"Surprising" Phenomenon
Judicial decisions are rarely of high literary quality, yet dissenting opinions occasionally are of high literary quality.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains why dissenting opinions are written in a different way than are judicial decisions. High literary quality can lead to misinterpretations, so it makes sense why judicial decisions aren’t written that way. We need to know why dissenters sometimes write opinions of high literary quality despite the chance their words are misinterpreted.
A
It is not uncommon for more than one judge to have an influence on the way a dissenting opinion is written.
Are dissenting opinions influenced by multiple judges more likely to be of high literary quality? Who knows. This doesn’t tell us.
B
Unlike literary works, legal opinions rely heavily on the use of technical terminology.
This doesn’t resolve the discrepancy between judicial decisions and dissenting opinions. We need to know why the latter are sometimes of high literary quality.
C
The law is not to any great extent determined by dissenting opinions.
Since the law isn’t determined by dissenting opinions, authors of such opinions aren’t concerned about misinterpretation. They’re free to write however they like, which sometimes leads to high literary quality.
D
Judges spend much more time reading judicial decisions than reading works of high literary quality.
This doesn’t explain why dissenting opinions are sometimes of high literary quality. We don’t care what the judges usually read.
E
Judicial decisions issued by panels of judges are likely to be more widely read than are judicial decisions issued by a single judge who hears a case alone.
We’re interested in why dissenting opinions are sometimes of high literary quality. How widely-read judicial decisions are doesn’t clear anything up, since we don’t know the affect that being widely-read has on a judicial decision.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the number of early Byzantine documents sealed using a lead seal must have been much more than 40,000. This is based on the fact that there are about 40,000 lead seals remaining today. In addition, most seals had served their purpose when the document was opened. And, once a seal had served its purpose, it would have been recast.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that many documents that were sealed by a lead seal were actually opened. (This overlooks the possibility that the 40,000 lead seals remaining happened to be fixed to the only documents that were written during early Byzantine times and those documents happened to never be opened.)
A
Most of the lead seals produced during the early Byzantine Empire were affixed to documents that were then opened during that period.
This confirms that a large portion of lead seals were on documents that were opened. This would lead to those lead seals being recast, which would suggest the remaining lead seals that were not recast are only a small proportion of the overall lead seals that were created.
B
Most of the lead seals produced during the early Byzantine Empire were affixed to documents that have since been destroyed.
We care about whether the documents were opened, because that would lead to seals being recast. Whether the documents were destroyed doesn’t tell us whether the documents were opened.
C
The amount of lead available for seals in the early Byzantine Empire was much greater than the amount of lead that remains in the seals today.
This tells us there was a lot of lead available for seals in the early Byzantine Empire compared to the lead remaining today. But were many more seals than what remain today actually created during the early Byzantine Empire? (C) doesn’t suggest many more seals were created.
D
During the time of the early Byzantine Empire there were at most 40,000 documents of enough importance to prevent the removing and recycling of the seal.
Placing a limit on the number of documents that would have prevented recycling of the seal doesn’t support the author’s conclusion. In fact, if it were possible for 1 million documents that had seals that wouldn’t have been recycled, that would support the author’s conclusion.
E
During the time of the early Byzantine Empire there were fewer than 40,000 seals affixed to documents at any given time.
The number of seals that were used simultaneously has no clear impact. The issue is the total number of documents that were sealed during the early Byzantine period; whether they were sealed at a given point in time isn’t relevant.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
Using insecticides over a long period is more harmful to farmers than helpful. As farmers use insecticides, insects gradually develop resistance, so farmers have to use larger and more costly amounts to keep controlling pests, making the practice less productive in the long run.
Identify Argument Part
The stimulus text refers to an intermediary conclusion, also called a “subsidiary conclusion” or “major premise.” The claim that “insects' resistance to insecticides increases with insecticide use," supports the stimulus text because it explains why farmers must use larger amounts of insecticides to control pests. The stimulus text supports the main conclusion by showing why it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides in the long run—because, over time, farmers need more expensive insecticides to achieve the same results.
A
It is the argument’s main conclusion, but not its only conclusion.
The stimulus text is not the argument’s main conclusion. It is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion: “In the long run, it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides,” by explaining why long-term pesticide use is not productive.
B
It is a claim for which a causal explanation is provided and which itself is used as direct support for the argument’s only conclusion.
This labels the stimulus text as a sub-conclusion. The claim “insects’ resistance to insecticides increases with insecticide use” is a causal explanation (cause: insecticide; effect: greater resistance), supporting the stimulus text, which—in turn—supports the main conclusion.
C
It is the argument’s only conclusion.
The stimulus text is not the argument’s only conclusion. It is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion: “In the long run, it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides,” by explaining why long-term pesticide use is unproductive.
D
It is a claim that is used as direct support for an intermediary conclusion, which in turn is used as direct support for the argument’s main conclusion.
The stimulus text doesn’t support an intermediary conclusion. It supports the main conclusion that “in the long run, it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides,” by explaining why long-term pesticide use is unproductive.
E
It identifies a phenomenon for which the argument’s main conclusion offers a causal explanation.
This incorrectly labels the stimulus text as context. The main conclusion does not explain the stimulus text. Instead, the stimulus text explains the main conclusion by showing why long-term pesticide use is unproductive.