Frederick: Art museums ought to devote their limited resources to acquiring the works of recognized masters in order to ensure the preservation of the greatest artworks.
Speaker 1 Summary
Elaine concludes that museums should try to get and display the best examples of artworks from each art period and genre, even if some pieces are not considered masterpieces. This is because the purpose of art museums is to preserve artworks and make them available to the public.
Speaker 2 Summary
Fred says art museums should use their resources only to get works of those recognized to be masters. This is because the purpose of art museums is to preserve the greatest artworks.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether the purpose of art museums involves collecting more than just the greatest artworks and about whether art museums should try to collect more than just the artworks of recognized masters.
A
many artistic masterpieces are not recognized as such by art experts
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Elaine says that some works might not be recognized as masterpieces, but that doesn’t imply she thinks those works are or should be masterpieces. Fred doesn’t speak about works recognized as masterpieces, only artists recognized as masters.
B
museums should seek to represent all genres of art in their collections
This is a point of disagreement. Elaine thinks museums should collect art of all genres. Fred thinks museums should only try to collect the greatest artworks. He doesn’t put any weight on the collection of different genres.
C
art museums should seek to preserve works of art
Both speakers agree. Elaine thinks the purpose of art museums is to preserve artworks. Fred thinks the purpose is to preserve the greatest artworks.
D
an art museum ought to acquire an unusual example of a period or genre if more characteristic examples are prohibitively expensive
Elaine expresses no opinion. She says to acquire the best examples from a period or genre, but she doesn’t comment on the cost of an artwork and whether that should influence the choice of example. Fred has no opinion on the choice between unusual vs. best example.
E
all of the artworks that experts identify as masterpieces are actually masterpieces
Neither expresses an opinion. Elaine doesn’t say anything suggesting whether there exist wrongly identified masterpieces. Fred speaks only of artists recognized as masters, not artworks identified as masterpieces.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it’s clear why humans share diseases with cats. Many diseases are genetically based, and cats and humans are relatively close genetic relatives.
Notable Assumptions
In order for the reason why humans and cats share so many diseases to be “clear,” the author must assume that the diseases humans and cats share are genetically based diseases. The author must also assume that humans and cats, by virtue of having exact gene counterparts, are susceptible to the exact same diseases.
A
Cats have built up resistance to many of the diseases they have in common with humans.
We don’t care how resistant cats are. We care why they share these diseases with humans in the first place.
B
Most diseases that humans have in common with cats have no genetic basis.
If the diseases humans and cats share aren’t genetic, then the author’s conclusion—that it’s clear why humans and cats share so many diseases—doesn’t follow. The author’s entire argument is predicated on the idea these diseases are genetic.
C
Cats have more diseases in common with nonhuman primates than with humans.
Even if this were true, humans and cats still share many diseases. We need to weaken the author’s argument—that these diseases are clearly shared due to genetics.
D
Many of the diseases humans have in common with cats are mild and are rarely diagnosed.
Even if these diseases are mild, humans still share them with cats. We need to weaken the author’s argument that this is clearly for genetic reasons.
E
Humans have more genes in common with nonhuman primates than with cats.
This is stated in the stimulus.
Summarize Argument
The author argues that the region needs to find new ways to help business grow. The author provides two main ideas to support this argument. First, he references shoe manufacturing, which used to be a major industry, but is no longer as successful due to international competition. Secondly, as further support for the conclusion, the author says that the region’s public policy is detrimental for business growth.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that the region needs to implement changes that support business growth: “This region must find new ways to help business grow.”
A
The region needs to find new ways to enhance business growth.
This is the claim that the rest of the argument works to support, so this is the main conclusion. The rest of the argument provides a reason for why the reader should believe this idea.
B
Shoe manufacturing is no longer a major source of income in the region.
This is a premise that provides support for the idea that there is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas. This answer provides support for a sub-conclusion, so it is not the main conclusion
C
Shoe manufacturing in the region has dramatically declined due to overseas competition.
This is a premise that gives an explanation for why shoe manufacturing has declined, so this is not the main conclusion.
D
Business in the region must expand into new areas of manufacturing.
The argument does say that there is a need for expanding into new manufacturing areas, but saying that this “must” happen is too strong and is unsupported. Further, this idea is not the main conclusion.
E
Outdated public policy inhibits business growth in the region.
This is a premise that provides support for the conclusion; the fact that the public policy is outdated is a reason that the region must find new ways to help business grow.
Summary
Modern medicine has caused more people to be able to live long, pain-free lives. However, the resulting increase in life expectancy has caused a steady increase in the proportion of old people in the general population. This population shift has the potential to cause devastating financial problems for some social welfare programs.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Sometimes the remedy for one problem can unintentionally cause a different problem.
A
Technical or scientific innovation cannot be the solution to all problems.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether the resulting problem mentioned in the last sentence cannot be solved by technical or scientific innovation.
B
Implementing technological innovations should be delayed until the resulting social changes can be managed.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what should or should not be done. The information here is presented matter-of-fact.
C
Every enhancement of the quality of life has unavoidable negative consequences.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to one example of a positive improvement resulting in a negative consequence. We don’t know if this pattern of cause-and-effect occurs in every enhancement.
D
All social institutions are affected by a preoccupation with prolonging life.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus only mentions one social institution affected by the increase in life expectancy. We don’t know if other social institutions are or are not affected.
E
Solving one set of problems can create a different set of problems.
This answer is strongly supported. The stimulus establishes a causal chain beginning with solving one set of problems (prolonging people’s lives) and resulting in a different set of problems (devastating financial problems for some social welfare programs.)
Summarize Argument
Jackie will like The Cruel Herd’s new album. This is because she likes Moral Vacuum’s music, and The Cruel Herd’s new album sounds similar musically and lyrically.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the differences between Moral Vacuum and The Cruel Herd’s music are insignificant. She assumes that the similarities alone are enough to confidently assert that Jackie will like The Cruel Herd’s new album.
A
Jackie has not previously cared for The Cruel Herd, but on the new album The Cruel Herd’s previous musical arranger has been replaced by Moral Vacuum’s musical arranger.
This strengthens the argument. It addresses potential weaknesses—that the similarities may not outweigh the differences—by suggesting that a key difference may have been changed to a similarity, as the two bands now share a musical arranger.
B
Though The Cruel Herd’s previous albums’ production quality was not great, the new album is produced by one of the most widely employed producers in the music industry.
This does not affect the argument. The argument is based on the similarities between Moral Vacuum and The Cruel Herd—the argument is not about whether the latter band’s music is objectively good, but whether Jackie, due to her inclination to similar music, will enjoy it.
C
Like Moral Vacuum, The Cruel Herd regularly performs in clubs popular with many students at the university that Jackie attends.
This does not affect the argument. There is no reason to believe that Jackie will enjoy The Cruel Herd’s music more because, like Moral Vacuum, it performs at a club her peers attend. Jackie may never even have been to this club.
D
All of the music that Jackie prefers to listen to on a regular basis is rock music.
This does not affect the argument. Jackie can only listen to rock music and still not like The Cruel Herd—liking rock music does not mean she likes all rock music. Maybe she only likes and listens to Moral Vacuum’s music and no other rock artists!
E
Jackie’s favorite Moral Vacuum songs have lyrics that are somber and marked by a strong political awareness.
This weakens the argument. It weakens the premise that draws similarities between some of the two bands’ lyrics, noting that they are both witty. If Jackie prefers the songs that are not witty, she may not be inclined to enjoy The Cruel Herd’s lyrics.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
A superconductor cannot be economically feasible. Two necessary conditions of an economically feasible superconductor are that it superconducts at or above -148 degrees Celsius, and that it superconducts no higher than -160 degrees Celsius. These two necessary conditions contradict each other, so we can never have an economically feasible superconductor.
A
The use of superconductors will never be economically feasible.
This must be true. As shown in the conditional chain, the sufficient condition of an economically feasible superconductor triggers two contradictory necessary conditions, so we can never fulfill the sufficient condition.
B
If the alloys of niobium and germanium do not superconduct at temperatures above minus 148 degrees Celsius, then there are other substances that will do so.
This could be false. The stimulus does not provide any information about other substances and their capabilities to superconduct.
C
The use of superconductors could be economically feasible if there is a substance that superconducts at temperatures below minus 148 degrees Celsius.
This could be false. (C) can be diagrammed as “There is a substance that superconducts at temperatures below -140 degrees Celsius→ use of superconductors is economically feasible.” This is not consistent with our diagram.
D
Alloys of niobium and germanium do not superconduct at temperatures below minus 160 degrees Celsius.
This must be false. We know that alloys of niobium and germanium superconduct at temperatures no higher than -160 degrees Celsius.
E
No use of alloys of niobium and germanium will ever be economically feasible.
This could be false. We only discuss alloys of niobium and germanium with regards to their potential use as superconductors; we don’t have any information about potential other uses.
Summary
Some bacteria that produce hydrogen sulfide as a waste product would die if exposed to oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide produced removes oxygen from the bacteria’s surroundings by reacting with it. Hydrogen sulfide also kills other organisms which the bacteria use as a food source. Therefore, a dense colony of these bacteria can thrive indefinitely.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A dense colony of bacteria that produce hydrogen sulfide will indefinitely kill enough surrounding organisms for food and prevent oxygen from coming into contact with the bacteria.
A
A dense colony of the bacteria can indefinitely continue to produce enough hydrogen sulfide to kill other organisms in the area and to prevent oxygen from harming the bacteria.
This answer is strongly supported. If the colony is to survive forever, it must be that they will produce enough food for themselves in the form of other organisms and prevent oxygen from coming into direct contact with the colony.
B
The hydrogen sulfide produced by the bacteria kills other organisms in the area by reacting with and removing oxygen.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus how the other organisms in the bacteria’s environment are killed from the hydrogen sulfide. There could be another way than reacting with oxygen in the environment.
C
Most organisms, if killed by the hydrogen sulfide produced by the bacteria, can provide a source of food for the bacteria.
This answer is unsupported. Saying “most” organisms is too strong in this answer. We only know that there must be some organisms that the hydrogen sulfide kills in order to produce a food source.
D
The bacteria can continue to thrive indefinitely only in an environment in which the hydrogen sulfide they produce has removed all oxygen and killed other organisms in the area.
This answer is unsupported. In the stimulus, removing oxygen and killing organisms in the area are sufficient conditions for the continued existence of a colony of bacteria. We don’t know if these conditions are necessary.
E
If any colony of bacteria produces hydrogen sulfide as a waste product, it thereby ensures that it is both provided with a source of food and protected from harm by oxygen.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to “certain” bacteria that produce hydrogen sulfide as a waste product. We don’t know if these facts are true of any colony of bacteria.