Summarize Argument
The businessperson concludes that she would’ve been on time for her meeting if parking area maintenance had been done on a different day. This is because it took her 15 minutes to find parking since the parking area was closed for maintenance, hence why she arrived late.
Notable Assumptions
The businessperson assumes that she would’ve been on time if the parking area hadn’t had maintenance going on. This means she assumes that she would’ve been able to find parking in the parking area if it had been open.
A
What were the reasons for performing maintenance on the parking area directly in front of the building on that particular day?
We don’t care why maintenance was being performed. We care if the maintenance actually made the businessperson late for her meeting.
B
Were any other of the meeting attendees also late to the meeting because they had difficulty finding parking?
We don’t know if other meeting attendees drove to the meeting. Even if none of the others were late because of parking, it could just be that those people took the bus or walked to work.
C
What are the parking patterns in the building’s vicinity on days when the parking area in front of the building is open?
If the parking area is generally crowded, perhaps to the point of being full, then maintenance wasn’t the problem as the businessperson claims—she wouldn’t have found parking, anyway. If the parking area is generally empty, she would’ve found parking.
D
Does the businessperson have a tendency to be late to meetings?
We don’t care if she’s often late to meetings. It could still be she would’ve been on time if not for the maintenance.
E
Was it particularly important that the businessperson not be late to this meeting?
Irrelevant. How important this meeting was has no bearing on why the businessperson was late.
Riverdale’s Modern Party Chairperson: Maples, the Modern Party candidate, would be a better mayor than his opponent, Tannett, who is a member of the Traditionalist Party. Every member of the Modern Party is better qualified to be mayor than is any member of the Traditionalist Party.
Summary
Maples, the Modern Party candidate, would be a better mayor than Tannett, his opponent and member of the Traditionalist Party. Every Modern Party member is better qualified to be mayor than any Traditionalist Party member.
Notable Valid Inferences
For MBT-Except questions, the wrong answers are all Could Be True. The one right answer Must Be False.
Tannett is better qualified to be mayor than any other member of the Traditionalist Party.
Maples is the least qualified Modern Party member for mayor.
A
Maples has the least seniority of any member of Riverdale’s Modern Party and was recently ousted from the Traditionalist Party.
Could be true. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about Maples’ seniority status.
B
Tannett would be a better mayor than would any other member of Riverdale’s Traditionalist Party.
Could be true. It is possible that Tannett is the best member of the Traditionalist Party, but not better than any Modern Party member.
C
Few residents of Riverdale believe that Maples would be a better mayor than Tannett.
Could be true. The stimulus does not provide any information about what residents of Riverdale believe. We cannot assume that Riverdale’s Modern Party Chairperson’s beliefs are representative of the residents.
D
Of all the members of Riverdale’s Modern Party, Maples would be the worst mayor.
Could be true. The stimulus tells use that every Modern Party member is more qualified than any Traditionalist Party member. It is possible that Maples is the worst in the Modern Party, but still better than any Traditionalist Party member.
E
Tannett is better qualified to be mayor than is Riverdale’s Modern Party Chairperson.
Must be false. The stimulus tells us that every Modern Party member, not just candidate, is better qualified than any Traditionalist Party member.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The journalist concludes that limiting the intake of iron-rich foods should reduce one’s chances of develop Parkinson’s disease. This is based on an observed correlation: that people with high dietary iron intake are more likely to develop Parkinson’s than people with low iron intake. For the author, this leads to the implied hypothesis that iron intake contributes to Parkinson’s.
Notable Assumptions
The journalist assumes that iron intake causes Parkinson’s, rather than both higher iron intake and higher likelihood of contracting Parkinson’s disease having a shared cause.
A
Most people who have a genetic predisposition to Parkinson’s disease have no more iron in their diets than people without the predisposition.
This strengthens by ruling out one alternate explanation for the correlation between high iron intake and Parkinson’s disease, i.e. that people genetically predisposed to Parkinson’s disease happen to also consume more iron.
B
Many of the vegetables regularly consumed by vegetarians who do not contract Parkinson’s disease are as rich in iron as meat and seafood.
This is irrelevant, since the author does not compare iron contents in different types of food. Meat and seafood are just possible examples of iron-rich foods.
C
Children and adolescents require a much larger amount of iron in their diets than do mature adults.
This is irrelevant, because the author does not make any claims about age, or even about the amount of iron required in peoples’ diets. The author just compares iron intake for people who do and don’t develop Parkinson’s, and this doesn’t affect that correlation.
D
The iron in some foods is much less easily absorbed by the body than the iron contained in other foods.
How easily iron is absorbed from different food sources is irrelevant to the author’s hypothesis that iron intake causes Parkinson’s, and that a general reduction of iron intake from food should thus lower the risk of Parkinson’s disease.
E
The amounts of iron-rich foods consumed by people starts to decline beginning at age 50.
The author doesn’t make any claims about the ages at which people tend to consume iron, so this is irrelevant. The correlation between iron intake and Parkinson’s isn’t affected by age-based trends in iron intake.
Summarize Argument
The jurist tells us that one of the goals of criminal punishment should be to ensure that criminal wrongdoing doesn’t yield a profit. In support, the jurist explains the general rule that it’s important not to allow lawbreakers to get an unfair advantage over people who follow the law. In other words, breaking the law shouldn’t be profitable. This, then, supports the conclusion that criminal punishment should aim to prevent crime from being profitable.
Identify Argument Part
The claim about the importance of guaranteeing that lawbreakers don’t get an unfair advantage is the premise offered to support the conclusion that criminal punishment should seek to keep criminal acts profitless.
A
It states a condition that, if fulfilled, will ensure that a legal system remains just.
The jurist suggests that avoiding an unfair advantage to lawbreakers is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for a just system. The argument actually doesn’t include any condition that would guarantee a just legal system.
B
It expresses a principle that is offered as support for the conclusion.
This is a good description of the role played by the claim about the importance of preventing crime from being unfairly advantageous. It’s a general principle that acts as a premise supporting the conclusion about a goal of criminal punishment.
C
It is a conclusion for which the only support offered is the claim that the legal system serves multiple goals.
Firstly, the claim about lawbreakers not getting an unfair advantage isn’t a conclusion: nothing else supports it. Secondly, the jurist never specifically claims that the legal system serves multiple goals.
D
It is a premise presented as support for the claim that the most important goal of criminal punishment is to ensure that criminal wrongdoing remains profitless.
The jurist doesn’t claim that preventing crime from being profitable is the most important goal of criminal punishment, just that it should be a goal. There’s nothing in the argument comparing goals and saying which is most important.
E
It is presented as refuting an argument that criminal punishment has goals other than guaranteeing that lawbreaking remains profitless.
This argument isn’t about refuting someone else’s point, it’s just about establishing one specific goal. Also, the jurist never claims that guaranteeing that lawbreaking remains profitless is the only goal of criminal punishment.