Prep2012-Pack1-CR-069 VCR005518 Hard
Reasoning
What would undermine the case made for the argument's conclusion? The argument's conclusion is that the high success rate is evidence that the fund-raisers did not try hard enough to contact new potential donors. The argument is that since normally such a high donation rate could have been achieved even if only previous donors had been contacted, the fund-raisers must not have tried hard enough to contact people outside this group. But this reasoning neglects the possibility that the fund-raisers did contact lots of people who previously hadn't donated. If they had done that, one would expect the overall donation percentage to be lower than 80 percent. The 80 percent rate they actually achieved might mean, then, that they were unusually successful in getting donations from previous non-donors. Therefore, look for an answer option that suggests that that might have happened.
A. This answer option is compatible with the case the argument makes and does not weaken it. Given the argument's suggestion that the fund-raisers contacted almost nobody other than previous donors, then it is to be expected that most of the contacted people who to make donations would be previous donors.
B. If the fund-raisers did not raise much money this year, that would be further evidence that they did not try hard enough--which would strengthen rather than weaken the case the argument makes.
C. This is compatible with the case the argument makes. To the extent that it is some evidence of effort on the part of S0uthington's fundraisers, at best it weakens the argument only very slightly. This is because we are not given information that would contextualize this new information and make clearer its significance. For example, have Southington University's fund-raisers always raised much larger average individual donations than other universities’ fundraisers? Were there special circumstances this year (e.g., a centenary), resulting in higher
average donations from Southington's typical donors than from most other universities’ donors? Thus the information in this answer option does not significantly weaken the case the argument makes that Southington's fund-raisers might not have tried hard enough.
D. This does not weaken the argument. It is a highly general claim about fund-raisers, not specifically about Southington's fund-raisers. We are not given information about the extent to which this was true of Southington's fund-raisers this year. Moreover, even if S0uthington's fund-raisers got the names of potential new donors to contact, this would not indicate that the fund-raisers actually contacted these potential donors.
E. Correct. If most of the donations were from people who hadn't donated before, then the fund-raisers must have contacted lots of those unlikely prospects and been quite successful in persuading them to donate.
The correct answer is E.
Prep2012-Pack1-CR-070 VCR005704 Hard
Reasoning
What additional information must be implicit in the argument if it is to justify the conclusion that the methods for determining the gold con tent in the soil samples were inaccurate? The argument is that after the gold content in soil samples from the island was determined using these methods, high gold content was reported. But neither the subsequent expeditions nor modern soil analysis found any significant gold in the soil. Therefore, the initial methods for determining the gold content must have been inaccurate. This reasoning assumes that the soil samples used were representative of the island's soil; that the gold content found was reported accurately; and that the subsequent expeditions and the modern soil analysis prove that there wasn't really much gold in the island's soil when Frobisher took the samples. Therefore, look for an answer option that expresses or follows from one of these
assumptions.
A. By citing a modern soil analysis as evidence of how gold was in the soil, the argument assumes that the gold content of the island's soil is not lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.
B. The argument does need to assume this. In fact, information to the contrary—that is, that both mining expeditions mined the same part of the island—would, if included in the argument, make it better.
C. The issue of whether the methods used were accurate or not is quite separate from the issue of whether those methods were standard in the sixteenth century. Therefore, the argument does not need any assumption concerning the latter issue.
D. The argument is not about any samples Frobisher may have taken on other islands, only those he took on Kodlunarn Island.
E. Correct. To conclude that the methods that found gold in the samples were inaccurate, the argument needs to assume that the samples accurately reflected the content of the island's s0H—but they would not do so if extra gold had been added. Thus the argument must assume that no gold was added.
The correct answer is E.
