Summary
History is full of people making breakthroughs by changing the way they thought about a particular topic. For example, Copernicus made advancements by looking differently at information already available. Jenner discovered the smallpox vaccine when he focused on disease prevention rather than the more common perspective of curing disease.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Scientific advancement can result in part from taking a new perspective.
A
Many valuable intellectual accomplishments occur by chance.
Unsupported. We don’t know that the examples discussed in the stimulus involved discoveries by “chance.” There might not have been anything random about these discoveries.
B
Shifting from earlier modes of thought can result in important advances.
Strongly supported. The stimulus provides several examples of scientific advances that came after scientists changed the way they thought about a topic. This is evidence that such changed perspectives can result in advances.
C
The ability to look at information from a different point of view is rare.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest anything about the frequency of the ability to take a different point of view. Maybe the vast majority of people have this ability.
D
Understanding is advanced less often by better organization of available information than it is by the accumulation of new information.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t compare the likelihood of advancement through new information vs. organization of existing information.
E
Dramatic intellectual breakthroughs are more easily accomplished in fields in which the amount of information available is relatively small.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t compare the ease of making breakthroughs in different fields. We don’t know that the fields involved in the examples in the stimulus involve different amounts of information available.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes cheaper oil brands are superior to more expensive oil brands. This is because, according to a study, all oils perform their basic function with equal effectiveness.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that one brand of oil is better than another if it performs the same job at a lower price. This means the author believes there are only two variables—price and ability to retard engine wear—that affect oil comparisons for most potential buyers. The author must therefore believe that motor oil doesn’t serve some other purpose.
A
Cheaper brands of motor oil are often used by knowledgeable automobile mechanics for their own cars.
Knowledgeable mechanics like cheap motor oil. This seems to support the author’s argument that cheaper oils are better buys.
B
Tests other than of the ability to reduce engine wear also can reliably gauge the quality of motor oil.
Without knowing how those other tests judge cheap oils, we can’t draw any conclusions.
C
The lubricating properties of all motor oils deteriorate over time, and the rate of deterioration is accelerated by heat.
We don’t care about things that are true of all oils. We need something to differentiate cheap oils from more expensive oils.
D
The engines of some individual cars that have had their oil changed every 3,000 miles, using only a certain brand of oil, have lasted an extraordinarily long time.
We don’t know which brand of oil was used.
E
Ability to retard engine wear is not the only property of motor oil important to the running of an engine.
By focusing only on retarding engine wear, the author overlooks an important factor in motor oil performance. We therefore can’t say cheaper oils are “better buys” without knowing how they perform other important functions.