Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Lopez and Simmons were foolish to reveal their marriage to Evritech. This is because one of them will lose their job offer due to the reveal, and they could’ve simply kept their marriage a secret until after they were hired.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes either that it wouldn’t have been wrong, in a moral or professional sense, for Lopez and Simmons to have hidden their marriage and lied about getting married after being hired, or that the problematic aspects of lying are outweighed by the fact Lopez and Simmons would’ve both been hired. The author also assumes that because Evritech doesn’t have a policy of terminating one of two employees who marry each other, Evritech doesn’t have a policy of terminating both employees.
A
Corporations that have rules against hiring more than one member of the same family should also prohibit their employees from marrying one another.
We have no idea what corporations should do. We care about what Lopez and Simmons should’ve done.
B
Corporations should adopt a policy of refusing to hire more than one member of the same family if that policy promotes overall fairness in its hiring practices.
Like (A), we’re not interested in what corporations should do. We care about what Lopez and Simmons should’ve done.
C
Job applicants are no more entitled to withhold information that is requested on application forms than they are entitled to lie on such application forms.
We have no idea how entitled Lopez and Simmons were to withhold information or lie. We have no idea if such information was ever requested.
D
Job candidates should refuse to accept positions in corporations whose personnel policies they cannot adhere to.
The author says Simmons and Lopez should’ve taken the positions.
E
Job candidates have no obligation to reveal to a prospective employer personal information such as marital status, regardless of the employer’s policies.
Simmons and Lopez weren’t wrong to withhold their marital status. This strengthens the author’s claim that Simmons and Lopez should’ve withheld their marital status by removing one possible problem of doing so.
Summary
English literature reflects the rich and diverse vocabulary of the English language. This richness and diverse vocabulary were caused by influences from the Anglo-Saxon and French languages. The French language is a direct descendant of Latin, and was not influenced by the Celtic language.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The nature of English literature was influenced by the Anglo-Saxon and French languages.
A
The origin of English played a role in shaping English literature.
The nature of English literature was caused by the English language being influenced by the Anglo-Saxon and French languages.
B
The vocabulary of the Anglo-Saxon language was richer than that of the French language.
We don’t know how the richness of the Anglo-Saxon language compares to the French language. We only know that these two languages influenced the richness and diverse vocabulary of the English language.
C
The vocabulary of English is larger than the vocabulary of French.
We don’t know how the size of vocabulary compares between the French and English languages. We only know that the English language has a diverse vocabulary, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the French language does not.
D
Simple and clear literature cannot be written in a language with a rich and diverse vocabulary.
We don’t know if it is impossible to write simple and clear literature with a language that has a rich and diverse vocabulary. We know that French literature is simple and clear, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that English literature is not.
E
English literature and French literature have had little influence on one another.
We don’t in what way, if any, English and French literature are connected. We only know that the French language, in part with the Anglo-Saxon language, influenced the English language.
Summary
The difference between manners and morals is that manners are necessarily social in natural whereas morals are not necessarily social in nature. Therefore, the rules of etiquette do not apply when someone is alone.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If a situation involves etiquette, then that situation involves manners.
If a situation is social, then a person in that situation cannot be alone.
There are some situations involving morality that are not social in nature.
If a situation is social, then a person in that situation cannot be alone.
There are some situations involving morality that are not social in nature.
A
One could be immoral without ever having caused any other person any harm.
This answer is strongly supported. If morals do not necessarily require any social situation, then there are some situations of morality that are not social in nature. Therefore, someone could act immorally and not affect another person.
B
No immoral act could be a violation of the rules of etiquette.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus never provided a connection between morality and manners. There could be some situations that involve both morality and manners.
C
The rules of morality apply only when one is alone.
This answer is unsupported. We know from the stimulus that morals are not necessarily social in nature. This does not mean that there are no situations involving morals that are social. It only means that social connections are not required for morals.
D
It is more important to be moral than to have good manners.
This answer is unsupported. The author never makes a value judgement about whether morals or manners are more important.
E
What is social in nature could not be a matter of morality.
This answer is unsupported. We know from the stimulus that morals are not necessarily social in nature. This does not mean that there are no social situations that involve morals. It only means that social connections are not required for morals.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
People in charge of a tourist attraction hypothesize that visitors illegally sold or shared passes to the attraction in the past year. This is because hotel and restaurant revenues increased more than did revenue from the attraction itself.
Notable Assumptions
The people in charge of the tourist attraction assume that the only reason anyone would use the nearby hotels and restaurants is to go to the tourist attraction. In other words, these people believe that there should be a 1:1 correlation in how rapidly revenue rises for the tourist attraction, and how rapidly revenue rises for nearby restaurants and hotels.
A
During the past year other tourist attractions have opened up in the area.
If other tourist attractions opened up in the area, then they’re probably attracting visitors who don’t also visit the tourist attraction in question. This weakens the 1:1 correlation the people talking in the stimulus seem to think must exist.
B
Those possessing passes made more frequent trips to the attraction last year than in previous years.
Revenue for passes didn’t increase at the same rate as hotels and restaurants since people holding passes visited more frequently. They spent money on hotels and restaurants each trip, but not on a tourist attraction pass.
C
While the cost of passes is unchanged since last year, hotel and meal prices have risen.
Hotels and restaurants charge more than they did the year before, while the tourist attraction costs the same. Thus, all things being equal, revenue for the former increased more rapidly than the latter.
D
The local board of tourism reports that the average length of stay for tourists remained unchanged over the past year.
This doesn’t explain why hotel and restaurant revenue would’ve risen more rapidly than tourist attraction revenue. It simply states that one possibly important factor has in fact stayed the same.
E
Each pass contains a photograph of the holder, and during the past year these photographs have usually been checked.
This suggests that selling or sharing the passes wouldn’t work. There must be some other reason why tourist attraction revenue hasn’t risen as rapidly as hotel and restaurant revenue.
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!