Summarize Argument
The author concludes that generally, only government-sponsored research investigates agricultural techniques that don’t use commercial products. This is based on the fact that private for-profit corporations don’t sponsor research that’s unlikely to lead to marketable products.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that agricultural techniques that don’t use commercial products are unlikely to lead to the creation of marketable products. The author also assumes that there’s no other source that could conduct research into agricultural techniques that don’t use commercial products besides private for-profit corporations and the government.
A
The government sponsors at least some investigations of agricultural techniques that are considered likely to solve agricultural problems and do not use commercial products.
This doesn’t help establish that only government-sponsored research investigates these techniques. (A) tells us that the government does at least some of this research, but we don’t know whether there could be other sources that also do this research.
B
For almost any agricultural problem, there is at least one agricultural technique that does not use commercial products but that would solve that agricultural problem.
This doesn’t help establish what kinds of entities research agricultural techniques and whether governments are the only ones who will research techniques that are unlikely to lead to marketable products.
C
Investigations of agricultural techniques are rarely sponsored by individuals or by any entity other than private for-profit corporations or the government.
This strengthens the argument by limiting the potential entities that conduct research to, in most cases, private for-profit corporations and the government. Since the premises already eliminate private corporations as a source of research, we’re left with the government.
D
Most if not all investigations of agricultural techniques that use commercial products are sponsored by private for-profit corporations.
The argument is concerned with research into techniques that don’t use commercial products. Which entities research the techniques that do use commercial products has no impact on the reasoning.
E
Most if not all government-sponsored agricultural research investigates agricultural techniques that do not use commercial products.
This doesn’t help show that research investigating agricultural techniques that don’t use commercial products is exclusively done by the government. (E) leaves open the possibility that non-government entities also do a lot of this research.
Summarize Argument
The pundit concludes that it’s a good thing to vote out national leaders every few years because reforms are usually undertaken early in an administration. If a government doesn’t make those reforms early on, they’ll be forced to either admit a mistake, deny a problem, or abrogate responsibility later on.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is about the value of voting out leaders: “It is good to have national leaders voted out of office after a few years.”
A
If national leaders who fail to solve problems are voted out of office after a few years, new leaders will be more motivated to solve problems.
This doesn’t appear in the pundit’s argument and therefore can’t be the main conclusion. We don’t know if new leaders will be more motivated to solve problems when national leaders are voted out.
B
National leaders who stay in power too long tend to deny responsibility for problems that they could have dealt with earlier.
This is a premise that the pundit uses to show why it’s good to vote national leaders out every few years. If the leaders simply deny responsibility for problems, they won’t solve them. This is why new leaders are a good thing.
C
National leaders are most likely to undertake reforms early in a new government.
This is a premise that the pundit uses to show why voting out national leaders is a good thing. Once a government has been around for a while and made their initial reforms, they have limited options for reforms down the road.
D
National leaders who immediately respond to problems upon taking office should be given enough time to succeed at solving them.
This doesn’t appear in the pundit’s argument and thus can’t be a main conclusion. The pundit isn’t arguing about how much time governments should be given, but rather what voters should do every few years.
E
National leaders should be removed from office every few years by the voting in of new leaders.
The pundit argues that it’s a good thing to vote out national leaders every year so that new ones can replace them and make the reforms an incumbent government is less likely to make. The pundit’s stance that “it is good” is equivalent here to “should,” since both are recommending a course of action.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that urushiol (the chemical that causes poison ivy and poison oak reactions) did not evolve as a chemical defense for these plants. This is based on the observation that, while some animals have a mild urushiol reaction, the reaction is not severe in any animals other than humans. Furthermore, wood rats use urushiol-producing plants for nest material.
Notable Assumptions
The author also assumes that the mild skin reactions caused by urushiol don’t deter animals. The author also assumes that urushiol could not have originally evolved as a chemical defense in the plants that produce it, even if it’s no longer effective.
A
Wood rats build their nests using dead, brittle branches, not live ones.
This is irrelevant, since it does not provide any additional information about the effects of urushiol and whether it likely evolved as a chemical defense. For one thing, we don’t know if live or dead branches have different urushiol content.
B
A number of different animals use poison oak and poison ivy as food sources.
This strengthens the hypothesis, since it affirms the author’s assumption that any mild reaction caused by urushiol doesn’t deter animals from using it.
C
It is common for plants to defend themselves by producing chemical substances.
This is irrelevant, since the argument only makes claims about urushiol based on observations specific to urushiol; whether chemical defenses are common in other plants doesn’t matter.
D
In approximately 85 percent of the human population, very small amounts of urushiol can cause a rash.
This is irrelevant, since the argument has already established that urushiol is harmful to humans. We primarily care about how it affects animals.
E
Poison oak and poison ivy grow particularly well in places where humans have altered natural forest ecosystems.
The growth of urushiol-producing plants in human-altered ecosystems is irrelevant to the hypothesis that urushiol did not evolve as a chemical defense in those plants.