Questions & explanations
1. Which of the following statements from the argument is a factual statement that is NOT a conclusion?
- The company's revenue increased by 15% last quarter.
- The CEO attributes this growth to the new product launch.
- The overall market also grew by 10% during the same period.
- Both A and C are factual statements that are not conclusions.
- All of the above are conclusions.
Answer: Both A and C are factual statements that are not conclusions.
Both statements A and C present objective data (revenue increase and market growth) without any claim or judgment. They are facts, not conclusions. Statement B is also a factual report of the CEO's attribution, but it is not a conclusion drawn by the author. However, the question asks for factual statements that are NOT conclusions; A and C are clearly factual data. B is also factual but might be considered a premise. The best answer is D because both A and C are indisputably factual and not conclusions.
2. Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the argument?
- Building a new stadium will boost the local economy.
- The neighboring city's stadium increased tourism and job growth.
- If we do not invest in infrastructure, the stadium may not yield the same benefits.
- The stadium should be built.
- The council maintains that the stadium will attract visitors.
Answer: The stadium should be built.
The argument uses an analogy (neighboring city) and acknowledges a counterpoint (lack of infrastructure) but ultimately concludes with a recommendation: 'Therefore, the stadium should be built.' This is the main conclusion. Option a is a premise; b is an example; c is a conditional premise; e is a restatement of the council's position, not the argument's conclusion.
3. Which of the following best states the main conclusion of the argument?
- Rising global temperatures are primarily caused by human activities.
- Natural climate variability is the main driver of rising global temperatures.
- The climatologist's conclusion is supported by peer-reviewed research, whereas the industry-funded group's studies lack replication.
- The industry-funded researchers are biased because of their funding source.
- The climatologist's argument is more credible than the industry-funded group's argument.
Answer: Rising global temperatures are primarily caused by human activities.
The argument presents the climatologist's conclusion as the main point, supported by evidence of peer-reviewed research. The challenge from industry-funded researchers is a counterpoint, but the argument ultimately endorses the climatologist's conclusion by noting the lack of replication for the opposing studies. Thus, option (a) is the main conclusion.
4. Which of the following is the main conclusion of the argument?
- The company should increase its advertising budget.
- Higher advertising spending leads to increased sales.
- The company's debt levels make additional spending risky.
- The board of directors overrules the CEO's decision.
- Debt reduction is a higher priority than increasing advertising.
Answer: The board of directors overrules the CEO's decision.
The argument presents multiple viewpoints and decisions, culminating in the board's overruling. The final sentence states the board's action, which is the main conclusion. Options (a) and (b) are the marketing director's views, (c) is the finance director's view, and (e) is the board's reasoning but not the main conclusion. Thus, (d) is correct.
5. Which of the following best states the main conclusion of the argument?
- Employees who take regular breaks are more productive than those who do not.
- The productivity gain from breaks is not due to teamwork.
- Companies should implement mandatory break policies to boost productivity.
- The study controlled for team size and collaboration frequency.
- Critics argue that teamwork, not breaks, increases productivity.
Answer: Companies should implement mandatory break policies to boost productivity.
The argument presents evidence (study findings, control for teamwork) and then draws a recommendation: 'Therefore, companies should implement mandatory break policies.' This is the main conclusion, as it is the ultimate claim the argument supports. Options a and b are premises or sub-conclusions; d is a premise; e is a counterpoint.
6. Which of the following is the main conclusion of the argument?
- Regular exercise improves cardiovascular health.
- Improved cardiovascular health reduces the risk of heart disease.
- People who exercise regularly are less likely to develop heart disease.
- Heart disease is a leading cause of death.
- Regular exercise can extend life expectancy.
Answer: Regular exercise can extend life expectancy.
The argument builds from premises (exercise improves health, health reduces disease) to a sub-conclusion (less likely to develop heart disease), then uses that with the premise that heart disease is a leading cause of death to reach the main conclusion: regular exercise can extend life expectancy. This is the ultimate point.
7. Which of the following best states the main conclusion of the argument?
- Raising the minimum wage reduces employment because it increases labor costs for businesses.
- A higher minimum wage boosts consumer spending, offsetting negative employment effects.
- Cities that increased their minimum wage saw no significant change in overall employment levels.
- The concern that raising the minimum wage leads to job losses is unfounded.
- Some economists argue that raising the minimum wage reduces employment, while others disagree.
Answer: The concern that raising the minimum wage leads to job losses is unfounded.
The argument presents two opposing views and then cites a study that found no significant employment change in cities that raised the minimum wage. The word 'therefore' signals the conclusion: the concern that raising the minimum wage leads to job losses is unfounded. This is the main point the author is trying to establish.
8. Which of the following best states the main conclusion of the argument?
- The city council should ban single-use plastics to reduce pollution.
- The ban would significantly decrease plastic waste in landfills.
- The ban would hurt local businesses.
- The city council must decide whether to implement the ban.
- The environmental advisor's argument is stronger than the economic advisor's.
Answer: The city council must decide whether to implement the ban.
The argument presents two opposing views and concludes that the council must decide. The final sentence states the council's need to make a decision, which is the main conclusion. Options (b) and (c) are premises from the advisors, and (a) is a recommendation not explicitly endorsed. Thus, (d) is correct.
9. In the argument above, the statement 'Fewer accidents mean lower insurance premiums for companies' functions as:
- the main conclusion.
- a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion.
- a premise that directly supports the main conclusion.
- a counterpoint to the main conclusion.
- an example illustrating the main conclusion.
Answer: a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion.
The argument's main conclusion is that the regulations will save companies money. The statement 'Fewer accidents mean lower insurance premiums' is a sub-conclusion: it is supported by the premise that regulations reduce accidents, and it in turn supports the main conclusion that companies save money.
10. Which of the following is the main conclusion of the argument?
- The drug reduces heart attack risk based on statistical evidence.
- Dr. Smith endorses the drug as a breakthrough.
- The study was double-blind and randomized.
- Some experts question the long-term effects of the drug.
- The drug is effective.
Answer: The drug is effective.
The argument builds from evidence (study results, expert opinion) and acknowledges a counterpoint (long-term concerns), but the final sentence 'Thus, the drug is effective' is the main conclusion. Option a is a sub-conclusion that directly supports e; b and c are premises; d is a counterpoint.
11. Which of the following best describes the role of the statement that an exoplanet is orbiting the star?
- It is a conclusion supported by the observed dimming.
- It is a hypothesis that the astronomers are trying to test.
- It is a prediction about future observations.
- It is a premise that supports the need for more data.
- It is a recommendation for further study.
Answer: It is a hypothesis that the astronomers are trying to test.
The astronomers state that they hypothesize an exoplanet is causing the dimming, but they acknowledge alternative explanations and plan to gather more data. This indicates that the statement is a hypothesis, not a confirmed conclusion. Thus, option (b) correctly identifies it as a hypothesis.
12. Which of the following best describes the role of the statement 'the company has not lost market share' in the argument?
- It is the main conclusion of the argument.
- It is a premise that supports the main conclusion.
- It is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion.
- It is a counterpoint that the argument rejects.
- It is an assumption on which the argument depends.
Answer: It is a premise that supports the main conclusion.
The statement 'the company has not lost market share' is a premise used to rule out competition as a cause, thereby supporting the main conclusion that higher costs are responsible for the profit decline. It is not the main conclusion, nor a sub-conclusion, counterpoint, or assumption.