The United States will soon begin spot checking all shipments of imported coffee for tainting by sandfly larvae. Any coffee found to be so tainted will be destroyed. Officials predict that the spot checks will result in the destruction of approximately 10 percent of all coffee imported into this country. Even so, however, the checks will miss about half of the tainted coffee sent here, since it is estimated that 20 percent of all coffee worldwide is tainted by sandfly larvae.
The information in the passage above best supports which of the following conclusions?
| The amount of imported coffee available for consumption in the U.S. may soon decrease | ||
| The U.S. should learn to rely more on domestically produced coffee. | ||
| The U.S. will eventually be forced to inspect all imported coffee for tainting by sandfly larvae. | ||
| Coffee producers worldwide will implement a more rigorous program of insect control. | ||
| The U.S. consumer will begin paying less for imported coffee in the future. |
**
Bearing in mind the situation described in the stimulus, we attack the choices, looking for one that seems likely. We don't look far. (A)'s claim that there may soon be less coffee is a likely outgrowth of the policy that's described. Spot checks will destroy 10 percent of imported coffee. While the amount of coffee imported may subsequently be increased, there is a good chance that, for some period of time, less coffee will be available. The argument is descriptive, so prescriptions about what should be done (B) go awry. There's no support for the drastic conclusion (C) that all coffee will have to be checked. Nor is there support for a conclusion (D) about the reaction of coffee producers. Coffee prices (E), like these other issues, are also unpredictable.
** The first mistake was made because I misunderstood the question stem that was asking for the inference. On the type of questions conclusion should be drawn.
To receive governmental benefits, farmers in the upper Midwest are required to leave a certain portion of their land fallow each year. Farmers are then paid by the acre for all land that is not in farming use for the year. If they(?) are introduced into an area previously used for farming, pheasants will thrive on fallow land in the upper Midwest.
The statements above, if true, best support which of the following conclusions?
| The only way to have pheasants thrive in the upper Midwest is to continue the governmental benefits for leaving land fallow. | ||
| The governmental benefits for leaving land fallow will create a new industry in the upper Midwest built around hunting for pheasant. | ||
| Governmental benefits for leaving land fallow promote the conditions that allow for pheasants to thrive. | ||
| Farmers can continue to make a profit, even if they do not allow any of their land to go fallow in order to receive governmental benefits. | ||
| Governmental benefits for leaving land fallow are high enough that farmers will choose to not plant some of their land. |
**
In this inference question, we need to find the answer choice that must be true given the statements in the stimulus. In the stimulus we learn that farmers are encouraged by the federal government to leave land fallow, and that fallow land can be used to have thriving pheasant populations if the pheasants are introduced. The only statement that must be true given this information is choice (C). If both the stimulus points are true, then the government is, in effect, promoting conditions that would make pheasants thrive by promoting fallow land in the upper Midwest.
Choice (A) is too extreme of a statement to be correct. We do not have nearly enough information to know whether the governmental program is the only way to have pheasants thrive in the upper Midwest. National parks, for example, might be another was to promote the species.
Choice (B) does not necessarily follow from the statements. While it is certainly possible that a pheasant hunting industry could arise, we do not even know if pheasants will be introduced into the area from the statements we are given.
Choice (D) and (E) also do not follow from the stimulus. We are given no information about farming profitability or the level of the governmental benefits.
Between 1960 and 1966, the State University system had 92 percent of its capacity filled by students. During this time the system admitted 31 students each year for every 100 available spots in the system; the remaining 61 spots were filled by upperclassmen. From 1967 to 1975, the State University system filled 99 percent of its capacity with students; however the system also lowered its admission rate to 23 students for every 100 available spots each year.
If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions can be most properly drawn?
| As a university system's admission rate falls, it is generally true that the percent of capacity filled increases. | ||
| The number of available spots in the State University system declined between the two time periods. | ||
| The proportion of young people applying to college increased between the two time periods. | ||
| The number of people dropping out before finishing their degrees declined between the two periods. | ||
| The average length of time that a student stayed in the State University system increased between the two time periods. |
In this, or any other inference question, you are looking for the answer choice that must be true given the statements in the stimulus. Since it is nearly impossible to pre-phrase the correct answer choice on an inference question, it is best to go directly to the answer choices after you have digested what is stated in the stimulus. This stimulus tells us that, between two time periods, the school system's capacity filled up despite the fact that the college was admitting fewer people for every available spot in the system.
The only answer choice that has to follow from these statements is the last one, Choice (E). It must be true that the average length of time spent by a student in the system increased between these periods. This must be true if the school system was actually filling up despite lower admissions per 100 spots.
Choice (B) might be true, but it is not necessary that it be true. Since the admission rates are given to us in number per 100 available spots in the school, it is not necessary that the number of spots decline in order to have an increasing rate of filled spots.
Similarly, Choice (D) could be true, but again, does not need to be true. One way that average length of enrollment in the system could increase is by having fewer drop-outs. However, (D) does not need to be true – the increase in average length of enrollment could, for example, be due to more students staying for a fifth or sixth year than before.
Choice (C) is out-of-scope. We are given no information about application rates. Choice (A) has no support from the stimulus. Just because this phenomenon occurred for one State at one point in time, it does not mean that it is generally true.
A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax credit to consumers who purchase a newly constructed home. The tax credit was intended to stimulate the local economy by creating a higher demand for new houses and spurring the creation of jobs in construction and design. However, since the law was passed, the growth in sales of newly constructed homes has dropped each year, from 15% to 10% to 5%. Obviously, this law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes.
Which of the following must be true if the above conclusion is to be properly drawn?
| New house sales are directly tied to personal income. | ||
| New house sales cannot increase by more than 6% next year. | ||
| If the tax credit had been 50%, there would have been a larger increase in new house sales | ||
| Without the tax credit, new house sales would not have been significantly lower. | ||
| Tax credits for specific purchases are usually ineffective in influencing consumers to make those purchases. |
This is similar to a causal argument in which X causes Y, except there here we have an argument of non-causation: X (the tax credit) does not cause Y (increased new house sales). A conclusion that states that X has no effect on Y assumes that the results would have been the same without X. This is what choice (D) states. Without the credit, sales would not have been significantly lower than they actually were, so the credit must have had little effect on sales.
Personal income mentioned in (A) is outside the scope. What will happen next year in (B) is also outside the scope. The argument concerns the last three years, not next year. There are a couple of problems with (C). Any other size tax credit is outside the scope, and this choice runs counter to the conclusion that the tax credit has had little or no effect. The general statement in (E) goes well beyond the scope of new house sales, and is not necessary to the argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment