When a chain of service stations began applying a surcharge of $0.25 per purchase on fuel paid for by credit card, the chain’s owners found that this policy made their customers angry. So they decided instead to simply raise the price of fuel a compensatory amount and give a $0.25 discount to customers paying with cash. Customers were much happier with this policy.

Summary
A chain of service stations charged a $0.25 fee per purchase for fuel paid for with a credit card. This caused the service station’s customers to be angry. Instead, the chain decided to raise the overall price of fuel and offer customers a $0.25 discount for paying with cash. The service station’s customers were happier with this policy.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Sometimes people’s reactions to a situation depends in part on how that situation is presented to them.

A
People usually adopt beliefs without carefully assessing the evidence for and against those beliefs.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus under what circumstances people will usually adopt beliefs.
B
People’s perceptions of the fairness of a policy sometimes depend on whether that policy benefits them personally.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether people think this policy is fair. We can’t infer from their happiness that they think it is fair.
C
People usually become emotional when considering financial issues.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus under what circumstances people usually become emotional.
D
People often change their minds about issues that do not make significant differences to their lives.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus under what circumstances people change their mind. We don’t even know if the customers who were previously angry are the same customers that are happier after the policy change.
E
People’s evaluations of a situation sometimes depend less on the situation itself than on how it is presented to them.
This answer is strongly supported. The only thing that changed in this scenario was whether or not customers were aware of the surcharge.

4 comments

Several Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons found in North America contain tooth marks that only a large carnivore could have made. At the time T. rex lived, it was the only large carnivore in North America. The tooth marks could have resulted only from combat or feeding. But such tooth marks would have been almost impossible to inflict on the skeleton of a live animal.

Summary

There are several T. Rex skeletons found in North America with tooth marks that could only have been made by a large carnivore. T. Rex were the only large carnivores in North America when they lived. The tooth marks could only have resulted from combat or feeding. These tooth marks would have been impossible to inflict on the skeleton of a live animal.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The tooth marks on the T. Rex skeletons are likely a product of other T. Rex’s feeding on T. Rex bodies.

A
T. rex regularly engaged in combat with smaller carnivores.

This is unsupported because we don’t have information about tooth marks being found on the skeletons of other carnivores or any other evidence of such combat.

B
At the time T. rex lived, it was common for carnivores to feed on other carnivores.

This is unsupported because even though T. Rex appears to have fed on other T. Rex, we don’t know that this was common for other carnivores.

C
T. rex sometimes engaged in cannibalism.

This is strongly supported because we know that the marks on the skeletons could only have come from other T. Rex’s, and they could only have been made during feeding on an already dead animal.

D
T. rex sometimes engaged in intraspecies combat.

This is unsupported because the marks on the skeletons could only have been made on already dead animals, which precludes the marks being made during combat.

E
At the time T. rex lived, there were large carnivores on continents other than North America.

This is unsupported because we don’t know anything about the distribution of carnivores across other continents. The stimulus is confined to discussing North America.


10 comments

Gabriella: By raising interest rates, the government has induced people to borrow less money and therefore to spend less, thereby slowing the country’s economy.

Ivan: I disagree with your analysis. The country’s economy is tied to the global economy. Whatever happens to the global economy also happens here, and the global economy has slowed. Therefore, the government’s action did not cause the economy’s slowdown.

Speaker 1 Summary
Gabriella claims that the government’s recent interest rate increase has slowed the economy. How so? By encouraging people to borrow more money and spend less money. (Gabriella is making an assumption that borrowing more and spending less slows the economy.)

Speaker 2 Summary
Ivan says that the interest rate increase didn’t slow the economy. In support, Ivan explains that whatever happens to the global economy is reflected in the country’s economy. Also, the global economy has slowed. Ivan sees this as an alternative explanation for the domestic slowdown.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Gabriella and Ivan disagree about whether the government’s interest rate increase caused the country’s economy to slow.

A
the economic slowdown in the country has caused people to spend less
Neither speaker talks about the effect the economic slowdown may have had on people’s behavior. Gabriella claims that lower spending helped to cause the slowdown, but doesn’t mention whether the slowdown could then further lower spending.
B
the economy of the country is tied to the economies of other countries
Ivan agrees that this is the case, but Gabriella doesn’t state an opinion. Gabriella only talks about the domestic economy, and says nothing about how the international economy might be involved.
C
raising interest rates caused a significant decrease in borrowing
Gabriella disagrees that this is the case, but Ivan doesn’t express an opinion. Gabriella thinks that raising interest rates increased, not decreased, borrowing. Ivan doesn’t talk about borrowing at all.
D
raising interest rates caused the country’s economy to slow
Gabriella thinks this is true and Ivan thinks it’s false, meaning that this is the point of disagreement. Gabriella’s conclusion is that the interest rate increase caused the slowdown. Ivan says that the global economy caused the slowdown, so interest rates are irrelevant.
E
the global economy has slowed
Ivan agrees with this, but Gabriella doesn’t state an opinion. Gabriella only talks about the domestic economy, and never mentions a belief that the global economy has slowed or not.

3 comments