Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that hospital staff have become more careful in their patient care because they know their errors are being monitored. This is based on the observed phenomenon that patient injuries have decreased significantly at hospitals that have started to monitor staff errors that result in patient injury.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the incidence of injury at these hospitals was not affected by another change that happened around the same time. The author also assumes that the staff at these hospitals knew that they were being monitored during the last year.
A
Before the plan was implemented the hospitals already had a policy of thoroughly investigating any staff error that causes life-threatening injury to a patient.
This is irrelevant, because it only applies to life-threatening injuries, whereas the author is discussing patient injuries in general. This pre-existing policy doesn’t tell us anything new about why overall patient injuries have decreased with the new monitoring plan.
B
The incidence of patient injuries at a regional hospital that did not participate in the plan also decreased over the year in question.
This weakens by making it more likely that there is an alternative explanation for the decrease of patient injuries that is unrelated to the consequences of the plan. After all, the other hospital saw the same outcomes without the plan as a possible cause.
C
The plan did not call for the recording of staff errors that could have caused patient injuries but did not.
This is irrelevant, since the argument already tells us that the plan specifically records staff errors that do cause patient injuries. This doesn’t help us figure out whether the plan was the true cause of the decrease in injuries.
D
The decrease in the incidence of the injuries did not begin at any hospital until the staff there became aware that the records were being closely analyzed.
This strengthens the author’s hypothesis by more closely correlating the staff’s knowledge of their being monitored with the decrease in patient injury, making it more plausible that the former is a direct cause of the latter.
E
Under the plan, the hospitals’ staff members who were found to have made errors that caused injuries to patients received only reprimands for their first errors.
Without more information, it isn’t clear how the plan’s policy toward reprimanding or otherwise punishing staff members might have affected the incidence of patient injury, so this doesn’t give us more reason to believe that the plan succeeded.
Summary
Creating a database of all the plant species in the scientific record is not easy. For centuries, botanists have been naming plants without realizing that some were already named. Moreover, by using DNA analysis, botanists have shown that varieties of plants long thought to belong to the same species actually belong to different species.
Notable Valid Inferences
DNA analysis could inform botanists whether a plant species has been named.
A
Most of the duplicates and omissions among plant names in the scientific record have yet to be cleared up.
Could be true. The stimulus does not give us any information about the total number of duplicates and omissions in the scientific record. It is possible that most of these errors have not yet been fixed.
B
An accurate database of all the plant species in the scientific record can serve as an aid to botanists in their work.
Could be true. There is no information in the stimulus that contradicts the idea that an accurate database would be helpful.
C
Duplicates and omissions in the scientific record also occur in fields other than botany.
Could be true. The information in the stimulus is restricted to botany. It is possible that the same or similar errors occur in other fields.
D
Botanists have no techniques for determining whether distinct plant species have been given distinct names.
Must be false. The stimulus tells us that DNA analysis has shown what plants belong to what species. Therefore, DNA analysis is a technique that botanists could use to determine whether a plant species has been given a distinct name.
E
A person who consults the scientific record looking under only one of a plant’s names may miss available information about that plant.
Could be true. The stimulus tells us that botanists have been naming plants without realizing that some plants have already been named. If this is true, then it is possible that some information about the same plant is just associated with a different name.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
A larger species of abalones developed from a smaller species only after an abalone predator (otters) began to dominate the abalones’ habitat, despite the fact that the necessary conditions for such a development to occur involve abalones spending less energy on avoiding predators (and finding food).
Objective
The right answer will describe some element of the otters’ domination of the waters that allowed abalones to save energy for competition in mating. This element must either compensate for the extra energy abalones presumably had to spend avoiding otters, or explain why the abalones did not have to spend energy in that way. In either case, the answer must show how the otters’ domination allowed the abalones to save more energy than they had previously.
A
Otters and abalones also compete for the same types of food and so are drawn to the same waters.
This does the opposite of what we need. If the otters’ domination of the water meant that abalones faced increased competition for food, we would expect them to have less energy for competition in mating. We need something that would mean they conserved more energy, not less.
B
The fossils that were studied showed the development of only one of the two species of large abalones known to exist.
This isn’t helpful. It doesn’t matter which species developed—all that matters to us is how.
C
Otters also prey on the abalones’ competitors for food and so indirectly make it easier for abalones to get food.
This explains how otter domination helped abalones conserve energy for competition in mating. The otters ate the abalones’ food competitors, so the abalones were able to use some of the energy that would have otherwise gone to finding food to engage in mating competition instead.
D
Small abalone species tend to reproduce more rapidly than larger abalone species.
This doesn’t help us. We’re interested in the conditions that allowed a large abalone species to develop from a small one, not the reproductive tendencies within those separate species.
E
Otters have a preference for large abalones over small ones and so prefer waters in which large abalones are found.
Not only is this unrelated to the development of the larger abalone species, but it also doesn’t make sense with what we know about this habitat. The otters began to dominate when the abalones in these waters were small, which is odd if they prefer waters with large abalones.
Jackson: I acknowledge I could do better in this area. But, it would be worse not to speak out against greater sources of pollution just because I am being hypocritical.
Speaker 1 Summary
Peraski concludes that people who drive smaller cars cannot complain about larger cars that use more gas. This is because doing so would constitute hypocrisy, given the existence of bicycles, which use less gas than the smaller cars.
Speaker 2 Summary
Jackson asserts that it’s better to speak out against greater sources of pollution even if that would make one a hypocrite.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether the fact a position would make one a hypocrite should stop one from advocating for that position.
A
driving a gas-guzzling automobile produces a greater level of pollution than driving a smaller car
Jackson either expresses no opinion, or the speakers agree. Jackson doesn’t comment on larger vs. smaller cars. You might read his statements as implicitly about the complaint that larger cars use more gas than smaller cars, in which case he shares Peraski’s view.
B
speaking out against the use of gas guzzlers despite driving in situations in which one could use a bicycle reveals hypocrisy
Jackson has no opinion. Jackson doesn’t strictly commit to the view that anything is hypocritical; he only says we shouldn’t withhold criticism even if that criticism is hypocritical. If you view his statements as acknowledging hypocrisy, then the speakers agree.
C
driving even a small car when one could use a bicycle contributes to the level of pollution
Jackson has no opinion. He doesn’t comment on small cars and pollution. If you view his statements as implicitly about the exact same situation Peraski discussed, then Jackson shares Peraski’s view about this.
D
one should speak out against polluting even if doing so reveals one’s own hypocrisy
This is a point of disagreement. Peraski believes one shouldn’t speak out against a practice that pollutes if it would reveal one’s own hypocrisy. Jackson believers one should speak out against that practice even if it reveals one’s own hypocrisy.
E
there is no moral difference between driving a gas guzzler and driving a smaller car
Neither expresses an opinion. Nobody comments on whether there are any moral differences between driving a larger car and driving a smaller car. There may or may not be moral differences unrelated to pollution.