Shareholder: The company’s current operations are time-proven successes. The move into food services may siphon off funds needed by these other operations. Also, the food service industry is volatile, with a higher inherent risk than with, for instance, pharmaceuticals, another area into which the company has considered expanding.
Summary
Current operations are successful. Moving into food services may take away funds needed by other operations. Moreover, the food service industry is volatile and has a higher risk than pharmaceuticals. The company has considered expanding into pharmaceuticals.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Moving into food services would be a greater risk for the company compared to moving into pharmaceuticals.
A
The company’s present operations require increased funding.
This answer is unsupported. The shareholder tells us that current operations are a success.
B
Investment into pharmaceuticals would not siphon off money from other operations.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether pharmaceuticals would not require funds to be taken from other operations. We know that expansion into food services would, but this does not imply that pharmaceuticals would not.
C
The company will lose money as it expands into the food service industry.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the company would for a fact lose money. We only know that this move is risker than a move into pharmaceuticals.
D
Only if the company expands its operations into pharmaceuticals are increased profits possible.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether expansion into pharmaceuticals is a necessary condition for the company to increase their profits.
E
The company has a greater chance of losing money in food services than in pharmaceuticals.
This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that food service is volatile and risker than moving into pharmaceuticals. Therefore, since it is a risker expansion, food service represents a greater chance of losing money.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The gardener claims that researchers’ advice to allow certain caterpillar repelling weeds to grow with garden vegetables is premature. It is possible that growing those weeds has downsides that are unknown - like increasing the presence of other pests or depleting the soil - and could damage the garden crops.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the gardener’s claim about the cited advice: “the researchers' advice is premature.”
A
To the extent that it is possible to do so, we should eliminate the use of insecticides in gardening.
This inaccurately rephrases a concession point in the author’s argument. The author agrees that unnecessary insecticide use should be avoided, but doesn’t go as far as to say use should be eliminated.
B
Allowing certain kinds of weeds to grow in vegetable gardens may contribute to a net increase in unwanted garden pests.
This is a possibility the gardener addresses in the premises to show that the advice is premature because it may have big drawbacks.
C
Allowing the right kinds of weeds to grow in vegetable gardens can help toward controlling caterpillars without the use of insecticides.
This is the researchers’ reasoning in the context for why they recommend growing certain weeds. The gardener brings up other considerations against that recommendation.
D
We should be cautious about the practice of allowing certain kinds of weeds to grow among garden vegetables.
This answer choice accurately rephrases the gardener’s conclusion. The researcher’s advice (growing certain weeds among garden vegetables) is premature (we should be cautious about it).
E
We should be skeptical about the extent to which certain kinds of weeds can reduce the presence of caterpillars in gardens.
The gardener does not refute the researchers’ claim that the weeds reduce caterpillars. She claims that although there may be that benefit, the advice is premature because it may have other downsides.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Coyotes were removed from an island on the grounds they were decimating the plover population, but the plover population fell and eventually disappeared after the coyotes were removed.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains why removing the coyotes actually hurt the plover population. Since the coyotes preyed on wild cats, as well, the answer may point to a proliferation of other plover predators on the island.
A
Plover are ground-nesting birds, which makes them easy prey for coyotes.
This doesn’t explain why removing the coyotes harmed the plover population. If anything, this suggests removing the coyotes would’ve helped the plover.
B
Wild cat and plover populations tend to fluctuate together.
We don’t know what happened to the wild cat population once the coyotes were removed. Since the coyotes preyed on wild cats, it seems likely their population would’ve risen. The plover population would’ve thus risen as well, which it didn’t.
C
Coyotes are not susceptible to any of the diseases that commonly infect plover or wild cats.
The coyotes are gone. We need to know why their absence negatively affected the plover.
D
The wild cat population on the island was once significantly larger than it is currently.
We don’t know what a shrinking wild cat population would do for the plover. This doesn’t give us enough information.
E
The coyotes preyed mainly on wild cats, and wild cats prey on plover.
Once the coyotes were gone, wild cats ran rampant on the island and ate all the plover. This explains why removing the coyotes harmed the plover population.
Summarize Argument
The economist concludes that companies are likely to lay off employees during recessions. This is because layoffs affect morale less than wage reductions.
Notable Assumptions
The economist believes that companies will undertake the action that affects morale the least in a recession. This means the economist assumes other considerations simply aren’t as important to companies, including financial considerations—the economist never claims that layoffs and wage reductions are equally cost-efficient.
A
Employee morale is usually the primary concern driving companies’ decisions about whether to lay off employees or to reduce their wages.
Companies indeed do decide mainly based on morale. This strengthens the economist’s argument that companies will go with the option that’s best for morale.
B
In general, companies increase wages only when they are unable to find enough qualified employees.
Wage increases aren’t on the table here.
C
Some companies will be unable to make a profit during recessions no matter how much they reduce personnel costs.
We don’t care whether they’ll make a profit. We’re interested in how they’ll reduce costs.
D
When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign.
We have no idea if this would be a good thing or a bad thing for a company. Thus, this could be a strengthener or a weakener. We don’t want to assume which one it is.
E
Some companies that have laid off employees during recessions have had difficulty finding enough qualified employees once economic growth resumed.
This seems to weaken the economist’s argument. We’re trying to do the opposite.
Summary
According to the stimulus, sunlight contains both UV-A and UV-B radiation. UV-A causes wrinkles, and UV-B causes sunburn. Until about 10 years ago, sunscreen blocked UV-B, but did not block UV-A.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
These facts support the inference that before 10 years ago, sunscreen did protect against sunburn, but it did not protect against wrinkles.
A
Since about ten years ago, the percentage of people who wear sunscreen every time they spend time in the sun has increased.
This is not supported. The stimulus never mentions the percentage of people who wear sunscreen, so we can’t know if it has increased or not.
B
Most people whose skin is prematurely wrinkled have spent a large amount of time in the sun without wearing sunscreen.
This is not supported. The stimulus tells us that sun exposure is one cause of premature wrinkles, but we don’t know if it’s the predominant cause. Also, until at least 10 years ago, sunscreen didn’t even make a difference to wrinkling.
C
The specific cause of premature skin wrinkling was not known until about ten years ago.
This is not supported. Just because sunscreen didn’t protect against UV-A radiation until 10 years ago, that doesn’t mean the connection between UV-A and wrinkles was unknown. Maybe it just took a long time to develop effective UV-A blocking sunscreen.
D
People who wear sunscreen now are less likely to become sunburned than were people who spent the same amount of time in the sun wearing sunscreen ten years ago.
This is not supported. Based on the stimulus, sunscreen 10 years ago did protect against the UV-B rays that cause sunburn, so there’s no reason to believe that modern sunscreen provides more protection against sunburn.
E
Until about ten years ago, people who wore sunscreen were no less likely to have premature wrinkles than were people who spent the same amount of time in the sun without wearing sunscreen.
This is strongly supported. The stimulus says that before 10 years ago, sunscreen didn’t protect against UV-A rays, which cause wrinkles. That means that wearing sunscreen could not have lowered anyone’s chance of wrinkling prematurely.