A
The likelihood that a plant is pollinated increases as the number of visits from pollinators increases.
B
Many bees live in habitats other than woodlands.
C
Woodlands are not the natural habitat of all pollinators.
D
Some pollinators visit flowers far from their habitats more often than they visit flowers close to their habitats.
E
Many crops that are not near woodlands depend on pollination.
If a student is guaranteed a dorm room, they are a fourth year student. (”the only” introduces the sufficient condition.)
If a fourth year student is on the dean’s list, he or she can choose a dorm room before anyone who is not a fourth year student.
A
Benizer is a fourth-year student who is not on the dean’s list, so she is not guaranteed a dormitory room.
B
Ivan and Naomi are both fourth-year students but only Naomi is on the dean’s list. Therefore, Ivan can choose a dormitory room before Naomi.
C
Halle, a third-year student, is on the dean’s list. Thus, she is guaranteed a dormitory room.
D
Gerald and Katrina are both on the dean’s list but only Gerald is a fourth-year student. Thus, Gerald can choose a dormitory room before Katrina.
E
Anissa is a fourth-year student who is on the dean’s list. Thus, since Jehan is a second-year student who is also on the dean’s list, he can choose a dormitory room before Anissa.
For generations, magnificent racehorses have been bred in our area. Our most valuable product, however, has been generations of children raised with the character that makes them winners in the contests of life. Gambling is wrong, and children raised in an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing will not develop good character. Those who favor developing good character in children over gambling on horses should vote against allowing our first racetrack to be built. L.E.
A
If good character is developed in children early, the children continue to have good character in different environments.
B
In other areas with gambling, parents are able to raise children of good character.
C
In most areas with horse racing, the percentage of adults who gamble increases gradually from year to year.
D
Children whose parents gamble do not necessarily gamble when they become adults.
E
Where voters have had the opportunity to vote on horse racing, they have consistently approved it.
Ben: No, Azadeh, if you interviewed people who buy organic produce, you’d see that they’re actually as selfish as everyone else, since they’re motivated only by worries about their own health.
A
it is likely that a healthy planet can be maintained if most people continue in their present eating habits
B
people can become healthier by increasing their consumption of organic foods
C
people ought to be more concerned about the environment than they currently are
D
the rise in organic food production shows people to have a greater concern for the environment than they had before
E
people can be persuaded to have a greater concern for the environment than they now have
A
The public would not be effectively protected from violent dogs by breed-specific legislation.
B
A good home environment is more important than breeding to a dog’s disposition.
C
The home environment of dogs would not be regulated by breed-specific legislation.
D
Irresponsible dog owners are capable of producing dogs with bad dispositions regardless of generations of careful breeding.
E
The vicious-dog laws that are currently in effect do not address the effects of human behavior in raising and training dogs.
Legislator: To keep our food safe, we must prohibit the use of any food additives that have been found to cause cancer.
Commentator: An absolute prohibition is excessive. Today’s tests can detect a single molecule of potentially cancer-causing substances, but we know that consuming significantly larger amounts of such a chemical does not increase one’s risk of getting cancer. Thus, we should instead set a maximum acceptable level for each problematic chemical, somewhat below the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer but above zero.
Summarize Argument
The commentator concludes that there should be a maximum acceptable level for potentially cancer-causing substances in food that is above zero but below the amount shown to cause cancer. This is because an absolute prohibition, as proposed by the legislator, is excessive, as one can consume some amount of these substances without increasing their risk of cancer.
Notable Assumptions
The commentator assumes that while it may be safe to consume some amount of these substances in one food without increasing one’s risk of cancer, this risk does not increase significantly if one consumes this same amount in various foods. In the same vein, the commentator assumes that ingesting a safe amount of one problematic chemical in addition to safe amounts of other problematic chemicals does not significantly increase one’s cancer risk.
A
The level at which a given food additive has been shown to lead to cancer in children is generally about half the level at which it leads to cancer in adults.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. There is no reason to believe that the commentator’s suggested maximum acceptable levels for each substance do not account for children’s tolerance as well as that of adults.
B
Consuming small amounts of several different cancer-causing chemicals can lead to cancer even if consuming such an amount of any one cancer-causing chemical would not.
This weakens the commentator’s argument. It exploits the commentator’s assumption that the risk of cancer does not substantially increase when a safe amount of one problematic chemical is consumed in addition to a safe amount of another problematic chemical.
C
The law would prohibit only the deliberate addition of cancer-causing chemicals and would not require the removal of naturally occurring cancer-causing substances.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument, which discusses how chemicals should be regulated, not which chemicals should be regulated. If only some chemicals are covered, the commentator would just argue that acceptable limits should be set instead of complete prohibitions.
D
For some food additives, the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer is lower than the level at which the additive provides any benefit.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. The commentator does not compare the risk of cancer posed by additives to the potential benefit one derives from consuming them.
E
All food additives have substitutes that can be used in their place.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. The existence of alternatives for the additives does not offer insight into how well the commentator’s proposed approach would work for either the additives or the alternatives, especially in contrast to the legislator’s approach.
Laird: Pure research provides us with new technologies that contribute to saving lives. Even more worthwhile than this, however, is its role in expanding our knowledge and providing new, unexplored ideas.
Kim: Your priorities are mistaken. Saving lives is what counts most of all. Without pure research, medicine would not be as advanced as it is.
Speaker 1 Summary
Laird doesn’t make an argument, instead just stating the claim that pure research provides more value through expanding our knowledge than it does by helping to save lives.
Speaker 2 Summary
Kim’s argument supports the unstated conclusion that the most important contribution of pure research is in fact its medical applications. This is supported by the principle that saving lives is the most important goal, and the statement that pure research has helped to improve medicine (thereby presumably saving lives).
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Laird and Kim disagree about whether medical advancements are the most valuable result of pure research.
A
derives its significance in part from its providing new technologies
Both speakers agree with this. Laird acknowledges that new technologies are an important result of pure research, just not the most important result. Kim places even more importance on the development of medical technology.
B
expands the boundaries of our knowledge of medicine
Both speakers almost certainly agree with this. Both Laird and Kim discuss the role of pure research in advancing medicine, which strongly implies that pure research has improved our knowledge of medicine.
C
should have the saving of human lives as an important goal
Kim agrees with this, but Laird never disagrees. Laird explicitly acknowledges the importance of pure research helping to save lives—the issue is just whether that’s the most important goal.
D
has its most valuable achievements in medical applications
Laird disagrees with this but Kim agrees, so this is the point at issue. Laird thinks that the most valuable achievements of pure research are in expanding our knowledge and providing new ideas, whereas Kim states that saving lives through medical advancement is more important.
E
has any value apart from its role in providing new technologies to save lives
Laird agrees with this, but Kim never disagrees. Kim’s argument is just that saving lives is the most important result of pure research, not that pure research has no other value.
Naturalist: To be dependable, the accounting framework used by national economists to advise the government must take into account all of our nation’s assets; but the current accounting framework used by our national economists assigns no value to government-owned natural resources, which are clearly assets.
Summary
If the accounting framework used by national economists is dependable, then the framework must account for all of our nation’s assets. However, the current accounting framework used by national economists assigns no value to government-owned natural resources, which are assets.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The accounting framework used by national economists is not dependable.
A
Economists’ indifference toward the destruction of natural resources will lead policymakers to make poor decisions.
We don’t know whether national economists are indifferent towards the destruction of natural resources.
B
Naturalists and economists disagree about whether natural resources have value.
We don’t know whether national economists believe natural resources have value or not.
C
The accounting framework used by national economists is not reliable.
The accounting framework must be unreliable since it fails the requirement of accounting for all of the nation’s assets.
D
Natural resources are a vital economic asset for every nation.
We don’t know whether natural resources are an asset for every nation. The stimulus is limited to the Naturalist’s nation.
E
Changes in the environment have a value that is not represented in any accounting framework.
We don’t know if changes in the environment are not accounted for in any accounting framework.