Summary
Film historians find it difficult to determine how audience members typically respond to films from the early twentieth century. Why? Because box office figures only indicate a film’s financial success or failure, they do not indicate what audiences found funny, frightening, or moving. Newspaper and magazine reviews of films also provide little insight.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Film historians believe that newspaper and magazine reviews of films do not reveal how an audience member would typically respond to a film.
A
Newspaper and magazine reviews of films are usually written in advance of a film’s general release.
We don’t know when newspaper or magazine reviews of films were written. We only know that film historians believe these sources do not provide much insight into audience members’ reactions.
B
Typical audience members’ responses to films from the latter part of the twentieth century are easy to determine.
We don’t know whether responses to films from the later twentieth century are easy to determine. The argument is limited to films from the early twentieth century.
C
The box office success of a film does not depend on its viewers finding it funny, frightening, or moving.
We don’t know what factors would cause a film’s success or failure at the box office. We only know that box office figures do not reflect how audiences typically responded to a given film.
D
Film historians do not believe that film reviews in newspapers and magazines reveal typical film audience members’ views.
Film historians must believe that newspaper and magazine reviews do not reveal typical film audience members’ views. In the stimulus, we are told that the historians find that these sources fail to provide much insight.
E
Films from the early part of the twentieth century were not usually reviewed in newspapers or magazines.
We don’t know whether early twentieth century films were usually reviewed in newspapers or magazines. We don’t even know if these films were usually reviewed at all.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that it is possible for pulsars to be filled with quarks. This is in contrast with the consensus among astronomers, which is that pulsars are made of neutrons. To support her conclusion, the author says that if a pulsar was filled with quarks, it would have a positive charge, which would attract a layer of negatively charged particles, which could then support a crust of neutrons. Other astronomers believe that pulsars are made of neutrons because of observations of the surfaces of pulsars; the information provided by the author would explain this surface of neutrons but opens the possibility that pulsars are filled with quarks instead of neutrons.
Identify Argument Part
The statement in the question stem is a premise that provides information to explain how a quark-filled pulsar could still have a crust of neutrons.
A
It helps explain how pulsars could have neutrons on their surface even if they were not entirely made up of neutrons.
The statement in the question stem provides information that helps explain how the author’s conclusion that pulsars are filled with quarks is consistent with the observation that pulsars have neutrons on their surface.
B
It forms part of a challenge to the claim that some pulsars may be made up of quarks.
The statement in the question stem helps support the conclusion that pulsars may be made of quarks; it does not challenge this claim.
C
It helps explain why some pulsars would not be readily recognized as such by astronomers.
The argument does not discuss what astronomers can readily recognize. We do not know if astronomers have difficulty recognizing pulsars; the argument is concerned with the composition of pulsars.
D
It presents a new finding that challenges the consensus view of the structure of pulsars.
The claim in the question stem does open an alternative to the consensus view, but we cannot say that it is a new finding.
E
It points out a problem with the view that pulsars have a mass roughly equal to that of our sun.
The information in the question stem does not challenge the claim about the mass of pulsars.
Analyst: Any new natural-gas-powered electrical generation station needs to be located close to a natural-gas pipeline, a large body of water for cooling, and transmission lines. It also must be situated in a region where residents will not oppose construction. Our country has an extensive system of transmission lines, but our natural-gas pipelines run in the vicinity of only three of our large bodies of water, and residents would oppose any significant construction projects near these bodies of water.
Summary
Any new electrical station powered by natural gas needs to be located close to a natural gas pipeline, a large body of water, and transmission lines. A new natural-gas electrical station must be located where residents will not oppose construction. Our country has extensive transmission lines. Our country’s natural gas pipelines are only near three large bodies of water, where residents would oppose significant construction projects.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
It is impossible for our country to build a new electrical station powered by natural gas without expanding the existing pipeline network.
A
Future electrical needs will have to be met by alternatives to natural-gas-powered generation.
This is unsupported because future electrical needs may take into account new pipeline growth that allows natural-gas-powered stations to be built outside of areas where local residents would oppose them.
B
If a new natural-gas-powered electrical station is built in a region, many residents will move away from that region.
This is unsupported because the author never states that residents would move away from natural-gas-powered stations if they oppose the stations. Rather, the author states that their opposition would be a barrier to building the station in the first place.
C
No site would be suitable for constructing a natural-gas-powered electrical station unless the existing system of natural-gas pipelines is expanded.
This is strongly supported because all the pipelines near large bodies of water are in areas where local residents would oppose the plant construction, which our author says is an obstacle to new plants.
D
There currently is no natural-gas-powered electrical generation station near any of the three largest bodies of water.
This is unsupported because the author is only talking about new electrical stations powered by natural gas, meaning there could be existing stations near those bodies of water.
E
Many residents who would oppose the construction of a new natural-gas-powered electrical station in their region would not oppose the construction of new transmission lines there.
This is unsupported because we don’t know anything about public opposition to new transmission lines from reading the stimulus.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that watching a recording of yourself exercising can motivate you to exercise more. This is based on a study in which one group of participants watched recordings of themselves running, and a second group watched recordings of other people running. Later, the first group reported exercising, on average, 1 hour longer each day than the second group reported exercising.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the greater reported amount of exercise for the first group reflects a greater actual amount of exercise in that group. (There’s a difference between reported amounts and actual amounts.) The author also assumes that the first group’s watching themselves run caused increased motivation, which in turn caused greater amounts of exercise.
A
In another study, people who watched recordings of themselves lifting weights exercised for more time each day than did people who watched recordings of themselves running.
This suggests that watching yourself doing some kinds of exercise can cause you to exercise more than watching yourself engage in other kinds. But the author never suggested that there was no difference between the potential motivating effects of different exercises.
B
Another study’s members exhibited an increased willingness to give to charity after hearing stories in which people with whom they identified did so.
If (B) does anything, it might strengthen the argument by providing evidence that one might increase a certain behavior after identifying with someone doing that behavior.
C
Participants who were already highly motivated to exercise did not report exercising for any longer each day than they had before the study.
The conclusion doesn’t say that everyone will be motivated by watching themselves exercise. There can be some exceptions. And, we have no reason to think the second group had more of these already-motivated people than the first. So (C) doesn’t provide an alternate hypothesis.
D
In studies of identical twins, participants who observed their twin reading overreported by a significant amount how much time they themselves spent reading in the days that followed.
This suggests that the first group might have overreported the amount they exercised. This provides an alternate hypothesis to explain the results of the study. Maybe watching themselves didn’t actually lead to more exercise in the first group, just exaggerated reports.
E
A third group of participants who watched recordings of themselves sitting on couches afterwards reported being sedentary for more time each day than did the other participants.
If (E) does anything, it might strengthen the argument by providing additional evidence that people report engaging in an activity more after watching themselves do a similar kind of activity.