Summary
If nations have little interaction with one another, then those nations will have little understanding of each other’s needs and problems. Both sympathy and justice depend on the understanding of other’s needs and problems.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
It follows that nations that have little interaction with one another will likely not treat each other with sympathy and justice.
A
nations that have knowledge of one another’s needs and problems will treat each other with sympathy and justice
We don’t know what results from a nation understanding another nation’s needs and problems. Satisfaction of a necessary condition does not guarantee satisfaction of a sufficient condition.
B
without some interaction, nations are bound to find it difficult to extend sympathy and justice to one another
The stimulus fails the necessary condition of understanding among nations, therefore the sufficient condition of extending sympathy and justice must also fail.
C
almost all problems between nations stem from lack of sympathy and justice
We don’t know what causes any nation’s problems. We only know what results when nations don’t understand one another’s needs and problems.
D
there is no way to eliminate conflict among nations
We don’t know is there’s absolutely no way to eliminate conflict between nations. We don’t even know if these nations are in conflict with one another.
E
only nations that have some interaction with one another have knowledge of one another’s needs and problems
We don’t know whether only nations that interact with one another are also the only nations that understand one another. From the stimulus, we only know what results from nations having little interaction with other nations.
It is not a good idea for farmers to grow genetically engineered crops. Studies that are critical of genetically engineered foods could be published, making the public even more wary of them. This leads to great financial risk, and the price at which the crops sell does not compensate for such risks.
Identify Conclusion
It is not a good idea for farmers to grow genetically engineered crops: “It is unwise for farmers to grow such crops.”
A
A farmer who grows genetically engineered crops on a large scale is taking a financial risk.
This is a sub-conclusion. It is supported by the premise that at any time a study could be published that would reduce consumers’ confidence in genetically engineered foods. The sub-conclusion in turn supports the conclusion that farmers are unwise to grow such crops.
B
It is not prudent for a farmer to grow genetically engineered crops.
This rephrases the conclusion.
C
The price paid for genetically engineered crops does not compensate for the financial risk farmers incur by growing them.
This is a premise: the rewards of growing genetically engineered crops do not outweigh the risks, which supports the conclusion that it is unwise for farmers to grow them.
D
A study could come out at any time that would greatly undermine public confidence in genetically engineered foods.
This is a premise. It supports the sub-conclusion that there is great financial risk associated with growing genetically engineered crops.
E
Consumers have very little confidence in genetically engineered foods.
This is a premise. Consumers having little confidence in genetically engineered foods supports the sub-conclusion that there is great financial risk associated with growing genetically engineered crops.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that some residents switched to phosphate-free detergents. Her evidence is that phosphate pollution from the municipal water plant experienced a major decrease in the past year.
Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the author assumes that the decrease in phosphate pollution from the municipal treatment plant was due to some residents switching to phosphate-free detergents. This means the author believes that such a switch can cause a “major decrease,” and that no other, unaccounted-for factor caused the pollution decrease.
A
Why did many residents continue to use detergents containing phosphates?
We don’t care why people continued using phosphate detergents. We need to evaluate the connection between the decrease in phosphate pollution from the treatment plant and some people switching to phosphate-free detergents.
B
What pollutants, if any, are present in phosphate-free dishwashing detergents?
We don’t care what pollutants are present. We’re simply evaluating the connection between the decrease in phosphate pollution from the treatment plant and some people switching to phosphate-free detergents.
C
Were any changes made in the past year to the way the municipality’s wastewater treatment plant treats phosphates?
If the answer to this is “yes,” then there may be some other factor that caused the drop in phosphate pollution from the local treatment plant besides people switching to phosphate-free detergents. If the answer is “no,” then a viable alternative cause is eliminated.
D
Does most of the phosphate pollution in the municipality’s waterways come from treated wastewater from the municipal treatment plant?
Irrelevant. We’re concerned with pollution from the municipal treatment plant. We don’t care where else phosphate pollution comes from.
E
Did municipal officials try to stop people from bringing detergents containing phosphates into the municipality?
We don’t care what official tried to do. We need to know if the decrease in phosphate pollution from the municipal treatment plant means that people switched to phosphate-free detergents.