People who accuse the Governor of not caring about the automobile industry are just using that criticism to hide their own partisan politics. Naïve citizens, who believe those accusations, fail to realize that sometimes a politician may seem not to care about one particular interest group, when in fact he is trying to enact public policy that benefits many different people and many different interests.
Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest support for what the author says in the first sentence of the passage?
A. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between not caring about one specific group's interests, and actually caring about broader concerns and general public interest.
(A) is incorrect because it makes an excuse for the people the author accuses of dishonesty in the first sentence, and the ones he calls "naïve" in the second sentence. The first sentence accuses the Governor's critics of being dishonest about their criticism, implying that they are motivated by "partisan politics" and not by any genuine concern about the Governor's treatment of the auto industry. The question asks for support for this claim. If it's hard to tell whether the Governor actually doesn't care about one particular interest or is trying to serve broader interests, that would undercut the argument that his critics are being dishonest. What the second sentence does is suggest that only an ignorant fool would believe that these critics are sincere, which makes the first sentence's meaning clear.
B. The Governor's harshest critics are members of automobile workers' unions, and politicians with strong ties to the automotive industry.
(B) is correct. Again, the first sentence accuses the Governor's critics of being dishonest and motivated by partisan politics. If those critics are complaining that the Governor doesn't care about the auto industry, but they themselves are connected to that industry, then the author is probably right that their motives are selfish and disingenuous.
C. Many people who think the Governor doesn't care about the automobile industry voted for him in the last election.
(C) is incorrect because it does not support the argument that the Governor's critics are being dishonest. It is neither dishonest nor hypocritical to vote for a politician and then criticize his performance in office. To the extent that the critics' votes in the last election might influence their present criticism of the Governor, it would be more likely that their criticism is dishonest if they did NOT vote for him than if they did.
D. The Governor is not a politician who talks about the difference between partisan politics and civic responsibility.
(D) is incorrect because whether the Governor himself "talks about" this distinction is irrelevant to the honesty of his critics. At issue is WHY those critics are claiming that the Governor does not care about the auto industry; whether they really believe that or not. This statement does not answer that question either way.
E. Sometimes a politician thinks he's trying to help the whole community, when, in reality, he just doesn't care about the concerns of one particular group.
(E) is incorrect because it is also not relevant to whether or not the Governor's critics are being honest about their criticism. This sounds like something the critics would say, but the question does not ask us to support the critics; it asks us to support the author. This might be the correct answer if we were being asked for a rebuttal.
September 30, 2009
Homework #11
Salesman: "The revolutionary new Shepherd's Gate Protection System represents the latest in sheep-tending technology! The built-in sensors recognize the scent of predators from miles around. When your flock is in danger of attack, the electronic gates surrounding the flock will quickly slam shut, keeping any unwanted animals away, and your flock safer than ever! Sure, the system is prone to false alarms, but you know what they say: Better safe than sorry!"
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the salesman's argument?
A. Sheep cannot be injured by the electronic gates when they quickly slam shut.
B. Similar electronic protection systems are currently used to protect cattle from attack by predators.
C. Roughly half the time, when the gates close automatically, it's because of a false alarm.
D. Some sheep predators have been hunted almost to extinction.
E. Flocks of sheep are rarely attacked by predators.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the salesman's argument?
A. Sheep cannot be injured by the electronic gates when they quickly slam shut.
B. Similar electronic protection systems are currently used to protect cattle from attack by predators.
C. Roughly half the time, when the gates close automatically, it's because of a false alarm.
D. Some sheep predators have been hunted almost to extinction.
E. Flocks of sheep are rarely attacked by predators.
September 29, 2009
Homework #9 Answer
All Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 read To Kill a Mockingbird. All Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class after 2006 read The Natural.
If a student read To Kill a Mockingbird but did not read The Natural, which one of the following MUST be TRUE?
(A) The student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.
(B) The student was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 and before 2006.
(A) and (B) are both wrong because the two rules stated in the stimulus apply only to Honor Roll students. The question stem does not tell us whether the student in question is an Honor Roll student or not. The stimulus tells us nothing about non-Honor Roll students, so there is nothing that we can say MUST be true about any student unless he is an Honor Roll student. Both (A) and (B) could be true, but the question is what must be true. The fact that the other three answer choices expressly refer to Honor Roll students should have been a hint that this was a necessary condition.
(C) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.
(C) is correct. This is the only one of the four choices that MUST be true. If the student was an Honor Roll student and did NOT read The Natural , then he cannot have been in Mr. Braiman's class after 2006, because if he was, he would have read The Natural. Therefore this student must have been in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.
(D) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2003.
(D) is incorrect because it can be true, but it can also be untrue based on the rules given in the stimulus. Nothing is mentioned in the stimulus regarding what Mr. Braiman's Honor Roll students read or did not read prior to 2003 (or 2007), so it is possible that the student in the question was an Honor Roll student before 2003 and did not read The Natural. However, it is also possible that an Honor Roll student in Mr. Braiman's class before 2003 did read The Natural. The fact that they all read it after 2006, which is the ONLY rule stated with respect to this title, does not mean or imply that none of them read it before 2007, let alone before 2003.
(E) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 and before 2007.
(E) is incorrect because the stimulus does not tell us whether or not any of Mr. Braiman's Honor Roll students read To Kill a Mockingbird before 2003. It only tells us that after 2002, they all read To Kill a Mockingbird, which does not mean that none of them read it before 2003. Therefore the fact that the student in question did read To Kill a Mockingbird, assuming he was an Honor Roll student, does not necessitate that he was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002.
Many people answered this question wrong by either ignoring the limitation of the rules to Honor Roll students, ignoring the fact that the question does not specify whether the student in question is an Honor Roll student or not, or making one very important, but very mistaken, inference: That the Honor Roll students read To Kill a Mockingbird only after 2002 and not before 2003.
The rules in the stimulus say none of this. Nor can this be reasonably inferred from either of the rules stated in the stimulus. This is why it is important to read the stimulus carefully, and consider each of the choices carefully. All of the four wrong answer choices could be true, but could also be untrue; only (C) cannot be true if the key condition, being in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007, were changed.
Remember also to use the contrapositive. If all Honor Roll students AFTER 2003 read To Kill a Mockingbird, that means that no Honor Roll student after 2003 did not read To Kill A Mockingbird. If all Honor Roll students after 2006 read The Natural, that means that no Honor Roll student after 2006 did not read The Natural. But that's all it means. What neither rule implies is that no Honor Roll student read either title BEFORE the associated dates. The main mistake that most people made was to infer that To Kill a Mockingbird had to have been read between 2003 and 2006. Not true.
You must be careful not to read into the stimulus anything that it does not say. Pay attention to what it does say, and to any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it. Also pay attention to words like "all," "only," "always," "never," "none," etc. What do they require? (What must be true?) What do they rule out? (What cannot be true?) What do they allow? (What could be true?)
Here's another way to look at it:
RULE #1
WHO: all Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class
WHEN: after 2002 (2003-present)
WHAT: read To Kill a Mockingbird
RULE #2
WHO: all Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class
WHEN: after 2006 (2007-present)
WHAT: read The Natural
QUESTION:
WHO: student
WHAT: read To Kill a Mockingbird; did not read The Natural
APPLICATION:
Under what circumstances would either rule be violated?
- Neither rule applies if the student is not an Honor Roll student. If the rule does not apply, it can't be violated.
- The rule only applies if the WHO is satisfied. The question tells us the WHAT. Therefore the key condition is the WHEN.
- Rule #1, if it applies, can only be violated if the student in question did not read To Kill a Mockingbird. The student in question did read To Kill a Mockingbird, so Rule #1 is not violated regardless of when he read it. Even if he was in the class before 2003, the fact that he read this book at all prevents him from violating Rule #1, because he could have read it at any time. The rule is only violated if the conditions cannot satisfy the rule. In other words, even if the student read To Kill a Mockingbird in 1998, it can still be true that all of Mr. Braiman's Honor Roll students after 2002 read it as well.
- Rule #2, if it applies, can only be violated if the student did not read The Natural. The student in question did not read The Natural, therefore the rule is violated if the other conditions are met. Since all of the Honor Roll students in the class after 2006 did read it, he cannot have been in the class after 2006 if he didn't read it, and thus must have been in the class before 2007.
If a student read To Kill a Mockingbird but did not read The Natural, which one of the following MUST be TRUE?
(A) The student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.
(B) The student was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 and before 2006.
(A) and (B) are both wrong because the two rules stated in the stimulus apply only to Honor Roll students. The question stem does not tell us whether the student in question is an Honor Roll student or not. The stimulus tells us nothing about non-Honor Roll students, so there is nothing that we can say MUST be true about any student unless he is an Honor Roll student. Both (A) and (B) could be true, but the question is what must be true. The fact that the other three answer choices expressly refer to Honor Roll students should have been a hint that this was a necessary condition.
(C) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.
(C) is correct. This is the only one of the four choices that MUST be true. If the student was an Honor Roll student and did NOT read The Natural , then he cannot have been in Mr. Braiman's class after 2006, because if he was, he would have read The Natural. Therefore this student must have been in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.
(D) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2003.
(D) is incorrect because it can be true, but it can also be untrue based on the rules given in the stimulus. Nothing is mentioned in the stimulus regarding what Mr. Braiman's Honor Roll students read or did not read prior to 2003 (or 2007), so it is possible that the student in the question was an Honor Roll student before 2003 and did not read The Natural. However, it is also possible that an Honor Roll student in Mr. Braiman's class before 2003 did read The Natural. The fact that they all read it after 2006, which is the ONLY rule stated with respect to this title, does not mean or imply that none of them read it before 2007, let alone before 2003.
(E) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 and before 2007.
(E) is incorrect because the stimulus does not tell us whether or not any of Mr. Braiman's Honor Roll students read To Kill a Mockingbird before 2003. It only tells us that after 2002, they all read To Kill a Mockingbird, which does not mean that none of them read it before 2003. Therefore the fact that the student in question did read To Kill a Mockingbird, assuming he was an Honor Roll student, does not necessitate that he was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002.
Many people answered this question wrong by either ignoring the limitation of the rules to Honor Roll students, ignoring the fact that the question does not specify whether the student in question is an Honor Roll student or not, or making one very important, but very mistaken, inference: That the Honor Roll students read To Kill a Mockingbird only after 2002 and not before 2003.
The rules in the stimulus say none of this. Nor can this be reasonably inferred from either of the rules stated in the stimulus. This is why it is important to read the stimulus carefully, and consider each of the choices carefully. All of the four wrong answer choices could be true, but could also be untrue; only (C) cannot be true if the key condition, being in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007, were changed.
Remember also to use the contrapositive. If all Honor Roll students AFTER 2003 read To Kill a Mockingbird, that means that no Honor Roll student after 2003 did not read To Kill A Mockingbird. If all Honor Roll students after 2006 read The Natural, that means that no Honor Roll student after 2006 did not read The Natural. But that's all it means. What neither rule implies is that no Honor Roll student read either title BEFORE the associated dates. The main mistake that most people made was to infer that To Kill a Mockingbird had to have been read between 2003 and 2006. Not true.
You must be careful not to read into the stimulus anything that it does not say. Pay attention to what it does say, and to any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it. Also pay attention to words like "all," "only," "always," "never," "none," etc. What do they require? (What must be true?) What do they rule out? (What cannot be true?) What do they allow? (What could be true?)
Here's another way to look at it:
RULE #1
WHO: all Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class
WHEN: after 2002 (2003-present)
WHAT: read To Kill a Mockingbird
RULE #2
WHO: all Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class
WHEN: after 2006 (2007-present)
WHAT: read The Natural
QUESTION:
WHO: student
WHAT: read To Kill a Mockingbird; did not read The Natural
APPLICATION:
Under what circumstances would either rule be violated?
- Neither rule applies if the student is not an Honor Roll student. If the rule does not apply, it can't be violated.
- The rule only applies if the WHO is satisfied. The question tells us the WHAT. Therefore the key condition is the WHEN.
- Rule #1, if it applies, can only be violated if the student in question did not read To Kill a Mockingbird. The student in question did read To Kill a Mockingbird, so Rule #1 is not violated regardless of when he read it. Even if he was in the class before 2003, the fact that he read this book at all prevents him from violating Rule #1, because he could have read it at any time. The rule is only violated if the conditions cannot satisfy the rule. In other words, even if the student read To Kill a Mockingbird in 1998, it can still be true that all of Mr. Braiman's Honor Roll students after 2002 read it as well.
- Rule #2, if it applies, can only be violated if the student did not read The Natural. The student in question did not read The Natural, therefore the rule is violated if the other conditions are met. Since all of the Honor Roll students in the class after 2006 did read it, he cannot have been in the class after 2006 if he didn't read it, and thus must have been in the class before 2007.
Homework #10
People who accuse the Governor of not caring about the automobile industry are just using that criticism to hide their own partisan politics. Naïve citizens, who believe those accusations, fail to realize that sometimes a politician may seem not to care about one particular interest group, when in fact he is trying to enact public policy that benefits many different people and many different interests.
Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest support for what the author says in the first sentence of the passage?
A. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between not caring about one specific group's interests, and actually caring about broader concerns and general public interest.
B. The Governor's harshest critics are members of automobile workers' unions, and politicians with strong ties to the automotive industry.
C. Many people who think the Governor doesn't care about the automobile industry voted for him in the last election.
D. The Governor is not a politician who talks about the difference between partisan politics and civic responsibility.
E. Sometimes a politician thinks he's trying to help the whole community, when, in reality, he just doesn't care about the concerns of one particular group.
Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest support for what the author says in the first sentence of the passage?
A. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between not caring about one specific group's interests, and actually caring about broader concerns and general public interest.
B. The Governor's harshest critics are members of automobile workers' unions, and politicians with strong ties to the automotive industry.
C. Many people who think the Governor doesn't care about the automobile industry voted for him in the last election.
D. The Governor is not a politician who talks about the difference between partisan politics and civic responsibility.
E. Sometimes a politician thinks he's trying to help the whole community, when, in reality, he just doesn't care about the concerns of one particular group.
Homework #8 Answer
It is possible for a panhandler to collect a considerable amount of money from passersby, if he can convince them that he is destitute and that begging is the only way for him to help himself. If, on the other hand, passersby get the impression that they are being conned (tricked), or that the panhandler is just being lazy, they will not give him anything at all.
Which one of the following statements can be most reliably concluded from the passage above?
A. Passersby often decide whether or not to give money to a panhandler based on their impression of him and his honesty.
(A) is correct. The argument is that whether or not a passerby will give money to a panhandler depends on whether the passerby believes that the panhandler is in real need, or is merely a con artist. The first sentence indicates that a panhandler can receive money "if he can convince" the passerby; and the second refers to whether a passerby "get[s] an impression" about the panhandler. The key is the passerby's subjective belief, not the panhandler's objective intent.
B. If someone begs for money when he does not really need to, people will not give him any money.
(B) is incorrect. As stated above, the key to the argument is the passerby's subjective belief, not the panhandler's objective intent. Even if the panhandler truly needs the money, he may not be able to convince the passerby of same. Conversely, he may be able to convince the passerby and receive money from him even if he is not in true need.
C. Most passersby would give a panhandler money if they thought he was not trying to con them.
(C) is probably true but is an incomplete statement of the argument. It might be the right answer if we were being asked to support the argument, but the question asks for a conclusion.
D. Most panhandlers are unwilling to work.
(D) is incorrect because it's probably an opinion, or at least an unfounded observation. Even if it were true it would not be an appropriate conclusion. The panhandler's individual situation, not to mention any broad generalizations about panhandlers as a group, are not relevant to the argument which depends on the passerby's impression of the individual panhandler.
E. People who give money to panhandlers are not influenced by how much change they have in their pockets when they decide how much money to give.
(E) is incorrect because it changes the subject; it adds a new and completely unrelated factor and thus attempts a logical fallacy. The argument tells us what passersby are influenced by, therefore the conclusion should do the same thing. It does not necessarily follow, in this or any other argument, that someone who is influenced by one thing must not be influenced by some other specific thing.
Which one of the following statements can be most reliably concluded from the passage above?
A. Passersby often decide whether or not to give money to a panhandler based on their impression of him and his honesty.
(A) is correct. The argument is that whether or not a passerby will give money to a panhandler depends on whether the passerby believes that the panhandler is in real need, or is merely a con artist. The first sentence indicates that a panhandler can receive money "if he can convince" the passerby; and the second refers to whether a passerby "get[s] an impression" about the panhandler. The key is the passerby's subjective belief, not the panhandler's objective intent.
B. If someone begs for money when he does not really need to, people will not give him any money.
(B) is incorrect. As stated above, the key to the argument is the passerby's subjective belief, not the panhandler's objective intent. Even if the panhandler truly needs the money, he may not be able to convince the passerby of same. Conversely, he may be able to convince the passerby and receive money from him even if he is not in true need.
C. Most passersby would give a panhandler money if they thought he was not trying to con them.
(C) is probably true but is an incomplete statement of the argument. It might be the right answer if we were being asked to support the argument, but the question asks for a conclusion.
D. Most panhandlers are unwilling to work.
(D) is incorrect because it's probably an opinion, or at least an unfounded observation. Even if it were true it would not be an appropriate conclusion. The panhandler's individual situation, not to mention any broad generalizations about panhandlers as a group, are not relevant to the argument which depends on the passerby's impression of the individual panhandler.
E. People who give money to panhandlers are not influenced by how much change they have in their pockets when they decide how much money to give.
(E) is incorrect because it changes the subject; it adds a new and completely unrelated factor and thus attempts a logical fallacy. The argument tells us what passersby are influenced by, therefore the conclusion should do the same thing. It does not necessarily follow, in this or any other argument, that someone who is influenced by one thing must not be influenced by some other specific thing.
September 25, 2009
Homework #9
All Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 read To Kill a Mockingbird. All Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class after 2006 read The Natural.
If a student read To Kill a Mockingbird but did not read The Natural, which one of the following MUST be TRUE?
(A) The student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.
(B) The student was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 and before 2006.
(C) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.
(D) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2003.
(E) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 and before 2007.
If a student read To Kill a Mockingbird but did not read The Natural, which one of the following MUST be TRUE?
(A) The student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.
(B) The student was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 and before 2006.
(C) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.
(D) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2003.
(E) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 and before 2007.
September 24, 2009
Homework #8
It is possible for a panhandler to collect a considerable amount of money from passersby, if he can convince them that he is destitute and that begging is the only way for him to help himself. If, on the other hand, passersby get the impression that they are being conned (tricked), or that the panhandler is just being lazy, they will not give him anything at all.
Which one of the following statements can be most reliably concluded from the passage above?
A. Passersby often decide whether or not to give money to a panhandler based on their impression of him and his honesty.
B. If someone begs for money when he does not really need to, people will not give him any money.
C. Most passersby would give a panhandler money if they thought he was not trying to con them.
D. Most panhandlers are unwilling to work.
E. People who give money to panhandlers are not influenced by how much change they have in their pockets when they decide how much money to give.
Which one of the following statements can be most reliably concluded from the passage above?
A. Passersby often decide whether or not to give money to a panhandler based on their impression of him and his honesty.
B. If someone begs for money when he does not really need to, people will not give him any money.
C. Most passersby would give a panhandler money if they thought he was not trying to con them.
D. Most panhandlers are unwilling to work.
E. People who give money to panhandlers are not influenced by how much change they have in their pockets when they decide how much money to give.
September 23, 2009
Homework #7 Answer
Recent studies have indicated that a certain type of freshwater cod has more tumors than other species of fish in the Hudson River. Long before this phenomenon was recognized, significant progress had been made in clearing the river of chemicals and other kinds of pollution thought to promote tumor growth in fish.
Which one of the following conclusions can most reliably be drawn from the statements above?
A. There is no causal link between pollution and the tumors in the freshwater cod.
(A) is incorrect because it it precisely the opposite of what the author is implying. The author is claiming two things: (1) that the cod now have tumors; (2) that before the tumors were discovered, progress was made in cleaning up the river. Note that the stimulus tells us only that "progress had been made;" it does NOT tell us that the pollution had been eliminated entirely. Therefore, if the fish have tumors, it is reasonable to assume that there is still some pollution in the river, that the pollution caused the tumors, and that efforts to clean up that pollution didn't do any good.
B. Efforts to clear the Hudson of chemicals and other kinds of pollution have not been strong enough.
(B) is correct because it is the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from the two items of evidence cited above. The fish have tumors, despite the fact that they tried to clean up the river years ago before the tumors were discovered. The author is clearly implying that the tumors were caused by pollution. Note, once again, that the stimulus DOES NOT SAY that the pollution was COMPLETELY ELIMINATED. It only says that "progress had been made." The reasonable and obvious conclusion is that they did not do a good enough job cleaning up the river, because if the fish have tumors anyway then there must still be some pollution in the river. Whatever progress was made was not good enough.
C. A sudden change in the river environment has had a drastic effect on the freshwater cod.
(C) is incorrect because nothing in the stimulus leads to this conclusion. There is nothing "sudden" or "drastic" that can be inferred from the author's statements. The author is merely pointing out the existence of a condition and attempting to suggest its cause. Nothing in the stimulus suggests that the river "suddenly" became polluted, or that the tumors were caused by anything that "suddenly" changed.
D. No other fish besides the freshwater cod can be harmed by chemicals and other kinds of pollution.
(D) is incorrect because the distinction between the cod and other fish is not the author's point. There is nothing in the stimulus to indicate that he thinks other fish are immune to pollution. The stimulus states that the cod have "more tumors" than the other fish, not that the cod have tumors and the other fish do not.
E. The studies mentioned provide no evidence that the number of tumors in the freshwater cod is related to the amount of pollution in the river.
(E) is incorrect because it says essentially the same thing (A) does, except this time the statement is attributed to "the studies mentioned" instead of being claimed outright. This might be the correct answer if the question was which statement would weaken the argument, or which statement could be used to refute or rebut the argument, but that is not the question. The question asks for the most likely conclusion. A conclusion should be a statement of what the author seems to believe, i.e., where his statements logically lead. The stimulus cannot reasonably be read to suggest that the author believes that pollution was NOT the cause of the tumors. In addition, the statement in (E) as constructed simply does not work as a conclusion. It would not make sense, for example, to add the word "Therefore, ..." to the beginning of the sentence.
Which one of the following conclusions can most reliably be drawn from the statements above?
A. There is no causal link between pollution and the tumors in the freshwater cod.
(A) is incorrect because it it precisely the opposite of what the author is implying. The author is claiming two things: (1) that the cod now have tumors; (2) that before the tumors were discovered, progress was made in cleaning up the river. Note that the stimulus tells us only that "progress had been made;" it does NOT tell us that the pollution had been eliminated entirely. Therefore, if the fish have tumors, it is reasonable to assume that there is still some pollution in the river, that the pollution caused the tumors, and that efforts to clean up that pollution didn't do any good.
B. Efforts to clear the Hudson of chemicals and other kinds of pollution have not been strong enough.
(B) is correct because it is the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from the two items of evidence cited above. The fish have tumors, despite the fact that they tried to clean up the river years ago before the tumors were discovered. The author is clearly implying that the tumors were caused by pollution. Note, once again, that the stimulus DOES NOT SAY that the pollution was COMPLETELY ELIMINATED. It only says that "progress had been made." The reasonable and obvious conclusion is that they did not do a good enough job cleaning up the river, because if the fish have tumors anyway then there must still be some pollution in the river. Whatever progress was made was not good enough.
C. A sudden change in the river environment has had a drastic effect on the freshwater cod.
(C) is incorrect because nothing in the stimulus leads to this conclusion. There is nothing "sudden" or "drastic" that can be inferred from the author's statements. The author is merely pointing out the existence of a condition and attempting to suggest its cause. Nothing in the stimulus suggests that the river "suddenly" became polluted, or that the tumors were caused by anything that "suddenly" changed.
D. No other fish besides the freshwater cod can be harmed by chemicals and other kinds of pollution.
(D) is incorrect because the distinction between the cod and other fish is not the author's point. There is nothing in the stimulus to indicate that he thinks other fish are immune to pollution. The stimulus states that the cod have "more tumors" than the other fish, not that the cod have tumors and the other fish do not.
E. The studies mentioned provide no evidence that the number of tumors in the freshwater cod is related to the amount of pollution in the river.
(E) is incorrect because it says essentially the same thing (A) does, except this time the statement is attributed to "the studies mentioned" instead of being claimed outright. This might be the correct answer if the question was which statement would weaken the argument, or which statement could be used to refute or rebut the argument, but that is not the question. The question asks for the most likely conclusion. A conclusion should be a statement of what the author seems to believe, i.e., where his statements logically lead. The stimulus cannot reasonably be read to suggest that the author believes that pollution was NOT the cause of the tumors. In addition, the statement in (E) as constructed simply does not work as a conclusion. It would not make sense, for example, to add the word "Therefore, ..." to the beginning of the sentence.
Homework for Sept. 23
No written assignment tonight. Instead, I want everyone to read the answers and explanations for homeworks #1-6, and compare them to the answers and explanations you came up with.
Scroll down or use the following links:
Homework #1 Answer
Homework #2 Answer
Homework #3 Answer
Homework #4 Answer
Homework #5 Answer
Homework #6 Answer
Scroll down or use the following links:
Homework #1 Answer
Homework #2 Answer
Homework #3 Answer
Homework #4 Answer
Homework #5 Answer
Homework #6 Answer
September 22, 2009
Homework #6 Answer
The moral outrage and anger, voiced by some segments of the public, at the students arrested recently while demonstrating at City Hall, is wrong. We should keep in mind that, more than 200 years ago, our forefathers dumped tea in Boston Harbor in defiance of the British.
Which one of the following would be the most effective response, for the author's opponents, to dispute the argument?
A. It is unpatriotic to demonstrate in front of City Hall.
(A) is incorrect because it is an opinion, and an inflammatory one at that. Whether or not a behavior is "patriotic" is largely a matter of opinion, and in this case it does not refute the argument. Even though political partisans say things like this all the time, a blanket statement of opinion is never a reasonable counter-argument. Why those people have condemned the protesters, or their opinion of the protesters, is no more relevant to this argument than why the protesters protested in the first place.
B. Students are too inexperienced to understand the consequences of demonstrations.
(B) is incorrect because it's also an opinion, and an exercise in excuse-making. Just who is "too inexperienced" and who is "experienced enough" to do anything is a matter of opinion. Further, claiming that young people who do the wrong thing should be forgiven because they can't understand the consequences is not logical or reasonable. It's an emotional plea for sympathy. In addition, the author is arguing that the outrage against the protesters is wrong; i.e., that they should be forgiven albeit for a different reason. One would assume that to refute the argument, one would have to argue that the outrage against the protest was proper, and at least imply that the protest itself was not.
C. In today's world, one's beliefs and conscience are rarely the reasons for one's actions.
(C) is incorrect because, like (B), it is an attempt to make an excuse for the protesters or justify the protest, which is the same thing the author is trying to do. Why the protesters were out protesting is irrelevant, as are the other people's reasons for denouncing the protesters. Having a "reason" to do the wrong thing does not make it any less wrong.
D. The American patriots who threw tea into Boston Harbor had some public support for their cause.
(D) is incorrect because the author is trying to justify this protest by implicitly comparing it to the Boston Tea Party. This response implies that the current protesters have no public support, but that fact cannot be ascertained from the stimulus. Regardless, the author is not using public support as the basis for his argument that the protesters should not be condemned for protesting.
E. Simply because some past demonstrations by citizens are considered justified, doesn't mean that all such acts are justified.
(E) is correct. The author's argument is that those who have denounced the protesters are wrong, because the 18th-century Boston Tea Party has been accepted as legitimate and celebrated throughout history as an heroic act of defiance. The obvious weakness in the argument is that not all protests are created equal. Obviously, just because one protest that took place a very long time ago, under very different social conditions, has been accepted and celebrated does not mean that EVERY protest is legitimate or worth celebrating.
Which one of the following would be the most effective response, for the author's opponents, to dispute the argument?
A. It is unpatriotic to demonstrate in front of City Hall.
(A) is incorrect because it is an opinion, and an inflammatory one at that. Whether or not a behavior is "patriotic" is largely a matter of opinion, and in this case it does not refute the argument. Even though political partisans say things like this all the time, a blanket statement of opinion is never a reasonable counter-argument. Why those people have condemned the protesters, or their opinion of the protesters, is no more relevant to this argument than why the protesters protested in the first place.
B. Students are too inexperienced to understand the consequences of demonstrations.
(B) is incorrect because it's also an opinion, and an exercise in excuse-making. Just who is "too inexperienced" and who is "experienced enough" to do anything is a matter of opinion. Further, claiming that young people who do the wrong thing should be forgiven because they can't understand the consequences is not logical or reasonable. It's an emotional plea for sympathy. In addition, the author is arguing that the outrage against the protesters is wrong; i.e., that they should be forgiven albeit for a different reason. One would assume that to refute the argument, one would have to argue that the outrage against the protest was proper, and at least imply that the protest itself was not.
C. In today's world, one's beliefs and conscience are rarely the reasons for one's actions.
(C) is incorrect because, like (B), it is an attempt to make an excuse for the protesters or justify the protest, which is the same thing the author is trying to do. Why the protesters were out protesting is irrelevant, as are the other people's reasons for denouncing the protesters. Having a "reason" to do the wrong thing does not make it any less wrong.
D. The American patriots who threw tea into Boston Harbor had some public support for their cause.
(D) is incorrect because the author is trying to justify this protest by implicitly comparing it to the Boston Tea Party. This response implies that the current protesters have no public support, but that fact cannot be ascertained from the stimulus. Regardless, the author is not using public support as the basis for his argument that the protesters should not be condemned for protesting.
E. Simply because some past demonstrations by citizens are considered justified, doesn't mean that all such acts are justified.
(E) is correct. The author's argument is that those who have denounced the protesters are wrong, because the 18th-century Boston Tea Party has been accepted as legitimate and celebrated throughout history as an heroic act of defiance. The obvious weakness in the argument is that not all protests are created equal. Obviously, just because one protest that took place a very long time ago, under very different social conditions, has been accepted and celebrated does not mean that EVERY protest is legitimate or worth celebrating.
Homework #7
Recent studies have indicated that a certain type of freshwater cod has more tumors than other species of fish in the Hudson River. Long before this phenomenon was recognized, significant progress had been made in clearing the river of chemicals and other kinds of pollution thought to promote tumor growth in fish.
Which one of the following conclusions can most reliably be drawn from the statements above?
A. There is no causal link between pollution and the tumors in the freshwater cod.
B. Efforts to clear the Hudson of chemicals and other kinds of pollution have not been strong enough.
C. A sudden change in the river environment has had a drastic effect on the freshwater cod.
D. No other fish besides the freshwater cod can be harmed by chemicals and other kinds of pollution.
E. The studies mentioned provide no evidence that the number of tumors in the freshwater cod is related to the amount of pollution in the river.
Which one of the following conclusions can most reliably be drawn from the statements above?
A. There is no causal link between pollution and the tumors in the freshwater cod.
B. Efforts to clear the Hudson of chemicals and other kinds of pollution have not been strong enough.
C. A sudden change in the river environment has had a drastic effect on the freshwater cod.
D. No other fish besides the freshwater cod can be harmed by chemicals and other kinds of pollution.
E. The studies mentioned provide no evidence that the number of tumors in the freshwater cod is related to the amount of pollution in the river.
Homework #5 Answer
When we returned home from our six month vacation abroad, we found several drinking glasses shattered in place on the kitchen shelf. This can only happen during a sonic boom or when there is an earthquake. This must have been the loud noise that we heard not long after we drove off to the airport on the night we left for our vacation. Since there was no report on the car radio that night about earthquakes in the area, which always get a lot of attention, the glasses must have been shattered by a sonic boom, which is so common that it's never reported.
The speaker's conclusion about the "loud noise" assumes which of the following?
A. It is easy to tell the difference between glass shattered by an earthquake and glass shattered by a sonic boom.
(A) is incorrect. The author's conclusion is that the "loud noise" they heard must have been a sonic boom, based on three pieces of evidence: (1) the glasses were found shattered, which can only happen as a result of either an earthquake or a sonic boom; (2) they heard the "loud noise" on the night they left, and (3) there was no report of an earthquake on the news that night. What is missing is any definitive proof that this particular "loud noise" in fact caused the glasses to break, not whether it is easy to tell whether they broke as a result of one cause or the other. The author assumes the noise was a sonic boom because he also assumes that it broke the glasses, that it couldn't have been an earthquake because no earthquake was reported, and there is nothing besides a sonic boom or earthquake that could have broken the glasses.
B. A sonic boom always causes more damage in the house than an earthquake does.
(B) is incorrect. The stimulus provides no evidence of "more damage in the house" besides the broken glasses. Only the three items of evidence mentioned above are presented as evidence. Even if earthquakes cause more damage than sonic booms, the latter could still have shattered the glasses in this case. Further, the argument claims the cause of the "loud noise," not cause of the shattered glasses.
C. The drinking glasses on the shelf were shattered because they were not safely protected.
(C) is incorrect. The issue is not what could have prevented the glasses from shattering; the issue is whether the "loud noise" was an earthquake or a sonic boom (or perhaps something else entirely). Whether the glasses could have been protected is irrelevant to the question of which natural phenomenon occurred that caused them to break.
D. No earthquake has occurred since the night the family left on their vacation.
(D) is correct. The argument is that the "loud noise" had to have been a sonic boom and cannot have been anything else. The fact that the glasses were found broken (which could have had one of only two causes), the fact that they heard the "loud noise" on the night they left, and the fact that no earthquakes were reported that night, led the author to conclude that the noise must have been a sonic boom. However, the author is ignoring what should be an obvious alternative possibility: that some other event that occurred while they were away, not the "loud noise" they heard the night they left, broke the glasses. If the glasses could have been shattered by another event subsequent to the "loud noise," then the fact that they were shattered alone cannot be taken as evidence that the "loud noise" had to have been either a sonic boom or an earthquake. The "loud noise" could have been anything if it was not the event that shattered the glasses. The fact that no earthquake was reported on the night of the "loud noise" tells us that it was probably not an earthquake, but unless it can be shown that the same "loud noise" shattered the glasses, the author cannot conclude that it must have been a sonic boom.
E. Every time there is an earthquake in the area, some of the kitchen glassware will be shattered.
(E) is incorrect even if it is probably true. The author is not basing his conclusion, that the noise was a sonic boom, on this fact. Even if it's possible for all of the kitchen glassware to survive an earthquake, this would not undermine the author's conclusion that the "loud noise" was a sonic boom.
The speaker's conclusion about the "loud noise" assumes which of the following?
A. It is easy to tell the difference between glass shattered by an earthquake and glass shattered by a sonic boom.
(A) is incorrect. The author's conclusion is that the "loud noise" they heard must have been a sonic boom, based on three pieces of evidence: (1) the glasses were found shattered, which can only happen as a result of either an earthquake or a sonic boom; (2) they heard the "loud noise" on the night they left, and (3) there was no report of an earthquake on the news that night. What is missing is any definitive proof that this particular "loud noise" in fact caused the glasses to break, not whether it is easy to tell whether they broke as a result of one cause or the other. The author assumes the noise was a sonic boom because he also assumes that it broke the glasses, that it couldn't have been an earthquake because no earthquake was reported, and there is nothing besides a sonic boom or earthquake that could have broken the glasses.
B. A sonic boom always causes more damage in the house than an earthquake does.
(B) is incorrect. The stimulus provides no evidence of "more damage in the house" besides the broken glasses. Only the three items of evidence mentioned above are presented as evidence. Even if earthquakes cause more damage than sonic booms, the latter could still have shattered the glasses in this case. Further, the argument claims the cause of the "loud noise," not cause of the shattered glasses.
C. The drinking glasses on the shelf were shattered because they were not safely protected.
(C) is incorrect. The issue is not what could have prevented the glasses from shattering; the issue is whether the "loud noise" was an earthquake or a sonic boom (or perhaps something else entirely). Whether the glasses could have been protected is irrelevant to the question of which natural phenomenon occurred that caused them to break.
D. No earthquake has occurred since the night the family left on their vacation.
(D) is correct. The argument is that the "loud noise" had to have been a sonic boom and cannot have been anything else. The fact that the glasses were found broken (which could have had one of only two causes), the fact that they heard the "loud noise" on the night they left, and the fact that no earthquakes were reported that night, led the author to conclude that the noise must have been a sonic boom. However, the author is ignoring what should be an obvious alternative possibility: that some other event that occurred while they were away, not the "loud noise" they heard the night they left, broke the glasses. If the glasses could have been shattered by another event subsequent to the "loud noise," then the fact that they were shattered alone cannot be taken as evidence that the "loud noise" had to have been either a sonic boom or an earthquake. The "loud noise" could have been anything if it was not the event that shattered the glasses. The fact that no earthquake was reported on the night of the "loud noise" tells us that it was probably not an earthquake, but unless it can be shown that the same "loud noise" shattered the glasses, the author cannot conclude that it must have been a sonic boom.
E. Every time there is an earthquake in the area, some of the kitchen glassware will be shattered.
(E) is incorrect even if it is probably true. The author is not basing his conclusion, that the noise was a sonic boom, on this fact. Even if it's possible for all of the kitchen glassware to survive an earthquake, this would not undermine the author's conclusion that the "loud noise" was a sonic boom.
September 21, 2009
Homework #6
The moral outrage and anger, voiced by some segments of the public, at the students arrested recently while demonstrating at City Hall, is wrong. We should keep in mind that, more than 200 years ago, our forefathers dumped tea in Boston Harbor in defiance of the British.
Which one of the following would be the most effective response, for the author's opponents, to dispute the argument?
A. It is unpatriotic to demonstrate in front of City Hall.
B. Students are too inexperienced to understand the consequences of demonstrations.
C. In today's world, one's beliefs and conscience are rarely the reasons for one's actions.
D. The American patriots who threw tea into Boston Harbor had some public support for their cause.
E. Simply because some past demonstrations by citizens are considered justified, doesn't mean that all such acts are justified.
Which one of the following would be the most effective response, for the author's opponents, to dispute the argument?
A. It is unpatriotic to demonstrate in front of City Hall.
B. Students are too inexperienced to understand the consequences of demonstrations.
C. In today's world, one's beliefs and conscience are rarely the reasons for one's actions.
D. The American patriots who threw tea into Boston Harbor had some public support for their cause.
E. Simply because some past demonstrations by citizens are considered justified, doesn't mean that all such acts are justified.
Homework #4 Answer
Imagine that I come into your living room and find you reading a book that I think is really offensive. Imagine that I get so upset about it that I steal the book, then burn it or rip out the pages that I don't like. Then imagine that when you file a complaint, the police and the courts tell you that there's nothing wrong with what I did. This may seem absurd, but what if instead of your living room we were talking about a school or a public library, and instead of me it was one of those "moral values" organizations? This is a situation that is eating away at the very roots of our constitutional system -- the banning of so-called "offensive" books from our library collections.
Which one of the following describes the principal weakness in the author's analogy?
(A) Burning or ripping up a book is not the same as banning a book.
(A) is incorrect because it focuses on the wrong part of the analogy. An analogy is a claim that one situation is the equivalent of another, made to illustrate an important principle. Specifically, the argument is that organizations trying to ban books from public schools and libraries is the same as, or just as bad as, someone coming into your private living room, snatching your book out of your hand and destroying it. The author seems to believe that one person or group of people should not be telling others what they should or should not be allowed to read, but the main argument is the analogy itself. To weaken the analogy, we must find an important, meaningful difference between the two situations. The fact that physically destroying a book is not the same as preventing people from getting it does not weaken the argument, because either method is meant to prevent people from reading it. It does not undermine the principle behind the analogy. Therefore, this is not a meaningful difference.
(B) The police and courts do not condone the theft of personal property.
(B) is incorrect even though it is true. Indeed, all five of the answer choices here are indisputably true. Again, the key to any analogy is the implicit claim of equivalency. To weaken an analogy, one must show that the equivalency is false; that one situation is not the same as the other in a way that undermines the author's reason for making the analogy. Of course stealing is illegal; the author is claiming that banning books is the same as stealing and destroying them. Which it isn't, but not for this reason.
(C) Schools and libraries, unlike the reader's living room, are public institutions.
(C) is correct. This is a meaningful difference between the two situations that undermines the author's argument. Banning books from public institutions such as schools and libraries is NOT the same as stealing and destroying them once they are in private hands. Because schools and libraries are public institutions, everyone is entitled to have a say in what books they carry and make available to the public. This is not to say that opponents of books are entitled to get them banned, but they do have a right to complain. They do not, however, have the right to complain about what any private individual reads in his own home, let alone take corrective action against that person. Note also that the analogy only refers to public schools and libraries, not bookstores, which are privately owned and operated. There is a world of difference between public and private interests. If it's public, the organization has a right to do something about it; if it's private, they have no such right.
(D) Books that may be suitable for adults may not be suitable for children.
(D) is incorrect even though it is true. It does not undermine the equivalency between banning books from public institutions and taking books from private individuals.
(E) The Constitution does not clearly define what makes a book "offensive" in the eyes of the law.
(E) is also true, and also incorrect. The issue is not what is offensive and what isn't. The issue is under what circumstances, and by what means, does a person or organization have the right to oppose "offensive" books.
Which one of the following describes the principal weakness in the author's analogy?
(A) Burning or ripping up a book is not the same as banning a book.
(A) is incorrect because it focuses on the wrong part of the analogy. An analogy is a claim that one situation is the equivalent of another, made to illustrate an important principle. Specifically, the argument is that organizations trying to ban books from public schools and libraries is the same as, or just as bad as, someone coming into your private living room, snatching your book out of your hand and destroying it. The author seems to believe that one person or group of people should not be telling others what they should or should not be allowed to read, but the main argument is the analogy itself. To weaken the analogy, we must find an important, meaningful difference between the two situations. The fact that physically destroying a book is not the same as preventing people from getting it does not weaken the argument, because either method is meant to prevent people from reading it. It does not undermine the principle behind the analogy. Therefore, this is not a meaningful difference.
(B) The police and courts do not condone the theft of personal property.
(B) is incorrect even though it is true. Indeed, all five of the answer choices here are indisputably true. Again, the key to any analogy is the implicit claim of equivalency. To weaken an analogy, one must show that the equivalency is false; that one situation is not the same as the other in a way that undermines the author's reason for making the analogy. Of course stealing is illegal; the author is claiming that banning books is the same as stealing and destroying them. Which it isn't, but not for this reason.
(C) Schools and libraries, unlike the reader's living room, are public institutions.
(C) is correct. This is a meaningful difference between the two situations that undermines the author's argument. Banning books from public institutions such as schools and libraries is NOT the same as stealing and destroying them once they are in private hands. Because schools and libraries are public institutions, everyone is entitled to have a say in what books they carry and make available to the public. This is not to say that opponents of books are entitled to get them banned, but they do have a right to complain. They do not, however, have the right to complain about what any private individual reads in his own home, let alone take corrective action against that person. Note also that the analogy only refers to public schools and libraries, not bookstores, which are privately owned and operated. There is a world of difference between public and private interests. If it's public, the organization has a right to do something about it; if it's private, they have no such right.
(D) Books that may be suitable for adults may not be suitable for children.
(D) is incorrect even though it is true. It does not undermine the equivalency between banning books from public institutions and taking books from private individuals.
(E) The Constitution does not clearly define what makes a book "offensive" in the eyes of the law.
(E) is also true, and also incorrect. The issue is not what is offensive and what isn't. The issue is under what circumstances, and by what means, does a person or organization have the right to oppose "offensive" books.
Take-Home Quiz answers and explanations
The take-home quiz essentially tests three things:
1. Your understanding and appreciation of your obligations with respect to school;
2. Your overall maturity and sense of personal responsibility; and
3. Your ability to distinguish, where distinctions exist, what is reasonable and proper from what you personally want.
For most of the questions, the correct answer should have been obvious. Any not-so-obvious answers could be found on pages 5-8 of the English Handbook, which I advised everyone to read before taking the quiz.
Many of the questions address the issue of whether you should accept responsibility for the choices you make, or be accommodated, forgiven, or given another chance when those choices lead to an undesirable outcome. To put it another way, whether it is better to do the right thing in the first place, or try to avoid the unpleasant consequences after the fact. In essentially every case, the former is the correct answer.
Some of the other questions deal with the issue of whether a situation is "not your fault," and what should happen as a result. In most cases, the correct answer does not take fault into account. What this means is not that you are always necessarily at fault, but that it often doesn't matter whether you are at fault or not. In other words, in such situations the fact that you are not at fault is less important than other facts or considerations.
If you answered a substantial number of these questions wrong, you need to seriously reexamine your approach to school (and to life in general as well), and adjust your attitude to give yourself a greater chance at success.
ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS:
1. Your understanding and appreciation of your obligations with respect to school;
2. Your overall maturity and sense of personal responsibility; and
3. Your ability to distinguish, where distinctions exist, what is reasonable and proper from what you personally want.
For most of the questions, the correct answer should have been obvious. Any not-so-obvious answers could be found on pages 5-8 of the English Handbook, which I advised everyone to read before taking the quiz.
Many of the questions address the issue of whether you should accept responsibility for the choices you make, or be accommodated, forgiven, or given another chance when those choices lead to an undesirable outcome. To put it another way, whether it is better to do the right thing in the first place, or try to avoid the unpleasant consequences after the fact. In essentially every case, the former is the correct answer.
Some of the other questions deal with the issue of whether a situation is "not your fault," and what should happen as a result. In most cases, the correct answer does not take fault into account. What this means is not that you are always necessarily at fault, but that it often doesn't matter whether you are at fault or not. In other words, in such situations the fact that you are not at fault is less important than other facts or considerations.
If you answered a substantial number of these questions wrong, you need to seriously reexamine your approach to school (and to life in general as well), and adjust your attitude to give yourself a greater chance at success.
ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS:
- (d) is correct. The late bell marks the beginning of class. Each class period is 47 or 48 minutes long, and all of those minutes are to be devoted to work. You have four minutes, plenty of time, to get from one class to another, and that is all you should be doing during passing. (a) is therefore incorrect, as is (b). (c) is not as good an answer as (d). (e) might be understandable if you are in elementary school, but by now you should be mature enough to do what is right without being told. (f) is childish and self-indulgent. (g) is wrong because no room passes may be issued in the first ten minutes of class, a school-wide rule that you should already know.
- (c) is correct. Being “late” means arriving after a specified point in time, nothing more. If you have an “excuse” for being late, or if it's "not your fault," that does not magically alter the space-time continuum and make it so you actually arrived on time. (a) and (b) are therefore incorrect. Lateness is also not a matter of degree; you either arrive before the bell or after. How long after doesn't matter. (d) is therefore wrong. (e) is wrong because your intentions are irrelevant. Lateness is discussed on page 5 of the English Handbook.
- (k) is correct. As mentioned above, excuses, reasons, intentions and/or fault are irrelevant to the question of what time you arrived to class. Nothing can change that essential fact. The question asks under what circumstances you are not late; it does not ask whether or not you are at fault. (a) through (f) are therefore wrong. (g) and (h) are wrong because you are required to be in the classroom when class begins; if you (meaning your person, not your belongings) are not in the room when the bell rings, you are either late or absent.
- (d) is correct because it is the most efficient, least disruptive way of dealing with this situation. (a) and (b) are wrong because either of these will actually take longer and be more disruptive to me and the rest of the class. It will take less time to simply go where you need to go and take care of the issue, than it will to come to my class first, then go to the other location and come back. In addition, I would rather you come in late than disrupt the class by immediately asking to leave, or put me in a position of having to say no because there are no room passes in the first ten minutes. Your being late is a significantly lesser disruption and will have a lesser impact on your grade. (c) is wrong because, as discussed above, your reason for being late is irrelevant so there’s no need to tell me what it is.
NOTE ALSO: If you have left an item behind in another classroom, you will not be permitted to leave class to retrieve it. If you value your property, you must be careful with it and be responsible for it. Consequently, you must bear the risk of anything happening to the property if you carelessly leave it somewhere.
- (c) is correct. Again, late means late; your reasons, intentions and whether or not you are at fault are irrelevant, therefore (a) is wrong. (b) and (d) are childish and self-indulgent.
- (a) is correct. The other choices are childish and self-indulgent.
- (f) is correct; one point for either (d) or (e). The rule of thumb in class is: “Do today’s work first.” The most reasonable course of action is to do what everyone else is doing, so that you will be able to follow the discussion and everyone will be on the same task while in the classroom. It is your responsibility to make up whatever work you miss, but you may not do it in class when there is something else that you’re supposed to be doing, so (c) is wrong. (a) and (b) are simply false. You cannot expect to be given credit for work you have not done, regardless of why you have not done it.
- (b) is correct. The fact that you have to ask permission necessarily means that you don’t get it automatically. (a) is therefore wrong. (c) is wrong because you should have taken this into consideration when you chose not to do your work. (d) is wrong because I would consider such a promise to be worthless.
- (d) is correct. (a), (b) and (e) are false. (c), (f) and (g) are just plain stupid. (h) is a despicable thing to do, and would be unforgivable should you ever do it.
- (e) is correct. The other choices are childish and self-indulgent. (f) may be understandable in some circumstances, but (e) is the better answer.
- (e) is correct; one point for either (a) or (b). The room pass is a courtesy, not a right. You may exceed the limits if you choose to do so, but there may be consequences if it becomes a habit and you need to accept that. (c) and (d) are childish and self-indulgent.
- (d) is correct. See page 5 of the English Handbook. The points that represent your grade come from the work you have done. You do the work, you get points for it; the better the work, the more points you get. You don’t get points simply for being on my roster. You have to earn them. (a) is wrong because that would prevent you from learning, blind you to the risks of not doing your work, and give you all kinds of other irrational ideas. The same applies to (b), and (c) makes even less sense. (e) is irrelevant and (f) is absurd; you don't get to set your own standards.
- (c) is correct. An A represents exceptional work, best in the class; a B, good work, meaning above average. A C means the work is average; a D means the work is poor but enough to meet the minimum requirement. The notebook rubric on page 6 of the English Handbook indicates that a "Fair" notebook receives a C, and describes it. In addition, the English Regents scoring described on page 7 of the handbook indicates that "average high school-level writing" receives a C. It is not reasonable to expect a high grade for work that is merely adequate or of average quality, or for doing "just enough to pass." Only the best work will receive an A; otherwise, an A doesn’t mean anything and is not an achievement. Your work has to be better than average if you want a better-than-average grade.
- (e) is correct. The English Handbook indicates on page 8 that the notebook receives a zero (no credit) if it only contains quotations and notes copied from the board. You get no credit for copying quotes and instructions off the board. Copying things off the board is a fifth-grade skill; we are in high school now. What is important is that you do what you are asked and required to do. You are neither asked nor required to copy quotes, instructions or questions off the board. If your notebook contains no responses, no original writing, nothing that you produced yourself, then you did not do the work you were asked and required to do. None of the other choices therefore makes any sense.
- (o) is correct. The other choices are childish and self-indulgent.
- (h) is correct. (a) through (f) are childish and self-indulgent. (g) is wrong because it is a declaration of helplessness, not an actual question that indicates some thought and effort on your part. Therefore (h) is the better answer.
- (k) is correct. The other choices are childish and self-indulgent.
- (h) is correct. (a) is wrong because I do not believe in “extra credit;” you do the work you are assigned, period. The English Handbook indicates on page 5 that there is no “extra credit.” The other choices are childish and self-indulgent. If you choose not to do your work, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice. Do not expect to have that choice un-done for you later. Any time you choose not to do your work, you run the risk of failing the class. You need to consider that when you make your decisions, every single day.
- (h) is correct. The other choices are childish and self-indulgent. See #18, supra.
- (a) is correct. An F means you did something, but that something was less than the minimum requirement. You get 18 points out of 40. A zero means you did nothing, and get nothing; 0 out of 40. All of this is on page 5 of the English Handbook. It is absurd to think that nothing is better than something, let alone that there’s no difference between them. Since one, and only one, of (a), (b) and (c) must be true, all of the other choices are eliminated.
September 19, 2009
Homework reminder
Any homework submitted with no name on it, or with spiral-notebook debris on the edge of the page, will be discarded.
September 18, 2009
Homework #5
When we returned home from our six month vacation abroad, we found several drinking glasses shattered in place on the kitchen shelf. This can only happen during a sonic boom or when there is an earthquake. This must have been the loud noise that we heard not long after we drove off to the airport on the night we left for our vacation. Since there was no report on the car radio that night about earthquakes in the area, which always get a lot of attention, the glasses must have been shattered by a sonic boom, which is so common that it's never reported.
The speaker's conclusion about the "loud noise" assumes which of the following?
A. It is easy to tell the difference between glass shattered by an earthquake and glass shattered by a sonic boom.
B. A sonic boom always causes more damage in the house than an earthquake does.
C. The drinking glasses on the shelf were shattered because they were not safely protected.
D. No earthquake has occurred since the night the family left on their vacation.
E. Every time there is an earthquake in the area, some of the kitchen glassware will be shattered.
The speaker's conclusion about the "loud noise" assumes which of the following?
A. It is easy to tell the difference between glass shattered by an earthquake and glass shattered by a sonic boom.
B. A sonic boom always causes more damage in the house than an earthquake does.
C. The drinking glasses on the shelf were shattered because they were not safely protected.
D. No earthquake has occurred since the night the family left on their vacation.
E. Every time there is an earthquake in the area, some of the kitchen glassware will be shattered.
Homework #3 Answer
Detective-adventure series and other action programming on prime-time TV have been criticized for inciting some viewers, especially teenage boys, to commit acts of violence. The most carefully engineered studies have not, however, supported this assumption. Rather, it seems likely that someone who is frustrated and resentful, and therefore prone to violence, is drawn to the kind of programs that show characters who release their frustration in acts of violence.
Which one of the following would provide the most logical concluding sentence for the paragraph above?
A. In fact, action programming probably helps a frustrated viewer release his hostility without resorting to violence.
(A) is incorrect because the author makes no such claim, nor can this conclusion reasonably be drawn from any claim the author does make. The argument is that violence on television does not cause viewers to act violently; rather, people who are already prone to violence tend to watch, and like, violent shows. It's hard to imagine how anyone, let alone a frustrated and potentially violent person, could "release his hostility" by simply watching television.
B. Moreover, there are studies that indicate that teenage boys are more likely than other viewers to believe that the world shown in action programming is realistic.
(B) is incorrect. The stimulus' reference to "teenage boys" is a red herring; it has no effect on the argument at all. The argument would still be the same if the reference were taken out. Nor does the argument make or imply any connection between the perceived realism of TV shows and the violent behavior of viewers.
C. In other words, an unusual interest in action programming may be an indication of a violence-prone personality, rather than an incitement to violence.
(C) is correct. This is a restatement of the argument, which functions well as the concluding sentence of the paragraph. The argument criticizes the oft-stated notion that violent TV shows cause violent behavior, by suggesting that essentially the opposite is true. In other words, violent TV does not cause violent behavior, but violent people tend to watch violent TV.
D. Be that as it may, action programming continues to grow in popularity with the American TV audience.
(D) is incorrect because it changes the subject. This might be a good topic sentence for the next paragraph, but it doesn't work as a concluding sentence for the given paragraph. The argument is concerned about the relationship between violent TV shows and violent behavior. Overall popularity is a separate argument.
E. Therefore, the reasonable observer of the American scene will conclude that action programming should be banned from prime-time TV.
(E) is incorrect because it does not follow logically from the author's argument. If action shows don't cause violent behavior, there's no need to ban them from prime-time TV.
Which one of the following would provide the most logical concluding sentence for the paragraph above?
A. In fact, action programming probably helps a frustrated viewer release his hostility without resorting to violence.
(A) is incorrect because the author makes no such claim, nor can this conclusion reasonably be drawn from any claim the author does make. The argument is that violence on television does not cause viewers to act violently; rather, people who are already prone to violence tend to watch, and like, violent shows. It's hard to imagine how anyone, let alone a frustrated and potentially violent person, could "release his hostility" by simply watching television.
B. Moreover, there are studies that indicate that teenage boys are more likely than other viewers to believe that the world shown in action programming is realistic.
(B) is incorrect. The stimulus' reference to "teenage boys" is a red herring; it has no effect on the argument at all. The argument would still be the same if the reference were taken out. Nor does the argument make or imply any connection between the perceived realism of TV shows and the violent behavior of viewers.
C. In other words, an unusual interest in action programming may be an indication of a violence-prone personality, rather than an incitement to violence.
(C) is correct. This is a restatement of the argument, which functions well as the concluding sentence of the paragraph. The argument criticizes the oft-stated notion that violent TV shows cause violent behavior, by suggesting that essentially the opposite is true. In other words, violent TV does not cause violent behavior, but violent people tend to watch violent TV.
D. Be that as it may, action programming continues to grow in popularity with the American TV audience.
(D) is incorrect because it changes the subject. This might be a good topic sentence for the next paragraph, but it doesn't work as a concluding sentence for the given paragraph. The argument is concerned about the relationship between violent TV shows and violent behavior. Overall popularity is a separate argument.
E. Therefore, the reasonable observer of the American scene will conclude that action programming should be banned from prime-time TV.
(E) is incorrect because it does not follow logically from the author's argument. If action shows don't cause violent behavior, there's no need to ban them from prime-time TV.
Homework #2 Answer
Critics of current TV programs expect that FCC (government) restrictions on popular shows, like children's adventure cartoons and R-rated movies, would force the TV stations to put on more responsible programming, like public-affairs shows and live productions of classical drama. But would they really want the government to get involved in broadcasting if they knew a little more about how the marketplace really works? Restrictions like this would result in milder, but still mindless, offerings. There would be more situation-comedies (sit-coms) about bewildered housewives, more coverage of small-town minor-league sports, and more talk shows about the private lives of so-called "celebrities."
The author of the passage assumes that
A. current TV programming is not irresponsible.
(A) is incorrect because the argument takes no position on whether current TV programming is "responsible" or not. The author is merely suggesting that a plan to make such programming "more responsible" would not have the desired effect. If anything, the author is implying that current programming is irresponsible, otherwise it would not need to be regulated.
B. FCC restrictions of TV shows will not necessarily be easy to enforce.
(B) is incorrect because the argument addresses regulation, not enforcement. In other words, the argument is concerned with what the rules are that might be made and what the effect of those rules might be, not whether it would be easy for the FCC to make sure those rules were followed.
C. those who want to restrict certain popular TV shows will not like their popular replacements.
(C) is correct. The argument is that if the FCC tries to encourage "more responsible" programming by restricting certain kinds of shows, the TV networks would not put on the kinds of shows the critics have in mind. They would keep putting on "mindless" shows like sit-coms and talk shows, just milder versions of them. More importantly, the author assumes that the critics would want the sort of high-minded cultural fare he suggests, and they wouldn't get it, which means they wouldn't like the new shows any more than the old ones.
D. the FCC should have no control over the TV industry, which is likely to serve the public better if it is not regulated.
(D) is incorrect because it is an opinion, and an opinion cannot be the underlying assumption of an argument. While it may be inferred that the author shares this opinion, the fact remains that an assumption is something that must be TRUE in order for the argument to be valid. An opinion cannot be true (or false).
E. The marketplace is the true test of whether or not a new program idea is worthwhile.
(E) is incorrect because it is also an opinion. The key phrase is "true test." The implication is that there is another test being proposed and this one is better, because it's "true." While it may, once again, be inferred that the author holds this opinion, the argument is not really about the superiority of the marketplace over government regulation. The reference to the marketplace in the stimulus is in the form of a rhetorical question, and a rhetorical question cannot be the argument.
The author of the passage assumes that
A. current TV programming is not irresponsible.
(A) is incorrect because the argument takes no position on whether current TV programming is "responsible" or not. The author is merely suggesting that a plan to make such programming "more responsible" would not have the desired effect. If anything, the author is implying that current programming is irresponsible, otherwise it would not need to be regulated.
B. FCC restrictions of TV shows will not necessarily be easy to enforce.
(B) is incorrect because the argument addresses regulation, not enforcement. In other words, the argument is concerned with what the rules are that might be made and what the effect of those rules might be, not whether it would be easy for the FCC to make sure those rules were followed.
C. those who want to restrict certain popular TV shows will not like their popular replacements.
(C) is correct. The argument is that if the FCC tries to encourage "more responsible" programming by restricting certain kinds of shows, the TV networks would not put on the kinds of shows the critics have in mind. They would keep putting on "mindless" shows like sit-coms and talk shows, just milder versions of them. More importantly, the author assumes that the critics would want the sort of high-minded cultural fare he suggests, and they wouldn't get it, which means they wouldn't like the new shows any more than the old ones.
D. the FCC should have no control over the TV industry, which is likely to serve the public better if it is not regulated.
(D) is incorrect because it is an opinion, and an opinion cannot be the underlying assumption of an argument. While it may be inferred that the author shares this opinion, the fact remains that an assumption is something that must be TRUE in order for the argument to be valid. An opinion cannot be true (or false).
E. The marketplace is the true test of whether or not a new program idea is worthwhile.
(E) is incorrect because it is also an opinion. The key phrase is "true test." The implication is that there is another test being proposed and this one is better, because it's "true." While it may, once again, be inferred that the author holds this opinion, the argument is not really about the superiority of the marketplace over government regulation. The reference to the marketplace in the stimulus is in the form of a rhetorical question, and a rhetorical question cannot be the argument.
September 17, 2009
Homework #4
Imagine that I come into your living room and find you reading a book that I think is really offensive. Imagine that I get so upset about it that I steal the book, then burn it or rip out the pages that I don't like. Then imagine that when you file a complaint, the police and the courts tell you that there's nothing wrong with what I did. This may seem absurd, but what if instead of your living room we were talking about a school or a public library, and instead of me it was one of those "moral values" organizations? This is a situation that is eating away at the very roots of our constitutional system -- the banning of so-called "offensive" books from our library collections.
Which one of the following describes the principal weakness in the author's analogy?
(A) Burning or ripping up a book is not the same as banning a book.
(B) The police and courts do not condone the theft of personal property.
(C) Schools and libraries, unlike the reader's living room, are public institutions.
(D) Books that may be suitable for adults may not be suitable for children.
(E) The Constitution does not clearly define what makes a book "offensive" in the eyes of the law.
Which one of the following describes the principal weakness in the author's analogy?
(A) Burning or ripping up a book is not the same as banning a book.
(B) The police and courts do not condone the theft of personal property.
(C) Schools and libraries, unlike the reader's living room, are public institutions.
(D) Books that may be suitable for adults may not be suitable for children.
(E) The Constitution does not clearly define what makes a book "offensive" in the eyes of the law.
Homework #1 Answer
"Litigiousness" is the habit of taking conflicts and disputes to court, when they could probably be settled fairly some other way. According to experts, the United States is rapidly becoming the most litigious country in the world. Disputes that could easily have been settled out of court in any number of ways, including binding arbitration, now clog the average court calendar in all parts of the nation.
Which of the following statements, if true, BEST supports the argument?
A. An increasing number of court cases involve disputes between employees and their companies, which can be handled by government administrative boards.
(A) is correct. The argument is that the United States is becoming the most litigious country in the world, with the implication that litigiousness is not a good thing. The argument defines litigiousness as a tendency to take a dispute to court when it would be better to settle it elsewhere. The content of (A) is an example of one kind of dispute that is often taken to court that could be settled elsewhere, i.e., by an administrative board. (A) therefore supports the argument.
B. The greater the number of unnecessary court cases in a society, the larger the number of trial lawyers who are gainfully employed.
(B) is incorrect because the argument takes no position on the employment of trial lawyers. Whether the employment of trial lawyers is a desirable or undesirable result would depend entirely on the reader's opinion; since there's nothing in the stimulus to suggest that this is relevant, it does not support the argument.
C. Litigiousness is not necessarily a bad thing, since it encourages shy people to defend their rights.
(C) is incorrect because the author does not seem to be fond of litigiousness. The goal appears to be to avoid taking matters to court unnecessarily. To suggest, as (C) does, that litigiousness can actually be a good thing, regardless of the reason, undermines the argument.
D. Studies of litigiousness may not have taken into account the fact that most people don't understand how the courts work.
(D) is incorrect because the author makes no reference to "studies;" he does not attempt to use empirical evidence to support his argument. Still, even if it were true that people do not understand how the courts work, that does not change the fact that a great many disputes are taken to court unnecessarily. Why a litigant goes to court instead of using an alternative method of dispute resolution is irrelevant. "How the courts work" does not become relevant until after the dispute is taken to court.
E. The litigiousness of city dwellers can be explained by their feelings of isolation and loneliness in a hostile environment.
(E) is incorrect because, again, telling us why people take their disputes to court does not change the fact that many of them do so unnecessarily. The argument is only that we are becoming a litigious country, which means we take a lot of disputes to court that could, and should, be settled in other ways.
Which of the following statements, if true, BEST supports the argument?
A. An increasing number of court cases involve disputes between employees and their companies, which can be handled by government administrative boards.
(A) is correct. The argument is that the United States is becoming the most litigious country in the world, with the implication that litigiousness is not a good thing. The argument defines litigiousness as a tendency to take a dispute to court when it would be better to settle it elsewhere. The content of (A) is an example of one kind of dispute that is often taken to court that could be settled elsewhere, i.e., by an administrative board. (A) therefore supports the argument.
B. The greater the number of unnecessary court cases in a society, the larger the number of trial lawyers who are gainfully employed.
(B) is incorrect because the argument takes no position on the employment of trial lawyers. Whether the employment of trial lawyers is a desirable or undesirable result would depend entirely on the reader's opinion; since there's nothing in the stimulus to suggest that this is relevant, it does not support the argument.
C. Litigiousness is not necessarily a bad thing, since it encourages shy people to defend their rights.
(C) is incorrect because the author does not seem to be fond of litigiousness. The goal appears to be to avoid taking matters to court unnecessarily. To suggest, as (C) does, that litigiousness can actually be a good thing, regardless of the reason, undermines the argument.
D. Studies of litigiousness may not have taken into account the fact that most people don't understand how the courts work.
(D) is incorrect because the author makes no reference to "studies;" he does not attempt to use empirical evidence to support his argument. Still, even if it were true that people do not understand how the courts work, that does not change the fact that a great many disputes are taken to court unnecessarily. Why a litigant goes to court instead of using an alternative method of dispute resolution is irrelevant. "How the courts work" does not become relevant until after the dispute is taken to court.
E. The litigiousness of city dwellers can be explained by their feelings of isolation and loneliness in a hostile environment.
(E) is incorrect because, again, telling us why people take their disputes to court does not change the fact that many of them do so unnecessarily. The argument is only that we are becoming a litigious country, which means we take a lot of disputes to court that could, and should, be settled in other ways.
September 16, 2009
Homework #3
Detective-adventure series and other action programming on prime-time TV have been criticized for inciting some viewers, especially teenage boys, to commit acts of violence. The most carefully engineered studies have not, however, supported this assumption. Rather, it seems likely that someone who is frustrated and resentful, and therefore prone to violence, is drawn to the kind of programs that show characters who release their frustration in acts of violence.
Which one of the following would provide the most logical concluding sentence for the paragraph above?
A. In fact, action programming probably helps a frustrated viewer release his hostility without resorting to violence.
B. Moreover, there are studies that indicate that teenage boys are more likely than other viewers to believe that the world shown in action programming is realistic.
C. In other words, an unusual interest in action programming may be an indication of a violence-prone personality, rather than an incitement to violence.
D. Be that as it may, action programming continues to grow in popularity with the American TV audience.
E. Therefore, the reasonable observer of the American scene will conclude that action programming should be banned from prime-time TV.
Which one of the following would provide the most logical concluding sentence for the paragraph above?
A. In fact, action programming probably helps a frustrated viewer release his hostility without resorting to violence.
B. Moreover, there are studies that indicate that teenage boys are more likely than other viewers to believe that the world shown in action programming is realistic.
C. In other words, an unusual interest in action programming may be an indication of a violence-prone personality, rather than an incitement to violence.
D. Be that as it may, action programming continues to grow in popularity with the American TV audience.
E. Therefore, the reasonable observer of the American scene will conclude that action programming should be banned from prime-time TV.
Wednesday's questions and sample explanations - #10
10. When I was in high school, the teachers were always warning us against ever using drugs. Yet many of the students freely admitted in later years that they had used drugs regularly in high school. I can only draw the unfortunate conclusion from this that my teachers’ warnings were in vain.
(A) is incorrect even though it could weaken the argument. It suggests that the students learned something but did not act on it, but the purpose of the advice was that they act on it and refrain from using drugs. Therefore it is not the most useful fact with which to refute the argument.
(B) is incorrect because it's basically false (there are no "legitimate reasons" to use drugs), and more importantly because the argument is not concerned with why the students used drugs.
(C) is incorrect because the argument is also not concerned with why the teachers gave the students the advice.
(E) is incorrect even though it is probably true for the most part. The argument is not concerned with the abstract, hypothetical dangers of drug use.
Which one of the following claims, if true, would be most useful in refuting the argument of the passage above?
- Many of the students who used drugs were aware of the dangers involved because of the teachers’ warnings.
- Some students use drugs for legitimate reasons.
- The school required the teachers to warn their students against drug use.
- Some of the author’s fellow students were persuaded not to use drugs by their teachers’ warnings.
- Drug use invariably results in bad study habits, poor class attendance and low grades.
(A) is incorrect even though it could weaken the argument. It suggests that the students learned something but did not act on it, but the purpose of the advice was that they act on it and refrain from using drugs. Therefore it is not the most useful fact with which to refute the argument.
(B) is incorrect because it's basically false (there are no "legitimate reasons" to use drugs), and more importantly because the argument is not concerned with why the students used drugs.
(C) is incorrect because the argument is also not concerned with why the teachers gave the students the advice.
(E) is incorrect even though it is probably true for the most part. The argument is not concerned with the abstract, hypothetical dangers of drug use.
Wednesday's questions and sample explanations - #9
9. The mural in the executive dining room was painted more than 40 years ago. Since then, its exposure to extremes of heat and humidity has caused some of the once-vivid colors to fade. Fortunately, the painter’s notes included precise instructions for mixing pigments. Using these instructions and his leftover paints, skilled preservationists will be able to restore the mural to its original colors.
(A) is incorrect because the argument is limited to the colors, not the painting's overall appearance. The goal is simply to restore the colors, not the painting's appearance. (A) might be correct if the artisans were trying to copy or reproduce the entire painting. But that is not the argument.
(B) is incorrect because, while it is probably true, it's irrelevant to the argument. The fact that this is not a good place to hang a painting has no effect on whether the original colors can be restored using the original paints and artist's instructions.
(C) is incorrect even though it might be a valid inference. It could be inferred that if the artist had not anticipated that the colors would fade, he would not have left the paints and instructions behind. However, we have not been asked for an inference. In addition, and more importantly, the stimulus tells us that he DID leave the paints and instructions behind. It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether he would have done it under different circumstances. He did it.
(E) is incorrect because, like (B), it is probably true but irrelevant to the argument. Whether the fading could have been prevented in the past has no effect on whether the colors can be restored now.
The conclusion logically depends on which one of the following assumptions?
- The preservationists will be able to duplicate the muralist’s technique.
- The wide variations in temperature and humidity typical of food-service areas make the executive dining room a poor location for a mural.
- The artist foresaw that the colors would fade with time.
- The paints left over from the mural’s creation have not themselves changed color.
- At the time the mural was painted, temperature- and humidity-control technology was insufficient to prevent it from fading.
(A) is incorrect because the argument is limited to the colors, not the painting's overall appearance. The goal is simply to restore the colors, not the painting's appearance. (A) might be correct if the artisans were trying to copy or reproduce the entire painting. But that is not the argument.
(B) is incorrect because, while it is probably true, it's irrelevant to the argument. The fact that this is not a good place to hang a painting has no effect on whether the original colors can be restored using the original paints and artist's instructions.
(C) is incorrect even though it might be a valid inference. It could be inferred that if the artist had not anticipated that the colors would fade, he would not have left the paints and instructions behind. However, we have not been asked for an inference. In addition, and more importantly, the stimulus tells us that he DID leave the paints and instructions behind. It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether he would have done it under different circumstances. He did it.
(E) is incorrect because, like (B), it is probably true but irrelevant to the argument. Whether the fading could have been prevented in the past has no effect on whether the colors can be restored now.
Wednesday's questions and sample explanations - #8
8. The proposal to reduce grain prices by having the government set and control the price of grain would __________. Artificially stabilized pricing drains the economy, encourages inefficient production, and discourages individual initiative. If we let the forces of the free market operate, we give the more efficient producers the advantage they deserve.
(B) is incorrect even though we often hear claims that proposals for government action will have the exact opposite effect of what is intended. The author in this case is less concerned with grain prices than he is with free-market philosophy. He doesn't care if prices go up; he wants to make sure that only those who deserve an advantage, have an advantage.
(C) is incorrect even though it seems like a reasonable thing to hope for. This is not to say that the author's argument is unreasonable. However, the author is clearly against the proposal, and the question asks us why he is against it, i.e., what he thinks will happen if we try it. What he ultimately wants instead is not part of the question.
(D) is incorrect because it is probably an intended outcome of the proposal. If the author is against the proposal, he would not claim that it will have a desirable outcome.
(E) is incorrect because it states what the author wants. The argument clearly suggests that he thinks the opposite will happen.
Which one of the following most logically fills the blank of the passage above?
- reward producers who are not responding adequately to market forces
- actually have the opposite effect of increasing grain prices
- strike a necessary balance between government intervention and a free market economy
- make grain available to those who cannot afford to eat well
- allow individual efforts to influence the operation of the free market
(B) is incorrect even though we often hear claims that proposals for government action will have the exact opposite effect of what is intended. The author in this case is less concerned with grain prices than he is with free-market philosophy. He doesn't care if prices go up; he wants to make sure that only those who deserve an advantage, have an advantage.
(C) is incorrect even though it seems like a reasonable thing to hope for. This is not to say that the author's argument is unreasonable. However, the author is clearly against the proposal, and the question asks us why he is against it, i.e., what he thinks will happen if we try it. What he ultimately wants instead is not part of the question.
(D) is incorrect because it is probably an intended outcome of the proposal. If the author is against the proposal, he would not claim that it will have a desirable outcome.
(E) is incorrect because it states what the author wants. The argument clearly suggests that he thinks the opposite will happen.
September 15, 2009
Homework #2
Critics of current TV programs expect that FCC (government) restrictions on popular shows, like children's adventure cartoons and R-rated movies, would force the TV stations to put on more responsible programming, like public-affairs shows and live productions of classical drama. But would they really want the government to get involved in broadcasting if they knew a little more about how the marketplace really works? Restrictions like this would result in milder, but still mindless, offerings. There would be more situation-comedies (sit-coms) about bewildered housewives, more coverage of small-town minor-league sports, and more talk shows about the private lives of so-called "celebrities."
The author of the passage assumes that
A. current TV programming is not irresponsible.
B. FCC restrictions of TV shows will not necessarily be easy to enforce.
C. those who want to restrict certain popular TV shows will not like their popular replacements.
D. the FCC should have no control over the TV industry, which is likely to serve the public better if it is not regulated.
E. The marketplace is the true test of whether or not a new program idea is worthwhile.
The author of the passage assumes that
A. current TV programming is not irresponsible.
B. FCC restrictions of TV shows will not necessarily be easy to enforce.
C. those who want to restrict certain popular TV shows will not like their popular replacements.
D. the FCC should have no control over the TV industry, which is likely to serve the public better if it is not regulated.
E. The marketplace is the true test of whether or not a new program idea is worthwhile.
Homework Tips
Each homework is worth a maximum of 4 points. 2 points for a correct answer, and either zero (minimal or no explanation), 1 (illogical or incomplete explanation) or 2 (logical, clear explanation) points for your explanation.
When writing your explanation, discuss the correct answer first. Then discuss each incorrect answer.
When discussing the correct answer, first state what the argument is. Then discuss how the content of the answer choice relates to the argument. You need to understand the argument before you can answer the question.
When discussing the incorrect answers, you do not need to restate the argument, but you do need to refer to it in explaining why the answer choice is wrong.
Explanations should contain more than simply a conclusory statement about the answer choice. You must explain why it is right or wrong in relation to the original argument.
You don't have to copy the question. It's OK to print it out off the computer or copy-and-paste it into your word processor, but don't waste time writing it by hand or typing it yourself.
Read the sample explanations for the questions we discussed in class, which are here on the blog, to get an idea of what your explanation should contain.
Most of the time, if it doesn't matter whether the answer choice is true or not, it's probably the wrong answer. But you need to understand what the argument is before you can determine this. And, don't forget, you need to read the question stem first so you know what kind of question it is.
Make sure your name is on the homework and it is labeled at the top, "Homework #_".
Remember that in the stimulus, the author is always trying to convince you of something. Distinguish the subject matter from the argument.
When writing your explanation, discuss the correct answer first. Then discuss each incorrect answer.
When discussing the correct answer, first state what the argument is. Then discuss how the content of the answer choice relates to the argument. You need to understand the argument before you can answer the question.
When discussing the incorrect answers, you do not need to restate the argument, but you do need to refer to it in explaining why the answer choice is wrong.
Explanations should contain more than simply a conclusory statement about the answer choice. You must explain why it is right or wrong in relation to the original argument.
You don't have to copy the question. It's OK to print it out off the computer or copy-and-paste it into your word processor, but don't waste time writing it by hand or typing it yourself.
Read the sample explanations for the questions we discussed in class, which are here on the blog, to get an idea of what your explanation should contain.
Most of the time, if it doesn't matter whether the answer choice is true or not, it's probably the wrong answer. But you need to understand what the argument is before you can determine this. And, don't forget, you need to read the question stem first so you know what kind of question it is.
Make sure your name is on the homework and it is labeled at the top, "Homework #_".
Remember that in the stimulus, the author is always trying to convince you of something. Distinguish the subject matter from the argument.
Tuesday's questions and sample explanations - #6
6. Early in the 20th century, the doctor was a comforter. His job was to predict the progress of a disease, or to help the patient cope with his illness or imminent death, but not to work miracles. This situation changed with the invention of such drugs as penicillin, insulin, and antibiotics. Add the rapid development of medical technology, and we find doctors under pressure to cure every disease, heal every injury, and maximize every patient’s quality of life. Society is no longer satisfied with the dedicated efforts of human beings; it now demands perfect performance of technicians as foolproof as the most sophisticated machines.
(A) is incorrect because it is a false implication. The fact that a doctor's primary job is no longer that of comforting the patient, and fact that patients' expectations have changed, does not mean that comforting people is no longer even a part of the doctor's job.
(B) is incorrect because the argument makes no mention of competence, one way or another, now or 100 years ago. The argument is concerned with patients' expectations. Medical competence does not enter into the equation.
(D) is incorrect because, like (A), it is a false implication. The argument does not imply that doctors are less sensitive to patients' feelings than they were 100 years ago. It only argues that patients' expectations are different now.
(E) is incorrect because while it may be true, it is not a logical extension of the argument. The argument does not tell us that doctors cannot meet patients' expectations, only what those expectations are. In addition, (E) adds a new topic, medical malpractice, that is not referred to in the stimulus.
Which one of the following can be most reasonably inferred from the passage?
- Today’s doctors do not view comforting the patient as part of their job.
- Medical incompetence is more widespread today than it was in the early 20th century.
- The patient today expects results, not sympathy, from his or her doctor.
- As medical technology has advanced, health-care workers have become less sensitive to the feelings of their patients.
- Because doctors cannot meet the often unrealistic expectations of their patients, they are subjected to an ever-increasing number of malpractice suits.
(A) is incorrect because it is a false implication. The fact that a doctor's primary job is no longer that of comforting the patient, and fact that patients' expectations have changed, does not mean that comforting people is no longer even a part of the doctor's job.
(B) is incorrect because the argument makes no mention of competence, one way or another, now or 100 years ago. The argument is concerned with patients' expectations. Medical competence does not enter into the equation.
(D) is incorrect because, like (A), it is a false implication. The argument does not imply that doctors are less sensitive to patients' feelings than they were 100 years ago. It only argues that patients' expectations are different now.
(E) is incorrect because while it may be true, it is not a logical extension of the argument. The argument does not tell us that doctors cannot meet patients' expectations, only what those expectations are. In addition, (E) adds a new topic, medical malpractice, that is not referred to in the stimulus.
Tuesday's questions and sample explanations - #5
5. So we don’t confuse charity with self-interest, we need to remember that we can rehabilitate a convicted felon without demanding that he become someone just like us. If we insist that the former drug pusher become a social worker, or that the former burglar become a bank clerk, we deny the very individuality of expression that true rehabilitation programs should develop.
(A) is incorrect because it undermines the author's main argument. Requiring ex-felons to follow professional advice is not quite as harsh as forcing them into a particular career, but it still vests more control over the ex-felon's life in the authorities, i.e., other people besides himself.
(C) is incorrect because although it might seem to follow the argument, it doesn't. Its suggests that certain types of work ("reporting to an institution") make it unlikely for people who do it to find individual expression in doing it. The point of the argument, though, is for the ex-felon to choose what kind of work he wants to do. In other words, the argument is about the choice, not the nature of the work itself.
(D) is incorrect for two reasons. For one, the argument makes no specific reference to "social workers" choosing careers for ex-felons and therefore is not limited thereto. Further, the "knowledge about the reasons for crime" does not seem to be relevant to the author's argument. While it may be a true statement, it is not a logical extension of the argument.
(E) is incorrect because, like (A), it undermines, indeed even contradicts, the author's argument. The author emphasizes the ex-felon's individual needs, whereas (E) emphasizes society's needs. Rehabilitation, according to the author, is supposed to benefit the ex-felon, not society.
Which of the following sentences best completes the statement of the position put forth in the passage above?
- For proper rehabilitation, however, the convicted felon must follow the advice of professionals in choosing a career.
- Moreover, forcing an unsuitable career upon the felon might pressure him to return to the criminal life out of frustration.
- In particular, it is unlikely that any individual will find self-expression in work that involves reporting daily to an institution.
- Furthermore, many social workers have less knowledge about the reasons for crime than a felon who has actually committed a crime.
- In addition, society has the right to demand that rehabilitated felons take jobs that benefit the society as a whole.
(A) is incorrect because it undermines the author's main argument. Requiring ex-felons to follow professional advice is not quite as harsh as forcing them into a particular career, but it still vests more control over the ex-felon's life in the authorities, i.e., other people besides himself.
(C) is incorrect because although it might seem to follow the argument, it doesn't. Its suggests that certain types of work ("reporting to an institution") make it unlikely for people who do it to find individual expression in doing it. The point of the argument, though, is for the ex-felon to choose what kind of work he wants to do. In other words, the argument is about the choice, not the nature of the work itself.
(D) is incorrect for two reasons. For one, the argument makes no specific reference to "social workers" choosing careers for ex-felons and therefore is not limited thereto. Further, the "knowledge about the reasons for crime" does not seem to be relevant to the author's argument. While it may be a true statement, it is not a logical extension of the argument.
(E) is incorrect because, like (A), it undermines, indeed even contradicts, the author's argument. The author emphasizes the ex-felon's individual needs, whereas (E) emphasizes society's needs. Rehabilitation, according to the author, is supposed to benefit the ex-felon, not society.
Tuesday's questions and sample explanations - #4
4. Experts on the American political process have long agreed that voters like it when presidential candidates are combative (eager to fight), even aggressive, against each other. A poll just after the 1988 election, however, showed that many people had been annoyed or disgusted with the campaign and had not even bothered to vote. In addition, many voters felt that most candidates were “non-presidential.” Campaigns that are combative have therefore become counter-productive, causing voters to lose respect for the combative candidate.
(A) is incorrect because it does not affect the validity of the argument. The fact that campaigns are "memorable" and/or "full of surprises" has no effect one way or the other on voter behavior caused by negative campaigning.
(C) is incorrect because whether the same phenomenon occurred prior to 1988, when the poll was taken, makes no difference. If it was true then, that does not by itself mean that it's any less true now.
(D) is incorrect because it attempts to explain or justify the behavior of politicians, which is irrelevant to the argument. Why they run nasty or negative campaigns, or whether it's justified, is irrelevant to the issue of what effect such campaigns have on voters.
(E) is incorrect because it is a highly generalized statement about political campaigning, and completely ignores the issue at hand. At issue is how candidates communicate ideas to voters, not whether they can, or should.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
- Many presidential campaigns have been memorable, because they were full of surprises.
- The poll cited does not specifically show that combative campaigning was responsible for voter disaffection.
- Even before 1988, many voters were skeptical about politicians, particularly candidates for President.
- What looks like aggressiveness is really assertiveness, which is necessary for the candidate to keep his name in the public eye.
- Political campaigning is a way to give voters important information, which they need in order to decide who to vote for.
(A) is incorrect because it does not affect the validity of the argument. The fact that campaigns are "memorable" and/or "full of surprises" has no effect one way or the other on voter behavior caused by negative campaigning.
(C) is incorrect because whether the same phenomenon occurred prior to 1988, when the poll was taken, makes no difference. If it was true then, that does not by itself mean that it's any less true now.
(D) is incorrect because it attempts to explain or justify the behavior of politicians, which is irrelevant to the argument. Why they run nasty or negative campaigns, or whether it's justified, is irrelevant to the issue of what effect such campaigns have on voters.
(E) is incorrect because it is a highly generalized statement about political campaigning, and completely ignores the issue at hand. At issue is how candidates communicate ideas to voters, not whether they can, or should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)