Summarize Argument
The essayist concludes that the press should stop writing about politicians’ private lives. This is for three reasons: no one wants their private lives to be published, the threat of an exposed private life makes politics as a career unattractive, and the practice makes reporters behave poorly. These reasons support the sub-conclusion that politicians deserve protection from intrusive media.
Notable Assumptions
The essayist assumes that there are no benefits to an intrusive press that would be lost if this intrusiveness was stopped—maybe the threat of an intrusive press weeds out candidates who aren’t serious about the job. Furthermore, the essayist assumes that a politician’s personal life can be separated from his professional life enough to report on the latter without discussing the former.
A
The press is unusually inaccurate when it reports on people’s private lives.
This strengthens the argument by offering an additional premise: that the press publishes false information about candidates’ personal lives. This strengthens the conclusion that the practice of publishing this kind of news should be stopped.
B
Reporting on politicians’ private lives distracts voters from more important issues in a campaign.
This strengthens the argument by offering an additional premise: not only is this type of publishing harmful to politicians, it is also harmful to voters and presumably, democracy.
C
Much writing on politicians’ private lives consists of rumors circulated by opposing candidates.
This strengthens the argument by introducing the idea that this form of news is weaponized by opposing candidates for political purposes. This strengthens the conclusion that it should be stopped.
D
In recent elections, the best local politicians have refused to run for national office because of the intrusiveness of press coverage.
This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the essayist’s premise that talented people are dissuaded from running for politics because of the threat the media poses to their private lives.
E
Politicians’ personality flaws often ultimately affect their performance on the job.
This weakens the argument. It attacks the essayist’s assumption that the private lives of politicians—which include their character flaws—do not affect, and are separable from, their professional lives.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
If someone is seriously interested in the biological sciences and does not have a special love for animals, then they are not a prominent veterinarian.
Some people with a devoted interest in biology chose their profession primarily because of love for animals.
Some people with a devoted interest in biology chose their profession primarily because of love for animals.
A
Some veterinarians have a greater love for biological science than for individual animals.
This could be true. The stimulus does not provide any information that compares how much veterinarians love these two things.
B
Most veterinarians love animals and have an interest in biological science.
This could be true. We do know that some veterinarians love animals and are interested in biology; it could be true that this is the case for most veterinarians.
C
Prominent veterinarians at some veterinary research centers are intensely devoted to the biological sciences but do not feel any pronounced affection for animals.
This must be false. We know that if someone doesn’t love animals and is intensely interested in biology, then they are not a prominent veterinarian.
D
Few veterinarians at university research centers chose their profession primarily because they love animals.
This could be true. We know that most veterinarians as a whole chose their profession primarily because they love animals, but we don’t know the quantity of veterinarians at university research centers who did so.
E
Most veterinarians who are not prominent regard an understanding of the biological sciences as the most important quality for success in their profession.
This could be true. The stimulus does not talk about what anyone considers the most important quality for success in their profession.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The editorialist concludes that we should investigate the safety of the chemicals used to treat lumber. The editorialist concedes that it may seem like potential harms of these chemicals would be reduced by the fact that lumber is used outside where fumes cannot accumulate. However, to support his claim, the editorialist references two examples where consumers may ingest the chemicals: when children play on playgrounds, and when the lumber is used to contain soil in gardens. In these cases, there is a risk that chemicals could be ingested, which supports the editorialist’s conclusion that these chemicals’ risks should be studied.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that the risks of chemicals used to treat lumber should be investigated: “Immediate steps should be taken to determine the safety of these chemicals since consumers could ingest them.
A
The chemicals used in treated lumber are apparently not dangerous to the consumer.
This is context for the argument, not the main conclusion. The editorialist argues that despite the apparent lack of danger, we should research these chemicals.
B
Treated lumber is as dangerous when used outdoors as it is when used indoors.
This kind of comparative statement is not supported by the argument, so this is not the main conclusion.
C
The effects on humans from the chemicals in treated lumber should be studied.
This is the main conclusion. The editorialist’s claim is a recommendation to study the chemicals used to treat lumber; the two examples given act as support for this claim.
D
Parents should not allow children to put their mouths on playground equipment.
While this may be supported by the argument, the editorialist is not making recommendations for parents. This is not the main conclusion. The purpose of the example about children was to illustrate a potential danger of the chemicals.
E
Treated lumber is more dangerous than was once believed.
The editorialist is not making a claim on the danger of treated lumber; he is just addressing a possibility of danger that should be investigated further.
Summarize Argument
The author argues that pollen analysis can help determine which geographical regions ancient relics moved through. This is because relics can be linked to certain regions due to having pollen traces from plants unique to those regions.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if pollen on the surface of a relic signifies a certain geographical region, then the relic in question has passed through that region at some point. This means the author assumes there’s no other way for a relic to collect pollen samples than by passing through a region. It also means the author assumes that there’s no way for pollen unique to one area to be collected in a different region.
A
Pollens are often transported from one region to another by wind or human movement.
Since pollens unique to one region often end up in another, it would be tough to tell which regions a relic has passed through based on the pollen that clings to its surface. This weakens the author’s contention that pollen is generally a useful clue.
B
There are several less complicated methods of determining the history of the movement of an object than the analysis and identification of pollen.
Even if the pollen method is complicated, it may still be useful. We need something that tells us it either isn’t useful, or that it’s usefulness is seriously limited.
C
Many types of pollen were common to several geographical regions in the ancient world.
The stimulus deals with pollen types unique to certain regions. We don’t care about ones common to several geographical regions.
D
Data are scarce as to the geographical distribution of the pollens of many ancient plants.
This casts some doubt on the author’s argument. However, “many” is too weak to say the pollen analysis technique wouldn’t nevertheless be helpful for assessing the regions some ancient relics moved through, even if the data on pollen distribution isn’t entirely complete.
E
Pollen analysis is a painstaking process that is also expensive to conduct.
We don’t care how feasible pollen analysis is. We’re concerned with whether or not we can draw certain conclusions from its results.
Consumer activist: When antilock brakes were first introduced, it was claimed that they would significantly reduce the incidence of multiple-car collisions, thereby saving lives. Indeed, antilock brakes have reduced the incidence of multiple-car collisions. I maintain, however, that to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with them.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
If antilock brakes have reduced the incidence of multiple-car collisions, why does the consumer activist maintain that, to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with antilock brakes?
Objective
The correct answer must identify how manufacturing cars without antilock brakes could directly or indirectly save more lives than manufacturing cars with antilock brakes even though antilock brakes have reduced the occurrence of multiple-car collisions.
A
Drivers and passengers in automobiles with antilock brakes feel less vulnerable, and are thus less likely to wear seat belts.
If fewer people wear seat belts while driving with antilock brakes than without, the lack of seatbelt usage could cause more lost lives than the number of lives saved from the reduction in multiple-car collisions because of antilock brakes.
B
Under some circumstances, automobiles with traditional brakes stop just as quickly as do automobiles with antilock brakes.
The stimulus tells us that antilock brakes have led to a decrease in multiple-car collisions, so this is irrelevant.
C
For inexperienced drivers, antilock brakes are easier to use correctly than are traditional brakes.
The level of difficulty of correctly using antilock brakes doesn’t matter. We want to know why the consumer activist advises that, to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with antilock brakes.
D
Antilock brakes are considerably more expensive to manufacture than are traditional brakes.
The cost of manufacturing antilock brakes is irrelevant. We need an answer that helps explain how producing cars without antilock brakes could save more lives than producing cars with antilock brakes.
E
Antilock brakes are no more effective in preventing multiple-car accidents than in preventing other kinds of traffic accidents.
The stimulus tells us that antilock brakes have led to a reduction in multiple-car accidents, so (E) doesn’t matter.