Summarize Argument
The author concludes that newer antibiotics which kill a wider range of bacteria than does penicillin will likely lead to drug-resistant bacterial disease outbreaks. The author supports this conclusion by claiming that the profitability of new antibiotics makes drug companies more likely to stop manufacturing older antibiotics like penicillin. In turn, doctors will have to prescribe newer antibiotics. There’s also a missing premise, which we need to fill in to strengthen.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that more widespread use of new antibiotics which target more types of bacteria has more potential to lead to antibiotic resistance compared to penicillin use.
A
drug-resistant bacteria flourish in the absence of competition from a wide variety of other bacteria
This strengthens by providing a mechanism by which the increased prescription of new antibiotics could cause drug-resistant bacterial disease outbreaks, by reducing the competition for drug-resistant bacteria due to killing a wider variety of other bacteria.
B
older antibiotics like penicillin have been widely used for many decades
This is irrelevant. The argument only claims that newer antibiotics will displace the older penicillin, regardless of how long penicillin has been in use. This also doesn’t tell us anything about how penicillin has affected antibiotic resistance so far.
C
a shortage of penicillin would drive up its price and profit margin
If anything, this weakens the argument by rebutting the author’s claim that drug manufacturers would only sell newer antibiotics—after all, if penicillin became more profitable, they’d probably put it back on the market. Either way, this doesn’t explain the antibiotic resistance.
D
treatment of diseases with the powerful new antibiotics is much more expensive than treatment with the older ones
This is irrelevant, because the penicillin shortage predicted by the author is a result of what products drug manufacturers choose to sell, not the cost of treatment down the line.
E
most bacteria that are resistant to penicillin are not resistant to ampicillin and other modern antibiotics
This weakens the argument, because it demonstrates how new antibiotics could actually reduce antibiotic resistance, by killing bacteria that resist penicillin. It certainly doesn’t strengthen the conclusion that new antibiotics would lead to more resistance.
Pedro: Accepting a donation does not oblige the university to give the donor any special privileges. If it did, then it wouldn’t really be a charitable contribution. We should award the contract to whatever company makes the most competitive bid.
Speaker 1 Summary
Nick claims that the university should not grant a contract to the competitor of the Pincus family. This is because the Pincuses are long-time supporters of the university, which supports the sub-conclusion that awarding the contract to their competitor would be disloyal to one of the university’s friends. Nick is also assuming that the university should not be disloyal to its friends.
Speaker 2 Summary
Pedro states that the contract should go to whichever company makes the best bid. Why not consider the Pincuses’ donation history? Because for a donation to be charitable, it can’t come with special privileges—so, the past donations do not warrant special consideration.
Objective
We need to find a disagreement between Nick and Pedro. Their disagreement is about whether the university should consider the Pincus family’s past support when awarding contracts.
A
loyalty should sometimes be a consideration in making business decisions
Nick agrees with this, but Pedro doesn’t necessarily disagree. Pedro clearly thinks that loyalty shouldn’t be a consideration in this particular decision, but he may still think it should be considered in other business decisions.
B
the Pincus family and their construction company donated money for the purpose of acquiring special privileges from the university
Neither speaker makes this claim. Neither Nick nor Pedro brings up the Pincus family’s intentions when making donations, so we can’t know if they agree or disagree.
C
the acceptance of donations places a university under a special obligation to the donor
Nick agrees with this, but Pedro disagrees, so this is their disagreement. Nick argues that accepting donations means the university is obligated to be loyal to the donors. Pedro states that donations do not carry any special privileges.
D
the university should be more grateful to donors with a long history of financial support than to new donors
Neither Nick or Pedro states an opinion about this. The speakers are only talking about one particular long-time donor; they never make a comparison with more recent donors.
E
the Pincus family’s construction company did not make the most competitive bid
Neither speaker actually expresses a position on this point. First, Nick doesn’t talk about competition at all. Second, Pedro talks about competition but doesn’t make a claim about which bid was most competitive or whether the university chose right.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if more of Earth’s surface area is covered with snow and ice, the global atmosphere will probably become cooler. This is supported by the observations that snow and ice reflect more sunlight into space than ocean or land, and the atmosphere becomes cooler when more sunlight is reflected into space.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that increased snow and ice coverage on Earth will not have other effects that counteract the cooling caused by greater sunlight reflection.
A
Low atmospheric temperatures are required for the formation of clouds that result in snow.
This is irrelevant. The author is only concerned with the effect that more snow and ice cover on Earth would have on the global atmosphere; it doesn’t matter where that snow comes from.
B
Other factors besides the reflectivity of ice and snow affect the cooling of Earth’s atmosphere.
Without more information about these factors, we don’t know whether and how they would affect the global atmospheric temperature if there was more snow and ice coverage, so this is irrelevant.
C
Ocean water and land heated by sunlight in turn warm Earth’s atmosphere.
This strengthens by providing an additional mechanism by which higher snow and ice cover on Earth would cool down the global atmosphere—that is, by reducing the area of atmosphere-warming ocean water and land.
D
The atmosphere derives most of its heat from the passage of sunlight through it.
This is irrelevant, since it doesn’t provide any additional information about the effect of snow and ice on the global atmospheric temperature.
E
Lighter-colored soil reflects more sunlight back into space than does darker-colored soil.
The argument only relies on the claim that snow and ice reflect more sunlight than land of any kind does, so comparing the reflectiveness of different types of land doesn’t make much difference—it’s just irrelevant.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the humanoid skeletons are a distinct species of human that developed from environmental pressures, rather than humans with growth disorders. As evidence, she cites a generalization about growth disorders and other species on the island that also evolved into smaller versions.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion offers an alternate explanation about the skeletons found on an Indonesian island: “It is more likely that they represent a distinct human species that became smaller over time due to environmental pressure.”
A
Some scientists believe that the humanoid skeletons are the remains of human beings with a growth disorder.
This is the position that the author is arguing against rather than their own conclusion.
B
It is more likely that the humanoid skeletons represent a distinct human species than that they are the remains of human beings with a growth disorder.
The author argues for this view using two pieces of evidence. Rather than humans with growth disorders, she posits that the humanoid skeletons represent a distinct species.
C
The humanoid skeletons do not fit the pattern of known growth disorders.
This is evidence for our conclusion. How do we know they’re not just humans with growth disorders, as some scientists believe? For one thing, they don’t align with what we know about growth disorders.
D
Certain fox and mouse species on an Indonesian island have evolved into smaller versions of their common counterparts.
This is evidence for our conclusion. If other species on the island evolved to become smaller, it seems possible humans did, as well.
E
Environmental pressure can cause species living on islands to become smaller over time.
This is a generalization drawn from the evidence about fox and mouse species.