Luis: The basic goal of government support of scientific research is to generate technological advances that will benefit society as a whole. So only research that is expected to yield practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine ought to be funded.
Speaker 1 Summary
Cynthia believes that the government should help fund basic scientific research projects that aim to further theoretical knowledge of nature. This is because the fundamental goal of science is to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the universe.
Speaker 2 Summary
Luis argues that the government should only fund scientific research that is expected to yield practical applications because the basic goal of government support for scientific research is to generate technological benefits for society.
Objective
Disagree: Cynthia and Luis disagree over what kinds of research the government should fund. Cynthia is much broader, while Luis believes that only research that results in practical applications should be funded.
A
The government should help fund pure theoretical research because such research might have unforeseen practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine.
Cynthia does not give an opinion on funding pure theoretical research, but there is an argument for why she may support this statement. Luis also clearly supports this statement, so this cannot be the right answer.
B
A proposed study of the effects of chemical fertilizers on crops, for the purpose of developing more-resistant and higher-yielding breeds, should not receive government funding.
Cynthia does not take a position against funding practical research, and Luis would disagree with this because he believes the government should fund research with practical applications.
C
Although some research projects in theoretical science yield practical benefits, most do not, and so no research projects in theoretical science should be funded by the government.
Cynthia easily disagrees with this statement because she is in favor of funding for theoretical science. This is too strong for Luis to agree with. Luis is in favor of funding projects that have practical benefits.
D
Research for the sole purpose of developing new technologies ought to be financed exclusively by corporations.
Cynthia does not give an opinion on who should exclusively finance new technologies, and Luis disagrees because he thinks the government should help fund such research
E
Knowledge gained through basic scientific research need not be expected to lead to new and useful technologies in order for the research to merit government funding.
Cynthia agrees with this because she believes that the purpose of science is to learn more about the universe. Luis disagrees because he believes that only projects with practical benefits should be funded.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it probably wouldn’t be prohibitively expensive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels enough to halt global warming. This is because the chemical industry had claimed something similar about CFCs, only to eventually replace them with substitutes at a profit.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that fossil fuel industries would be able replace fossil fuels with substitutes in the same way the chemical industry replaced CFCs with substitutes. And in order for the shift from carbon dioxide-producing fossil fuels not to be “prohibitively expensive,” the author also assumes that the fossil fuel industry is financially similar to the chemical industry in all relevant aspects.
A
In the time since the chemical industry phased out CFCs, the destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs has virtually halted, but the levels of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels have continued to increase.
We already know there’ve been no equivalent changes in the fossil fuel industry. We’re trying to strengthen similarities between the fossil fuel industry and the chemical industry.
B
In some countries, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels has already been reduced without prohibitive expense, but at some cost in convenience to the users of such fuels.
We care about reducing carbon dioxide emissions to levels low enough to halt global warming. We have no idea how much these emissions have been reduced.
C
The use of CFCs never contributed as greatly to the destruction of the ozone layer as the carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels currently contributes to global warming.
We don’t care which is worse for the environment. This just tells us the fossil fuel industry will have to make a huge effort to change.
D
There are ways of reducing carbon dioxide emissions that could halt global warming without hurting profits of fossil-fuel producers significantly more than phasing out CFCs hurt those of the chemical industry.
This tells us that fossil-fuel producers can do what the chemical industry did. Thus, it probably wouldn’t be prohibitively expensive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to levels low enough to halt global warming.
E
If international agreements forced fossil-fuel producers to find ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to halt global warming, the fossil-fuel producers could find substitutes for fossil fuels.
We’re not talking about finding alternatives to fossil fuels. We’re talking about reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Anderson is too critical of today’s travel writers when he says that their work has gotten worse over the years. Travel writing has changed, but that doesn’t mean it’s worse. Today, with more people traveling than before, travel writers have a tougher job—they have to help readers see familiar places in a new way. The fact that travel writing is still popular and thriving proves the skill of today’s writers.
Identify Argument Part
The stimulus text explains something that has changed: People have visited more places now than before. Because of this, travel writers have a harder job—they have to find new and interesting ways to describe places that many people have already seen.
A
It is claimed to be a result of good travel writing.
The stimulus text explains a phenomenon that has kept travel writing high-quality. It is not the result of good travel writing. The stimulus text explains that because people have visited more places now than before, travel writers must have greater skill to engage readers.
B
It is cited as evidence that contemporary travel writing is intended for a wider readership.
The stimulus text explains a phenomenon that has kept travel writing high-quality—not because travel writing is now intended for a wider readership, but because people have visited more places than before, requiring travel writers to have greater skill to engage readers.
C
It is part of a purported explanation of why readers are disappointed with today’s travel writers.
The stimulus doesn’t discuss whether readers are disappointed with today’s travel writers. Instead, it argues that today’s travel writers must be talented because they face new challenges. The stimulus text supports this argument by explaining one of these new challenges.
D
It is cited as a reason that travel writing flourishes more today than it has in the past.
The stimulus doesn’t discuss whether travel writing has flourished more now than before. Instead, it argues that today’s travel writers must be as talented or more than those in the past. The stimulus text supports this argument by explaining a new challenge for today’s writers.
E
It is cited as a condition that has transformed the task of the travel writer.
The stimulus text describes a new condition—that the general public is better traveled—which has changed the job of a travel writer. Before, writers needed to show readers a place for the first time. Now, they must show readers a place they’ve already seen and make it feel new.
Summary
In a large study, most toddlers were able to sort objects by shape when asked by researchers. However, when the researchers asked the toddlers to sort the objects by color the toddlers struggled. The researchers hypothesize that this is because of the toddler’s insufficient development in their prefrontal cortex. The cortex is essential for functions like adapting to new rules, and continues to develop into adolescence.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Some behaviors exhibited by toddlers may not be intentional.
A
Toddlers unable to sort objects by color tend to have a less developed prefrontal cortex than other children of the same age.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the study whether the inability to sort objects by color is an effect of an underdeveloped cortex. Rather, we know difficulty in adapting to new rules is an effect of an underdeveloped cortex.
B
Only adolescents and adults can solve problems that require adapting to new rules.
This answer is unsupported. We know from the study that a developed cortex is necessary for certain behaviors, but we do not know whether it is sufficient. Saying that “only” adolescents and adults have these abilities is too strong.
C
Certain kinds of behavior on the part of toddlers may not be willfully disobedient.
This answer is strongly supported. The toddlers behaved the way they did because they were more or less incapable, not because they willfully disregarded the researcher’s instructions.
D
The maturing of the prefrontal cortex is more important than upbringing in causing the development of adaptive behavior.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know how important of a factor upbringing is for adaptive behavior. Upbringing was not a factor that was part of the researcher’s study.
E
Skill at adapting to new situations is roughly proportional to the level of development of the prefrontal cortex.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the study whether the development of a person’s cortex is proportional to this skill. We only know that these two things may be correlated.
Summarize Argument
Eating raw carrots alone isn’t an effective way to get vitamin A, even though natural foods are the best source of nutrients. The body needs a little fat to turn the beta carotene in carrots into vitamin A. While fat is generally unhealthy, a small amount is necessary to get vitamin A from carrots. This is because the body cannot get vitamin A from carrots unless the carrots are consumed with at least some fat.
Identify Argument Part
The stimulus text explains why people should be careful with how much fat they eat. The dietitian notes that while a little bit of fat is helpful because it helps your body get important vitamins from food, eating too much fat is bad.
A
It is mentioned as a reason for adopting a dietary practice that the dietitian provides a reason for not carrying to the extreme.
This describes the stimulus text’s role. The author recommends eating a little bit of fat with carrots so that the body can absorb vitamin A, but the stimulus text also cautions against eating too much fat because “fat in one’s diet is generally unhealthy.”
B
It is mentioned as the reason that is least often cited by those who recommend a dietary practice the dietitian disfavors.
The Dietitian doesn’t discuss any dietary recommendations she disfavors, so the stimulus text can’t support such a claim. Instead, the stimulus text qualifies the Dietitian’s recommendation. She suggests eating some fat, but not too much, because fat is “generally unhealthy.”
C
It is mentioned as a generally accepted hypothesis that the dietitian attempts to undermine completely.
The stimulus text doesn't present a hypothesis from others, and it isn't a claim the Dietitian tries to disprove. Instead, the Dietitian agrees with it as a clarification of her advice. She explains that while she recommends a little fat, she doesn’t recommend too much.
D
It is attacked as inadequate evidence for the claim that nutrients are most effective when provided by natural foods rather than artificial supplements.
The Dietitian doesn’t attack the stimulus text; she agrees with it and uses it to clarify her advice. She explains that while she recommends a little fat, she doesn’t recommend too much because fat is “generally unhealthy.”
E
It is cited as a bad reason for adopting a dietary habit that the dietitian recommends.
Rather than providing a bad reason for adopting a dietary habit (e.g., “It will make your mom mad!”), the stimulus text simply limits the Dietitican’s recommendation regarding the habit. The stimulus text explains why you should only include a little fat in your diet.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The industrial engineer claims that environmentalists’ worry that pumping carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels deep into the ocean would cause an equally destructive form of pollution is unfounded. This is because lots of carbon dioxide released already ends up in the ocean, and the consequences are less destructive than global warming. Because it is less destructive, it is not an equally destructive form of pollution.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the industrial engineer’s response to the concerns about equally destructive pollution: “This worry is unfounded”
A
Global warming from the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere could be reduced by pumping some of that carbon dioxide into the deep ocean.
This is context that describes the solution under consideration.
B
Environmentalists worry that the strategy of pumping carbon dioxide into the deep ocean to reduce global warming would simply exchange one form of pollution for another, equally destructive one.
This is context that describes the environmentalists’ worry - that the industrial engineer says is unfounded.
C
Worrying that pumping carbon dioxide into the deep ocean to reduce global warming would simply exchange one form of pollution for another, equally destructive, form is unfounded.
This accurately rephrases the conclusion. The industrial engineer claims that the environmentalists’ worry - that the solution under consideration would just exchange one form of pollution for another - is unfounded.
D
Much of the carbon dioxide now released into the atmosphere ends up in the ocean where it does not cause environmental disturbances as destructive as global warming.
This rephrases the premises used to support the claim that the environmentalists’ worries are unfounded.
E
To reduce global warming, the strategy of pumping into the deep ocean at least some of the carbon dioxide now released into the atmosphere should be considered.
This answer choice goes too far. The industrial engineer claims that the worries about this solution are unfounded, but doesn’t go so far as to advocate for that solution.