Several people came down with an illness caused by a type of bacteria in seafood. Health officials traced the history of each person who became ill to the same restaurant and date. Careful testing showed that most people who ate seafood at the restaurant on that date had not come in contact with the bacteria in question. Despite this finding, health officials remained confident that contaminated seafood from this restaurant caused the cases of illness.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Most people who ate seafood at a restaurant didn’t come into contact with the offending bacteria, yet health officials are certain the bacteria caused several cases of illness.

Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains how health experts can be certain the bacteria caused the illness, despite most people who ate seafood at the restaurant not coming into contact with the bacteria. The explanation must result in only the people who ended up getting sick coming into contact with the bacteria.

A
Most people are immune to the effects of the bacteria in question.
We need something that tells us about the people who ended up getting sick. This tells us about most people in general.
B
Those made ill by the bacteria had all been served by a waiter who subsequently became ill.
Did the waiter come into contact with the bacteria? Did the waiter get sick because of the bacteria, or for some other reason? Besides, we already know the bacteria was carried by contaminated seafood.
C
All and only those who ate contaminated seafood at the restaurant on that date were allergic to the monosodium glutamate in a sauce that they used.
This doesn’t explain why health experts are confident the bacteria was the problem. This simply gives another reason some people might’ve fallen ill.
D
The restaurant in question had recently been given a warning about violations of health regulations.
We already know the restaurant is serving contaminated food. We don’t need to double down.
E
All and only those who ate a particular seafood dish at the restaurant contracted the illness.
Why did only some, but not all, people who ate seafood at the restaurant fall ill? Because those people who fell ill all ate a contaminated seafood dish that carried the bacteria.

23 comments

Columnist: The amount of acidic pollutants released into the air has decreased throughout the world over the last several decades. We can expect, then, an overall decrease in the negative environmental effects of acid rain, which is caused by these acidic pollutants.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that we should expect an overall decrease in the negative environmental effects of acid rain. This is because the amount of acidic pollutants released into the air has decreased over the last several decades, and negative environmental effects of acid rain are caused by these pollutants.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there haven’t been other changes over the last several decades that increase the negative environmental effects of acid rain.

A
Some ecosystems have developed sophisticated mechanisms that reduce the negative effects of increased levels of acids in the environment.
If anything, this might strengthen the argument by giving us reason to think at least some ecosystems have additional new protections that can reduce harm from acid rain.
B
The amount of acid-neutralizing buffers released into the air has decreased in recent years.
This indicates that certain things that protect against acid (acid-neutralizing buffers) have decreased, which would tend to increase harm from acid rain. This increase might offset the effect of decreased acidic pollutants.
C
The current decrease in acidic pollutants is expected to end soon, as more countries turn to coal for the generation of electricity.
This suggests that the decrease in acidic pollutants will end, which implies that we should not expect harm from acid rain to decrease in the near future. Once pollutant levels stop decreasing, we would expect harm from acid rain not to decrease.
D
The effects of acid rain are cumulative and largely independent of current acid rain levels.
This suggests that decreased amounts of pollutants in acid rain don’t significantly impact the harm caused by acid rain. Thus, we have less reason to think that decreased acidic pollutants would lead to less harm.
E
The soils of many ecosystems exposed to acid rain have been exhausted of minerals that help protect them from acid rain’s harmful effects.
This suggests that protections against acid rain have decreased, which would tend to increase harm from acid rain. This increased harm might offset the benefit of decreased acidic pollutants.

26 comments

Columnist: It is sometimes claimed that the only factors relevant to determining moral guilt or innocence are the intentions of the person performing an action. However, external circumstances often play a crucial role in our moral judgment of an action. For example, a cook at a restaurant who absentmindedly put an ingredient in the stew that is not usually in the stew would ordinarily be regarded as forgetful, not immoral. If, however, someone eating at the restaurant happens to be severely allergic to that ingredient, eats the stew, and dies, many people would judge the cook to be guilty of serious moral negligence.

Summary

The columnist argues that intentions are not the sole factor in determining moral guilt. For example, a cook who accidentally adds an ingredient would normally be considered forgetful. However, if someone were allergic to the ingredient and died, the cook would be judged guilty of serious negligence.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Factors beyond one’s intentions (immediate control) can influence how one is judged for an action.

A
It is sometimes fair to judge the morality of others’ actions even without considering all of the circumstances under which those actions were performed.

This is anti-supported. The columnist sees the importance of looking at other factors when determining one’s morality.

B
We sometimes judge unfairly the morality of other people’s actions.

This is too strong to support. The stimulus does not mention what is fair/unfair, only that people are judged for things outside of their intentions

C
We should judge all negligent people to be equally morally blameworthy, regardless of the outcomes of their actions.

This is anti-supported. The stimulus suggests that people are judged differently in different situations.

D
People are sometimes held morally blameworthy as a result of circumstances some of which were outside their intentional control.

The example with the cook mirrors this answer choice. Whether one is allergic to an ingredient (outside of the cook’s control) is a major factor in how they are morally judged.

E
The intentions of the person performing an action are rarely a decisive factor in making moral judgments about that action.

This is too strong to support. The columnist suggests that there are factors other than one’s motives, not that their intentions are “rarely a decisive factor.”


5 comments

Students in a first-year undergraduate course were divided into two groups. All the students in both groups were given newspaper articles identical in every respect, except for the headline, which was different for each group. When the students were later asked questions about the contents of the article, the answers given by the two groups were markedly different, though within each group the answers were similar.

Summary
Two groups of students were given newspaper articles that were identical in every way, except for the headline. When the students answered questions about the article, the answers given by each group were very different, though the answers within each group were similar.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Headlines can impact the way one reads the content of a newspaper.

A
Readers base their impressions of what is in a newspaper on headlines alone.
This is too strong to support. All we know is that a headline can impact one’s perception of what is in the newspaper, not that it is the sole factor.
B
Newspaper headlines hamper a reader’s ability to comprehend the corresponding articles.
There is no information about a reader’s ability to comprehend other articles in the paper.
C
Careless reading is more common among first-year undergraduates than among more senior students.
There is no information to support a comparative statement between seniors and first-year students. Also, there is no direct support that any students engaged in “careless” reading.
D
Newspaper headlines tend to be highly misleading.
There is no support that newspaper headlines “tend” to be misleading. The stimulus only provides a study that had two different headlines. You need to make a lot of real-world assumptions to make this answer choice work.
E
Newspaper headlines influence a reader’s interpretation of the corresponding articles.
This follows logically. The two articles were similar in every respect except the headline and the groups gave vastly different responses.

2 comments