Heavy tapestry fabrics are appropriate only for use in applications that will not need to be laundered frequently. These applications do not include any types of clothing—such as skirts or even jackets—but instead include swags and balloon valances, which are types of window treatments.

Summary
Heavy tapestry fabrics are only for applications that do not need frequent laundering. These applications do not include any types of clothing, but include types of window treatments such as swags and balloon valances.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
If a fabric is appropriate for clothing, then that fabric is not a heavy tapestry fabric.

A
If a fabric is not a heavy tapestry fabric, then it is not appropriate for use in swags.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to heavy tapestry fabrics. We don’t know anything about fabrics that are not heavy tapestry fabrics.
B
Heavy tapestry fabrics should not be used unless swags or balloon valances are being made.
This answer is unsupported. To say that heavy tapestry fabrics should only be used for swags or balloon valances is too extreme. These applications were only examples, not an exhaustive list.
C
If heavy tapestry fabrics are appropriate for a particular application, then that application must be a window treatment.
This answer is unsupported. To say that heavy tapestry fabrics should only be used for window treatments is too extreme. This application was only provided as an example.
D
If a fabric is appropriate for use in a skirt or jacket, then that fabric is not a heavy tapestry fabric.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that heavy tapestry fabrics are not appropriate for any type of clothing. Therefore, if a fabric is appropriate for clothing, then that fabric must not be a heavy tapestry fabric.
E
Heavy tapestry fabrics are sometimes appropriate for use in types of clothing other than skirts and jackets.
This answer is anti-supported. The stimulus tells us that heavy tapestry fabrics are not appropriate for any type of clothing.

11 comments

The construction of new apartments in Brewsterville increased the supply of available housing there. Ordinarily, increasing the supply of available housing leads to lower rents for existing apartments. But in Brewsterville, rents for existing apartments rose.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Increased housing supply generally leads to lower rents for existing apartments, but rents for existing apartments in Brewsterville rose when the housing supply increased.

Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why, contrary to what usually happens, existing apartments became more expensive when the housing supply increased. This explanation must show some quirk in Brewsterville’s housing situation that causes rents to rise with supply, or else some other factor that affected the prices of existing apartments without factoring in housing supply.

A
Fewer new apartments were constructed than originally planned.
Even if just one new apartment was constructed, existing rents would be expected to drop. We need to know why they rose.
B
The new apartments were much more desirable than the existing apartments.
The new apartments, no matter how desirable, contributed to the housing supply. And yet, rents for existing apartments rose. We need something that explains why that happened.
C
Rents in some areas close to Brewsterville dropped as a result of the construction of the new apartments.
We care about what happened in Brewsterville, not in areas close-by.
D
A sizeable number of people moved out of the existing apartments while the new apartments were being constructed.
Does this mean the rents would rise? We don’t know. This doesn’t give us enough information to be a true explanation.
E
The new apartments were constructed at the outset of a trend of increasing numbers of people seeking residence in Brewsterville.
Even though the housing supply rose, that housing supply was quickly filled by people moving into Brewsterville. The end result was either a net neutral or net negative for the housing supply, hence why rents didn’t drop as expected for existing apartments.

7 comments

A good movie reviewer should be able to give favorable reviews of movies that are not to his or her taste. Because movie reviewers have seen so many movies, their tastes are very different from and usually better informed than those of most moviegoers. Yet the function of movie reviewers, as opposed to film critics, is to help people determine which movies they might enjoy seeing, not to help them better appreciate movies.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a good movie reviewer should be able to give favorable reviews of movies that she personally may not like. This is because the purpose of movie reviewers is to help people figure out what movies they might enjoy. The unstated assumption is that to help people figure out what they might like, a movie reviewer can’t just give negative reviews based on her own personal taste.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is what the author thinks a good movie reviewer should be able to do: “A good movie reviewer should be able to give favorable reviews of movies that are not to his or her taste.”

A
Movie reviewers’ tastes in movies are very different from and usually better informed than those of most moviegoers.
This is part of the context. Movie reviewers have different, better tastes. But the author pivots to argue that a good reviewer should be able to set aside their personal taste and give favorable reviews to movies she might not like.
B
If a movie reviewer is good, he or she should be able to give favorable reviews of movies that are not to his or her taste.
This is an almost verbatim restatement of the conclusion.
C
The function of a movie reviewer is different from that of a film critic.
This is part of the premise.
D
Movie reviewers see many more movies than most moviegoers see.
This is part of the context.
E
The role of movie reviewers is to help people determine which movies they might enjoy seeing, not to help people better appreciate movies.
This is a premise. The author doesn’t offer anything to help prove the role of movie reviewers. Rather, he uses the claim about a movie reviewer’s role to assert what a good movie reviewer should be able to do.

15 comments

Researcher: Overhearing only one side of a cell-phone conversation diverts listeners’ attention from whatever they are doing. Hearing only part of a conversation leaves listeners constantly trying to guess what the unheard talker has just said. Listeners’ attention is also diverted because cell-phone talkers speak abnormally loudly.

Summary

Hearing only one side of a cell-phone conversation distracts a person from whatever they’re doing. Hearing only one person in a conversation results in listeners constantly trying to guess what the unheard person is saying. Cell-phone conversations distract listeners because people talking on a cell-phone are abnormally loud.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

When a person performing a task hears a cell-phone conversation, that person ends up distracted from whatever they’re doing.

A
The risk that a driver will cause an accident is increased when the driver is talking on a cell phone.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what the risk of accident is for any driver. Since we don’t know the baseline risk, we also can’t say that this risk increases.

B
When a driver hears a passenger in the driver’s vehicle talking on a cell phone, that detracts from the driver’s performance.

This answer is strongly supported. Hearing only one side of a cell-phone conversation distracts a person from whatever they’re doing. Since the driver is distracted, this detracts from their driving.

C
Overhearing one side of a conversation on a traditional telephone does not divert listeners’ attention from tasks at hand.

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to overhearing conversations being had over a cell-phone. We don’t know what the effects are from overhearing a conversation had over a traditional phone.

D
People who overhear one side of a cell-phone conversation inevitably lose track of their thoughts.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if these people lose track of their own thoughts, we just know that they become distracted from whatever they’re doing.

E
Conversing on a cell phone requires making more guesses about what one’s conversational partner means than other forms of conversation do.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what conditions are required for having a conversation via cell-phone.


21 comments