include engineering, then (a) adds nothing to the information in the passage
that enrolment in engineering courses has increased.
(b) does not weaken the argument. It simply emphasises the problem – the
need to attract more engineers into teaching – to which the argument offers a
solution.
(c) has no impact on the argument. The high salaries paid by businesses to
those with advanced engineering degrees are likely to tempt these people away
from teaching. This makes no difference to the recommendation to solve the
problem of the shortage of engineering teachers by reducing salaries for those
without advanced degrees.
(e) has no impact on the argument. The argument is about a way of increasing
the incentive for engineering graduates to pursue postgraduate studies. The
funding of research programmes would not increase this incentive, unless it
made generous awards to potential students. (e) makes no claim that businesses
fund generous awards to students.
3 The answer is (e).
(e) strengthens Joan’s claim by providing evidence that some heroin addicts are
likely to commit serious crimes in order to get supplies of the drug. This
supports the claim that the amount of serious crime may be reduced if heroin
addicts were given free supplies of the drug.
(a) does not strengthen Joan’s claim, it weakens it. If heroin addicts were more
likely to be violent when under the influence of heroin, they might commit
crimes at such times. Providing them with free heroin would not reduce the
amount of crime, if any, committed by heroin addicts.
(b) does not strengthen Joan’s claim, because she is not trying to show that
supplying heroin to addicts would make economic sense. She is claiming simply
that it would reduce crime.
(c) does not strengthen Joan’s claim, for the same reason that (b) does not
strengthen it.
(d) does not strengthen Joan’s claim because it concerns crime which is not
related to the use of heroin. This tells us nothing about the effectiveness of
Joan’s proposed method of reducing drug-related crime.
4 The answer is (a).
If (a) is true, then there is a good reason for the automobile association to
continue testing direction indicators, since if they do not, the numbers of
defective direction indicators may increase. Hence (a) weakens the case for
stopping inspection of direction indicators.
(b) on its own does not weaken the argument. It seems to offer a reason for
making sure that direction indicators are in good working order. But this
does not weaken the recommendation to stop inspecting them, unless (as (a)
suggests) stopping the inspections would result in more faulty indicators.
(c) does not weaken the recommendation, unless there is reason to believe that
the inspection procedures need to be as thorough as those in neighbouring
states. (c) does not provide such a reason.
(d) does not weaken the recommendation to stop testing direction indicators.
It appears to be offering a reason in support of the recommendation, but in
fact it makes no difference either way. Even if automobiles fail the inspection
on the grounds of other safety defects, there may still be automobiles with
defective indicators on the roads.
(e) does not weaken the argument, although it may look as if it is offering a
reason for retaining inspection of indicators. Inspecting them would not bring to
light other defects not covered by the safety inspection system. So (e) is irrelevant
to the question as to whether direction indicators should be inspected.
5 The answer is (d).
The researchers concluded that if parents monitored (presumably meaning
‘controlled’) the amount of time which their children spent watching
television, the children’s performance in school would benefit. So the
researchers were assuming that the relationship they found between the hours
the children spent watching television and their level of performance in school
was evidence that watching for longer periods caused poorer performance. The
researchers had discovered a correlation, but a correlation between two things
does not necessarily mean that one thing causes the other. (See the discussion
on p.45.) (d) strengthens the idea that there is a causal connection. If differences
in performance are less when hours watching television are roughly
the same for all children, then it is likely that differences in time spent
watching television causes differences in performance.
(a) gives more detail about the figures upon which the claim in the first sentence
is based, so it strengthens the statement that if children watched between
two and three hours of television per day, they were likely to perform less well
in school. This is stronger evidence that there is a correlation, but gives no extra
evidence of a causal connection. So it does not strengthen the conclusion,
which relies on the assumption that there is a causal connection. Provided we
assume that there is a causal connection between amount of television viewing
and school performance, (b) could be regarded as giving an additional reason
why school performance might improve if parents monitored their children’s
television viewing. But since (b) does nothing to strengthen the idea that there
is a causal connection, it does not strengthen the conclusion of the researchers.
(c) does not strengthen the idea that watching television for two or more hours
per day causes poorer performance in school. Instead it introduces a new factor
– the amount of time spent reading – which may have an effect on school
performance.
(e) does not strengthen the idea of a causal connection, because although
it suggests that some children replaced their television watching with
reading, it does not comment upon how this affected their performance in
school.
6 The answer is (a).
(a) weakens the argument by showing that even if ex-prisoners do not pursue
the occupation for which they have prepared whilst in prison, the skills they
have learnt during training in prison may nevertheless be of use in whatever
occupation they take up.
(b) provides an objection to scrapping career training programmes in prison. But
this is not the same as weakening the argument, because it has no impact on
the claim that it is unwise to continue such programmes since they do not
achieve their aims.
(c) mentions an advantage of prison career training programmes, thereby to
some extent weakening the claim that it is unwise to continue them. But this
does not weaken the argument as much as (a), which shows that the claim
upon which the conclusion of the argument is based – that the programmes do
not achieve their aim (which we can assume is to provide skills which will be
useful in future employment) – is not true.
(d) does not weaken the argument, because it simply emphasises that training
programmes have the goal which the argument claims they do not achieve. (d)
tells us nothing about whether they achieve that goal, hence has no impact on
the conclusion that these programmes should be scrapped.
(e) does not weaken the argument, because the argument relies on the claim
that prisoners choose not to pursue the occupation for which they have trained
whilst in prison. This does not imply that they have no choice whilst in prison,
nor does (e) imply that they will not change their choice of occupation after
leaving prison.
7 The answer is (e).
(e) weakens the argument by providing evidence that the physiological changes
recorded by a lie detector may result from stress other than the stress caused
by lying. This suggests that, contrary to what the conclusion claims, reliable lie
detection is not possible.
(a) has no impact on the argument, because reliable lie detection may be
possible, even if the machines are expensive and require careful maintenance.
(b) suggests that for some people who are lying, lie detectors will indicate
symptoms of only moderate stress. But this does not weaken the claim that
reliable lie detection is possible.
(c) does not weaken the argument, because it does not suggest that it is impossible
to find and train the personnel who can use lie detection instruments
effectively.
(d) does not weaken the argument, because reliable lie detection may be possible
even if some people misuse or abuse lie detecting equipment.
8 The answer is (c).
The conclusion of the argument is that it is unrealistic to expect flu vaccines to
give total protection against the virus. The reasons given for this are that the
prediction as to which flu strains will be circulating is made a long time before
the vaccine is used, and that if a new strain of flu appears the vaccine will not
be protective against it. (c) strengthens the argument by providing another
reason why total protection cannot be guaranteed, since if the vaccine works
less well in those people who are most at risk, it can be expected that some
people will not be protected by the vaccinations.
(a) is irrelevant to the argument, because the conclusion refers specifically to
protection against the flu virus, and there is no information in the passage as to
connections between the flu virus and colds.
(b) suggests that it may be wise to vaccinate children against flu, in order to
reduce the spread of the virus, but is not relevant to the claim that we cannot
expect total protection from vaccinations.
(d) does not strengthen the argument because it gives a reason for accepting
that the flu vaccination is extremely effective, and gives no reason as to why it
is unrealistic to expect it to be effective in all cases.
(e) is not relevant to the argument as to the effectiveness of the flu vaccine,
since it concerns only those who have not been vaccinated.
9 The answer is (d).
The argument concludes that allowing drivers to use the hard shoulder on
motorways at peak times is preferable to other possible measures, on the
grounds that it solves the problem of congestion on motorways relatively easily
and cheaply, as evidenced by the success of a recent trial of the scheme. However,
if (d) is true, then the increase of traffic may mean that the scheme does
not solve the problem of congestion on motorways, despite the fact that the
trial run was successful, and this may mean that other schemes would provide
more effective solutions.
(a) is irrelevant to the claim that using hard shoulders would solve the problem
of congestion. It simply suggests that it is possible to have motorways without
hard shoulders, but has no implications as to how this would affect traffic flow.
(b) does not weaken the argument, since although it suggests that many people
are not discouraged from using motorways by the availability of public transport,
it gives no definite information as to future increases in the volume of
motorway traffic.
(c) gives a reason for thinking that the measures that the argument rejects
could be difficult to implement, hence it does not weaken the argument.
(e) mentions something that could be seen as a disadvantage of using the hard
shoulder (i.e. that the speed limit will be lower), but this does not weaken the
argument because it does not show that the proposed scheme would not
reduce congestion, nor that it would not be preferable to more expensive
measures.
10 The answer is (e).
The argument gives two reasons for disapproving of carbon offsetting schemes;
first, that the availability of the scheme makes people think there is nothing
wrong with flying, and second that customers cannot know that their financial
contribution does reduce carbon emissions. (e) strengthens the case against
carbon offsetting by showing that in some cases any reduction in carbon
emissions would have happened anyway, thus cannot be claimed to compensate
for the carbon emissions caused by someone taking a flight.
(a) gives a reason for thinking that the business of carbon offsetting may
eventually be better regulated, and thus that some of the objections in
the argument may eventually not apply. Hence it does not strengthen the
argument.
(b) does not strengthen the argument, since it suggests that the carbon emissions
produced by aircraft may be less problematic than the argument assumes.
(c) neither strengthens nor weakens the argument. It suggests that it is worthwhile
to make financial contributions to energy saving schemes, but has no
implications for the question as to whether this should be done by carbon
offsetting schemes.
(d) is irrelevant, since it merely suggests other ways of reducing carbon emissions,
and has no implications as to the desirability of carbon offsetting schemes.
that enrolment in engineering courses has increased.
(b) does not weaken the argument. It simply emphasises the problem – the
need to attract more engineers into teaching – to which the argument offers a
solution.
(c) has no impact on the argument. The high salaries paid by businesses to
those with advanced engineering degrees are likely to tempt these people away
from teaching. This makes no difference to the recommendation to solve the
problem of the shortage of engineering teachers by reducing salaries for those
without advanced degrees.
(e) has no impact on the argument. The argument is about a way of increasing
the incentive for engineering graduates to pursue postgraduate studies. The
funding of research programmes would not increase this incentive, unless it
made generous awards to potential students. (e) makes no claim that businesses
fund generous awards to students.
3 The answer is (e).
(e) strengthens Joan’s claim by providing evidence that some heroin addicts are
likely to commit serious crimes in order to get supplies of the drug. This
supports the claim that the amount of serious crime may be reduced if heroin
addicts were given free supplies of the drug.
(a) does not strengthen Joan’s claim, it weakens it. If heroin addicts were more
likely to be violent when under the influence of heroin, they might commit
crimes at such times. Providing them with free heroin would not reduce the
amount of crime, if any, committed by heroin addicts.
(b) does not strengthen Joan’s claim, because she is not trying to show that
supplying heroin to addicts would make economic sense. She is claiming simply
that it would reduce crime.
(c) does not strengthen Joan’s claim, for the same reason that (b) does not
strengthen it.
(d) does not strengthen Joan’s claim because it concerns crime which is not
related to the use of heroin. This tells us nothing about the effectiveness of
Joan’s proposed method of reducing drug-related crime.
4 The answer is (a).
If (a) is true, then there is a good reason for the automobile association to
continue testing direction indicators, since if they do not, the numbers of
defective direction indicators may increase. Hence (a) weakens the case for
stopping inspection of direction indicators.
(b) on its own does not weaken the argument. It seems to offer a reason for
making sure that direction indicators are in good working order. But this
does not weaken the recommendation to stop inspecting them, unless (as (a)
suggests) stopping the inspections would result in more faulty indicators.
(c) does not weaken the recommendation, unless there is reason to believe that
the inspection procedures need to be as thorough as those in neighbouring
states. (c) does not provide such a reason.
(d) does not weaken the recommendation to stop testing direction indicators.
It appears to be offering a reason in support of the recommendation, but in
fact it makes no difference either way. Even if automobiles fail the inspection
on the grounds of other safety defects, there may still be automobiles with
defective indicators on the roads.
(e) does not weaken the argument, although it may look as if it is offering a
reason for retaining inspection of indicators. Inspecting them would not bring to
light other defects not covered by the safety inspection system. So (e) is irrelevant
to the question as to whether direction indicators should be inspected.
5 The answer is (d).
The researchers concluded that if parents monitored (presumably meaning
‘controlled’) the amount of time which their children spent watching
television, the children’s performance in school would benefit. So the
researchers were assuming that the relationship they found between the hours
the children spent watching television and their level of performance in school
was evidence that watching for longer periods caused poorer performance. The
researchers had discovered a correlation, but a correlation between two things
does not necessarily mean that one thing causes the other. (See the discussion
on p.45.) (d) strengthens the idea that there is a causal connection. If differences
in performance are less when hours watching television are roughly
the same for all children, then it is likely that differences in time spent
watching television causes differences in performance.
(a) gives more detail about the figures upon which the claim in the first sentence
is based, so it strengthens the statement that if children watched between
two and three hours of television per day, they were likely to perform less well
in school. This is stronger evidence that there is a correlation, but gives no extra
evidence of a causal connection. So it does not strengthen the conclusion,
which relies on the assumption that there is a causal connection. Provided we
assume that there is a causal connection between amount of television viewing
and school performance, (b) could be regarded as giving an additional reason
why school performance might improve if parents monitored their children’s
television viewing. But since (b) does nothing to strengthen the idea that there
is a causal connection, it does not strengthen the conclusion of the researchers.
(c) does not strengthen the idea that watching television for two or more hours
per day causes poorer performance in school. Instead it introduces a new factor
– the amount of time spent reading – which may have an effect on school
performance.
(e) does not strengthen the idea of a causal connection, because although
it suggests that some children replaced their television watching with
reading, it does not comment upon how this affected their performance in
school.
6 The answer is (a).
(a) weakens the argument by showing that even if ex-prisoners do not pursue
the occupation for which they have prepared whilst in prison, the skills they
have learnt during training in prison may nevertheless be of use in whatever
occupation they take up.
(b) provides an objection to scrapping career training programmes in prison. But
this is not the same as weakening the argument, because it has no impact on
the claim that it is unwise to continue such programmes since they do not
achieve their aims.
(c) mentions an advantage of prison career training programmes, thereby to
some extent weakening the claim that it is unwise to continue them. But this
does not weaken the argument as much as (a), which shows that the claim
upon which the conclusion of the argument is based – that the programmes do
not achieve their aim (which we can assume is to provide skills which will be
useful in future employment) – is not true.
(d) does not weaken the argument, because it simply emphasises that training
programmes have the goal which the argument claims they do not achieve. (d)
tells us nothing about whether they achieve that goal, hence has no impact on
the conclusion that these programmes should be scrapped.
(e) does not weaken the argument, because the argument relies on the claim
that prisoners choose not to pursue the occupation for which they have trained
whilst in prison. This does not imply that they have no choice whilst in prison,
nor does (e) imply that they will not change their choice of occupation after
leaving prison.
7 The answer is (e).
(e) weakens the argument by providing evidence that the physiological changes
recorded by a lie detector may result from stress other than the stress caused
by lying. This suggests that, contrary to what the conclusion claims, reliable lie
detection is not possible.
(a) has no impact on the argument, because reliable lie detection may be
possible, even if the machines are expensive and require careful maintenance.
(b) suggests that for some people who are lying, lie detectors will indicate
symptoms of only moderate stress. But this does not weaken the claim that
reliable lie detection is possible.
(c) does not weaken the argument, because it does not suggest that it is impossible
to find and train the personnel who can use lie detection instruments
effectively.
(d) does not weaken the argument, because reliable lie detection may be possible
even if some people misuse or abuse lie detecting equipment.
8 The answer is (c).
The conclusion of the argument is that it is unrealistic to expect flu vaccines to
give total protection against the virus. The reasons given for this are that the
prediction as to which flu strains will be circulating is made a long time before
the vaccine is used, and that if a new strain of flu appears the vaccine will not
be protective against it. (c) strengthens the argument by providing another
reason why total protection cannot be guaranteed, since if the vaccine works
less well in those people who are most at risk, it can be expected that some
people will not be protected by the vaccinations.
(a) is irrelevant to the argument, because the conclusion refers specifically to
protection against the flu virus, and there is no information in the passage as to
connections between the flu virus and colds.
(b) suggests that it may be wise to vaccinate children against flu, in order to
reduce the spread of the virus, but is not relevant to the claim that we cannot
expect total protection from vaccinations.
(d) does not strengthen the argument because it gives a reason for accepting
that the flu vaccination is extremely effective, and gives no reason as to why it
is unrealistic to expect it to be effective in all cases.
(e) is not relevant to the argument as to the effectiveness of the flu vaccine,
since it concerns only those who have not been vaccinated.
9 The answer is (d).
The argument concludes that allowing drivers to use the hard shoulder on
motorways at peak times is preferable to other possible measures, on the
grounds that it solves the problem of congestion on motorways relatively easily
and cheaply, as evidenced by the success of a recent trial of the scheme. However,
if (d) is true, then the increase of traffic may mean that the scheme does
not solve the problem of congestion on motorways, despite the fact that the
trial run was successful, and this may mean that other schemes would provide
more effective solutions.
(a) is irrelevant to the claim that using hard shoulders would solve the problem
of congestion. It simply suggests that it is possible to have motorways without
hard shoulders, but has no implications as to how this would affect traffic flow.
(b) does not weaken the argument, since although it suggests that many people
are not discouraged from using motorways by the availability of public transport,
it gives no definite information as to future increases in the volume of
motorway traffic.
(c) gives a reason for thinking that the measures that the argument rejects
could be difficult to implement, hence it does not weaken the argument.
(e) mentions something that could be seen as a disadvantage of using the hard
shoulder (i.e. that the speed limit will be lower), but this does not weaken the
argument because it does not show that the proposed scheme would not
reduce congestion, nor that it would not be preferable to more expensive
measures.
10 The answer is (e).
The argument gives two reasons for disapproving of carbon offsetting schemes;
first, that the availability of the scheme makes people think there is nothing
wrong with flying, and second that customers cannot know that their financial
contribution does reduce carbon emissions. (e) strengthens the case against
carbon offsetting by showing that in some cases any reduction in carbon
emissions would have happened anyway, thus cannot be claimed to compensate
for the carbon emissions caused by someone taking a flight.
(a) gives a reason for thinking that the business of carbon offsetting may
eventually be better regulated, and thus that some of the objections in
the argument may eventually not apply. Hence it does not strengthen the
argument.
(b) does not strengthen the argument, since it suggests that the carbon emissions
produced by aircraft may be less problematic than the argument assumes.
(c) neither strengthens nor weakens the argument. It suggests that it is worthwhile
to make financial contributions to energy saving schemes, but has no
implications for the question as to whether this should be done by carbon
offsetting schemes.
(d) is irrelevant, since it merely suggests other ways of reducing carbon emissions,
and has no implications as to the desirability of carbon offsetting schemes.
No comments:
Post a Comment