Summary
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) allow developers to use land inhabited by endangered species in exchange for preserving some habitat or replacement land nearby. Some members of endangered species are lost, but the developer ensures that the remaining animals will be protected. Environmentalists like that HCPs secure compromise from developers. Developers prefer HCPs over more restrictive prohibitions.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Environmental laws should reflect a compromise between land developers and environmentalists.
A
In order to avoid protracted legal battles environmentalists should compromise with developers.
We don’t know whether the environmentalists or land developers would initiate legal battles with each other.
B
Developers should adhere only to those environmental laws that are not overburdensome.
We don’t know if developers should only adhere to laws that are not overburdensome. The environmentalists may prefer that land developers adhere to any and all environmental laws.
C
Laws should not be designed to serve the interests of all the parties concerned since they are often so weak that no one’s interest is served well.
As the stimulus describes, HCPs do serve the interests of all concerned parties. Environmentalists are served by securing compromise from developers, and developers are served because the prefer HCPs over more restrictive laws.
D
Laws should be fashioned in such a way as to reconcile the interests of developers and environmentalists.
HCPs do serve as a compromise between developers and environmentalists.
E
The most effective means of preserving endangered species is to refrain from alienating property owners.
We don’t know what the most effective means of protecting endangered species is. HCPs are just one way we are told could help this purpose.
Summary
Toddlers may bite without acting maliciously. Children may bite when they want a toy because the children feel the person with the toy is preventing them from having it.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Toddlers who bite people to take a toy may not be acting maliciously. Toddlers may use biting as a means to an end.
A
Biting people is sometimes a way for toddlers to try to solve problems.
This answer is strongly supported because the stimulus gives us an example of this playing out. Toddlers have the problem of wanting a toy, and they use biting as a way of acquiring the toy to solve the problem.
B
Toddlers sometimes engage in biting people in order to get attention from adults.
This is unsupported because we only know that toddlers biting may be trying to get a toy. We don’t know that they are trying to attract attention, and we also don’t know that they are trying to get attention specifically from adults.
C
Toddlers mistakenly believe that biting people is viewed as acceptable behavior by adults.
This is unsupported because the stimulus provides us no information on adults’ attitudes toward biting. It also gives us no information on how toddlers predict adults will view biting.
D
Toddlers do not recognize that by biting people they often thwart their own ends.
This is unsupported because the stimulus fails to tell us whether or not toddlers are successful in biting to acquire toys.
E
Resorting to biting people is in some cases an effective way for toddlers to get what they want.
This is unsupported because the stimulus avoids telling us the outcome of biting. We don’t know whether or not biting successfully leads to getting the toys toddlers want.
A
When an anticounterfeiting technique depends on the detection of counterfeits by experts, the cost of inspection by experts adds significantly to the cost to society of that technique.
While the microprinting technique is cheaper when creating bills, it requires expert inspection. Expert inspection is costly, so microprinting might not in fact be cheaper overall. This strengthens the case for the special ink technique.
B
For any anticounterfeiting technique to be effective, the existence of anticounterfeiting techniques should be widely broadcast, but the method by which counterfeits are detected should be kept secret.
This applies to both techniques in question. We need to strengthen the case for special ink.
C
The process of microprinting paper currency involves fewer steps than does the printing of paper currency with the special ink.
This probably reinforces the notion that microprinting is cheaper. We’re looking to strengthen the case for special ink.
D
Before photocopying technology existed, most counterfeits of paper currency were accomplished by master engravers.
We don’t care about what happened before photocopying. We’re interested in microprinting and special ink.
E
Many criminals do not have access to the advanced photocopiers that are needed to produce counterfeits of microprinted paper currency that cashiers will accept as real.
This strengthens the case for microprinting. We’re trying to strengthen the case for special ink.