Summarize Argument
The author concludes the lottery didn’t give all entrants an equal chance of winning. Why not? Because 90 percent of the people who won had entered within the first 2 days of the registration period, which was 30 days long.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes the lottery gave early entrants a more-than-even chance of winning, and that’s why most people who won had entered early. In particular, this means assuming that significantly fewer than 90 percent of the total entries were submitted within the first 2 days.
A
The family members of the organizer of the contest were not permitted to participate in the contest.
This is irrelevant. It makes no claim about the timing of lottery entries or the selection process. If anything, it suggests the lottery is more likely to have been fair, not less.
B
The manner in which the contest winner would be selected was publicized prior to the selection of the winner.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t say that method gave any early entrants a higher chance of winning.
C
The contest entry forms were submitted at a consistent rate throughout the registration period.
This makes concrete the author’s primary assumption: that fewer than 90 percent of the total entries were submitted in the first two days. It makes it less likely that pure chance caused most of the winners to be early entrants.
D
The rules of the contest were posted conspicuously by those who organized the contest.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t say those rules gave early entrants a better chance of winning than late entrants.
E
The number of people entering the contest far exceeded the expectations of the contest organizers.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t imply the lottery organizers selected winners before the contest ended, or that they gave early entrants a better chance of winning.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Cuttlefish use their startle display to scare off harmless fish rather than predators.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why cuttlefish use startle displays. That explanation must result in cuttlefish gaining some benefit from using their startle display with small, harmless fish, but gaining either no benefit or a negligible benefit from using their startle display with predators.
A
Cuttlefish feed primarily on small fish and mollusks.
Cuttlefish use their startle displays on small fish. Why would cuttlefish want to scare off their prey?
B
Groups of small fish are likely to attract a cuttlefish’s predators.
Cuttlefish use their startle displays on small fish to pre-emptively avoid their predators. Small fish attract predators, so it makes sense cuttlefish would want to scare them away.
C
Small fish are more easily scared off by a startle display than are a cuttlefish’s predators.
This doesn’t explain why cuttlefish would bother scaring off small fish in the first place.
D
Cuttlefish have acute senses and are able to change colors.
Like (C), this doesn’t explain the why cuttlefish bother scaring off small fish. We don’t care about their other abilities.
E
Unlike insects that use startle displays, cuttlefish are usually able to move faster than their predators.
This explains why cuttlefish don’t use startle displays with predators. But why do they bother using them with small fish?
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The friend hypothesized that bright lighting had been installed around the perimeter of the store. This is based on the fact that the store owner had mentioned to the friend that bright lighting has been known to reduce the rate of vandalism, and three months after that conversation, the rate of vandalism at the store owner’s store had dropped to zero.
Notable Assumptions
The friend assumes that there’s no other explanation for why the rate of vandalism dropped besides the installation of bright lighting around the perimeter. The friend also assumed that it was possible for the store owner to install bright lighting around the perimeter.
A
There had been an increase in police patrolling of the area.
This provides an alternate explanation for the drop in vandalism.
B
Bright lights must be specially ordered from a security company, and installation by the company usually takes at least five months.
Since the report of a drop in vandalism occurred only three months after the initial conversation, (B) provides a reason to think the store owner wouldn’t have been able to install bright lighting yet.
C
The store owner reported that all the stores adjacent to the perimeter also experienced a reduction in vandalism, although stores one block away did not.
This provides evidence that could support the theory that bright lights had been installed. Stores near those lights also experienced a drop in vandalism, but stores that were not near those lights did not experience a drop.
D
The store’s budget did not allow for the installation of bright lights around the perimeter.
This provides a reason to think the store owner would not have been able to install bright lights around the perimeter.
E
The store owner brought in a watchdog to protect the store from vandals.
This provides an alternate explanation for the drop in vandalism.