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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)