Cookie Cutters
73.4.03
68.3.01
64.1.13
57.3.18
55.3.09
39.2.05
25.4.24
Summarize Argument
Pedestrians are more often struck by cars when crossing streets with crosswalks rather than without crosswalks. This is because crosswalks make pedestrians feel safe, which in turn makes them less likely to look both ways before crossing.
Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the author concludes that the effects of crossing in crosswalks—less attention to traffic, feelings of safety— cause pedestrians to be struck by cars more often than when they’re crossing without crosswalks. This means the author doesn’t believe that crosswalks are in inherently more dangerous places (i.e. roads with high traffic and blind spots), or that crosswalks cause drivers to drive more dangerously than they would otherwise. The author also assumes an equal distribution of pedestrians crossing with crosswalks versus without crosswalks.
A
The overwhelming majority of pedestrians in high-traffic areas cross streets in crosswalks.
The author confuses “more likely” with “more often.” Of course pedestrians are “more often” struck when crossing in crosswalks. That’s how the vast majority of pedestrians cross streets in high-traffic areas.
B
The number of pedestrians struck by cars has increased in recent years.
We don’t care about how things have changed over time. We care about why pedestrians are more often struck in crosswalks.
C
Pedestrians tend to underestimate the chances that the signals at a crosswalk will malfunction.
We have no idea how often this happens, or what the safety effects of this are. Perhaps this only causes a negligible uptick in pedestrians being struck by cars.
D
Drivers are generally most alert to pedestrians who are in or near crosswalks.
Given that cars are driving more attentively than usual, suggests pedestrians are being careless as the author claims.
E
Measures intended to promote safety tend to make people less cautious.
Crosswalks are one such measure. This supports the author’s argument.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author rejects the paleobiologists’ belief that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. Since some dinosaurs lived in places where only warm-blooded animals could survive, the author implies that some dinosaurs must have been warm-blooded.
Identify Argument Part
It’s a premise. The author uses the claim that only warm-blooded animals could survive in those areas to prove that the dinosaurs that lived in those areas were not cold-blooded.
A
It is presented as a potential counterexample to the argument’s main conclusion.
The last sentence supports the conclusion, so it can’t be a counter-example to it.
B
It is a premise offered in support of the argument’s main conclusion.
This accurately describes the role of the last sentence. It’s a premise supporting the author’s conclusion.
C
It is presented as counterevidence to the paleobiologists’ assertion that dinosaurs lack turbinates.
The author never suggests that dinosaurs actually have turbinates. The claim that the author counters is the paleobiologists’ claim that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded.
D
It is the argument’s main conclusion.
The main conclusion is the claim that the paleobiologists are wrong. The last sentence supports that conclusion.
E
It is an intermediate conclusion for which the claim that some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska is offered as support.
The claim that some dinosaurs lived in Australia and Alaska isn’t offered to help prove that only warm-blooded animals can live in freezing temperatures.
Summary
Outsiders believe they can provide new solutions in fields they are unfamiliar with, but they are wrong. Creativity without relevant experience is useless. Effective problem-solving requires a deep understanding of the problems, which is gained through experience.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Problem-solving requires experience (or any valid inference along this chain)
Problem solved —> have understanding —> experience in the field.
Problem solved —> have understanding —> experience in the field.
A
The more experience a person has in a field, the more creatively that person can solve problems in the field.
The stimulus does not say that more experience leads to more creativity. It only argues that creativity without experience is useless.
B
Those people who are experienced in a field rarely overlook creative solutions.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus argues that only experienced individuals can provide creative solutions, not that they always possess creative solutions.
C
Creative solutions in a field always come from people with experience in that field.
The stimulus explains that creativity without experience is useless, and problems can be solved only by people who understand them. Thus, creative solutions must come from people with experience.
D
The experience required for effective problem-solving in a field does not vary depending on the field’s complexity.
The stimulus does not mention whether experience differs based on the field’s complexity. You must make a number of assumptions to make this work.
E
Outsiders should be properly trained in a field before being given responsibility in that field.
The stimulus does not say anything about when to give outsiders responsibility. The stimulus is purely focused on the requirements to come up with creative solutions.