.
A
Productivity growth in a country usually leads to an eventual increase in job creation.
This implies the main downside to a minimum wage increase—job losses—will be only temporary, thus strengthening the economist’s case for a higher minimum wage.
B
The economist’s country has seen a slow but steady increase in its unemployment rate over the last decade.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t imply the increase would still be slow if the minimum wage were raised.
C
A country’s unemployment rate is a key factor in determining its average living standards.
This weakens the economist’s argument. It suggests extra unemployment caused by a minimum wage increase could cancel out the benefit to average living standards caused by increased productivity.
D
The economist’s country currently lags behind other countries in the development of new technology.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t say that a higher minimum wage would cause an especially large investment in new technology, nor that such technology would cause an especially large productivity increase.
E
Productivity-enhancing new technology tends to quickly become outdated.
If anything, this weakens the economist’s argument. It implies the primary benefit of raising the minimum wage—greater productivity because of more investment in technology—would be short-lived.