It’s important to note that the author is not assuming that night-lights actually cause nearsightedness. The author’s conclusion is just that if night-lights cause nearsightedness, then the effect disappears with age.
A
A fourth study comparing infants who were currently sleeping with night-lights to infants who were not did not find any correlation between night-lights and nearsightedness.
B
On average, young children who are already very nearsighted are no more likely to sleep with night-lights than young children who are not already nearsighted.
C
In a study involving children who had not slept with night-lights as infants but had slept with night-lights when they were older, most of the children studied were not nearsighted.
D
The two studies in which no correlation was found did not examine enough children to provide significant support for any conclusion regarding a causal relationship between night-lights and nearsightedness.
E
In a fourth study involving 100 children who were older than those in any of the first three studies, several of the children who had slept with night-lights as infants were nearsighted.
Public health experts have waged a long-standing educational campaign to get people to eat more vegetables, which are known to help prevent cancer. Unfortunately, the campaign has had little impact on people’s diets. The reason is probably that many people simply dislike the taste of most vegetables. Thus, the campaign would probably be more effective if it included information on ways to make vegetables more appetizing.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the campaign to increase vegetable intake would have been more successful if it discussed how to make vegetables taste better. This is based on the phenomenon that the campaign was ineffective, which led the author to the sub-conclusion that its ineffectiveness was because people don’t like how vegetables taste.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes causation from correlation. Specifically, the author assumes that there isn’t another reason why the campaign was ineffective—maybe it was underfunded or poorly planned, and its ineffectiveness was not because people don’t like the taste of vegetables.
A
The campaign to get people to eat more vegetables has had little impact on the diets of most people who love the taste of vegetables.
This does not affect the argument. We already know that the campaign had little impact on all people’s diets, including those who like vegetables. The author argues that it would be more successful if it targeted those who don’t like the taste of vegetables effectively.
B
Some ways of making vegetables more appetizing diminish vegetables’ ability to help prevent cancer.
This does not affect the argument. The campaign could just advertise the ways of making vegetables more appetizing that do not diminish their ability to help prevent cancer. “Some” could just mean that one method of preparation diminishes vegetables’ cancer-preventing abilities.
C
People who find a few vegetables appetizing typically do not eat substantially more vegetables than do people who dislike the taste of most vegetables.
This does not affect the argument. There is no reason to suggest that liking a few vegetables would make you eat substantially more vegetables than someone who doesn’t like most vegetables.
D
People who dislike the taste of most vegetables would eat many more vegetables if they knew how to make them more appetizing.
This strengthens the argument. It provides evidence to believe that including information on how to make vegetables appetizing in the campaign would increase its effectiveness, as people would eat many more vegetables.
E
The only way to make the campaign to get people to eat more vegetables more effective would be to ensure that anyone who at present dislikes the taste of certain vegetables learns to find those vegetables appetizing.
This weakens the argument by offering a very specific circumstance under which the campaign’s effectiveness would increase. The author doesn’t argue that vegetables must be appetizing, only that they should be made more appetizing (e.g., from horrible tasting to a little bad).
A
It expresses the conclusion of the argument.
B
It explains what is meant by the expression “pure research” in the context of the argument.
C
It distracts attention from the point at issue by introducing a different but related goal.
D
It supports the conclusion by ruling out an alternative way of achieving the benefits mentioned.
E
It illustrates a case where unfortunate consequences result from a failure to accept the recommendation offered.