Summary
According to the stimulus, all societies consider some rules so important that they are defined as duties. (For example, limiting violence and keeping promises.) Duties are considered so important to society that they must be fulfilled even if it harms the dutiful person’s self-interest. Therefore... what?
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Based on the stimulus, we can infer that:
All societies require people to restrict violence and keep their agreements to at least some extent, even if doing so is contrary to their self-interest.
All societies believe that people may sometimes be required to follow a duty instead of their self-interest.
All societies require people to restrict violence and keep their agreements to at least some extent, even if doing so is contrary to their self-interest.
All societies believe that people may sometimes be required to follow a duty instead of their self-interest.
A
all societies overrate the benefits of certain rules, such as those governing the keeping of agreements
This is not supported. The stimulus doesn’t indicate whether societies do or do not accurately estimate the benefits of certain rules, so we cannot draw this conclusion.
B
all societies have certain rules that no people are capable of following
This is not supported. The stimulus never suggests whether or not people are capable of following certain rules or duties, so we can’t infer this statement.
C
all societies recognize the possibility of clashes between individual self-interest and the performance of duty
This is strongly supported. The stimulus says that all societies recognize some duties, and a duty inherently means something that cannot be excused by self-interest. That must mean that all societies recognize a possibility of a choice (or clash) between duty and self-interest.
D
a properly functioning society will recognize that some duties take priority over others
This is not supported. The stimulus doesn’t indicate a hierarchy of duties at all, nor does it suggest that duties will ever necessarily come into conflict. So, we can’t say that some duties would have to take priority.
E
societies have no right to expect people always to perform their duties
This is not supported. The stimulus doesn’t indicate the limits of societies’ rights, nor does it talk about any scenario where someone could be excused from performing their duties.
Essayist: Many people are hypocritical in that they often pretend to be more morally upright than they really are. When hypocrisy is exposed, hypocrites are embarrassed by their moral lapse, which motivates them and others to try to become better people. On the other hand, when hypocrisy persists without exposure, the belief that most people are good is fostered, which motivates most people to try to be good.
Summary
An essayist details what happens when hypocrisy is and is not exposed. When hypocrisy is exposed, hypocrites become embarrassed and try to become better people. When hypocrisy remains unexposed, people believe that most people are good, which motivates most people to be good.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Whether or not hypocrisy is exposed, some people will try to better themselves.
A
The existence of hypocrisy encourages people to believe that no one is morally blameless.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that embarrassed hypocrites try to better themselves once hypocrisy is exposed.
B
The existence of hypocrisy encourages people to make efforts to live by moral standards.
The stimulus details that some people will strive to become more morally virtuous whether hypocrisy is exposed or not. Thus, this is easily supported
C
The existence of hypocrisy in some people encourages others to fall into moral lapses.
The stimulus does not say anything about when people fall into moral lapses.
D
The hiding of hypocrisy is a better way of motivating people to try to be good than is the exposing of it.
This comparative statement does not receive enough support. The stimulus does not say one approach is better than the other.
E
There is no stronger motivator for people to try to be good than the exposing of hypocrisy.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus says that exposing hypocrisy is *a* motivator, not that it is the strongest one.
Summary
The stimulus discusses two layers of the atmosphere: the troposphere (the lowest level) and the stratosphere (the layer above the troposphere).
In the troposphere, it gets colder as you go straight up.
At the top of the troposphere, the temperature ranges from -50 degrees Celsius (over the poles) to -85 degrees Celsius (over the equator).
Once the stratosphere begins, temperature beings to increase as you go straight up.
In the stratosphere, heat is generated when an ozone particle absorbs ultraviolet sunlight.
In the troposphere, it gets colder as you go straight up.
At the top of the troposphere, the temperature ranges from -50 degrees Celsius (over the poles) to -85 degrees Celsius (over the equator).
Once the stratosphere begins, temperature beings to increase as you go straight up.
In the stratosphere, heat is generated when an ozone particle absorbs ultraviolet sunlight.
Notable Valid Inferences
Any point in the troposphere is colder than any other point in the troposphere directly below it.
Any point in the stratosphere is warmer than any other point in the stratosphere directly below it.
A point in the stratosphere is equal temperature or warmer than the highest point in the troposphere directly below it.
Any point in the stratosphere is warmer than any other point in the stratosphere directly below it.
A point in the stratosphere is equal temperature or warmer than the highest point in the troposphere directly below it.
A
The troposphere over the poles is thicker than the troposphere over the equator.
This could be false. We don’t know anything about the thickness of any layers of the atmosphere.
B
It is warmer at the top of the stratosphere over the poles than it is at the top of the stratosphere over the equator.
This could be false. We don’t know anything about the rate of temperature increase in the stratosphere; it could be the case that the temperature over the equator increases more quickly than the temperature above the poles.
C
The temperature in the middle part of the stratosphere over the North Pole is at least as great as the temperature in the middle part of the stratosphere over the equator.
This could be false. We only know the temperature at the point where the troposphere ends and the stratosphere begins; we don’t have enough information to compare points in the middle of the stratosphere.
D
The temperature at any point at the top of the stratosphere is at least as great as the temperature at the top of the troposphere directly beneath that point.
This must be true. We know that, in the stratosphere, the temperature increases as you go straight up. Because of this, we can infer that any point in the stratosphere is at least as high as the point below it, going all the way down to the highest point of the troposphere.
E
Depletion of the earth’s ozone layer would increase the air temperature in the stratosphere and decrease the air temperature in the troposphere.
This could be false. All we know about ozone is that it plays a role in warming the stratosphere; we have no reason to believe that removing something that generates warmth would cause the stratosphere to become warmer.
Summarize Argument
IPV should be the most commonly used polio vaccine for North American children, instead of OPV. OPV causes all new cases of polio each year in North America, and IPV would reduce the number of cases by half.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that IPV does not have serious side effects that make it undesirable for use on most children—side effects that may outweigh the benefit of decreasing the number of cases of live polio a year. Furthermore, the author assumes that there are no other significant undesirable consequences that could arise from the proposed switch.
A
If IPV replaces OPV as the most commonly used polio vaccine, at least a few new cases of naturally occurring polio in North America will result each year.
This weakens the argument. It exploits the author’s assumption that there are no significant undesirable consequences that could arise from the switch. (A) says if IPV replaces OPV, naturally occurring polio would result—something which has not occurred in recent years.
B
The vast majority of cases of polio caused by OPV have occurred in children with preexisting but unsuspected immunodeficiency disorders.
This does not affect the argument. The author advocates for a switch to IPV to reduce the annual number of polio cases. The specific characteristics of these cases—such as whether the affected children had undiagnosed immunodeficiency disorders—do not weaken the argument.
C
A child’s risk of contracting polio from OPV has been estimated at 1 in 8.7 million, which is significantly less than the risk of being struck by lightning.
This does not affect the argument. The author does not dispute the idea that the risk is slight; rather, the author argues that the risk could be further reduced by switching to IPV.
D
Although IPV is preferred in some European nations, most countries with comprehensive child immunization programs use OPV.
This does not affect the argument. The author’s argument is supported solely by evidence from North America, and the conclusion is specific to North America as well. What other continents or countries are doing is not relevant.
E
IPV, like most vaccines, carries a slight risk of inducing seizures in children with neurological diseases such as epilepsy.
This does not affect the argument. Both OPV and IPV are vaccines—this would apply to both equally.