---

Correct Answer: C
The government experts concluded that "private firms posed the biggest risk to successful government espionage" and they supported this conclusion by assuming that the unbreakable encryption algorithm in emails came from the private security firms, which had just begun selling encryption algorithms. In order to weaken the conclusion of the government experts, you need to find evidence supporting the belief that the unbreakable algorithm did not come from the private security firms but from another source (such as free open-source
developers).
A. This answer strengthens the conclusion of the government experts by bolstering the claim that the products developed by the private security firms were very difficult to break and this was the fear of some government experts.
B. This answer does not state that the "other members of the private sector and academia" broke the encryption algorithm and we cannot assume this. If this were true, the algorithm would not be as strong as the government experts suspected and it would almost certainly not be "encryption algorithm that government experts could not break."
C. This answer undermines the government experts' conclusion that the private security firms posed "the biggest risk" as ex-government code breakers admitted that a public-sector open-source freely-available product posed the most difficulty in breaking.
D. This answer is not relevant since a foreign government's ability to infiltrate an espionage operation is not related to the conclusion that the difficulty experienced in breaking email encryption occurred because of products released by private telecommunications companies. Further, this answer provides no basis to conclude or even assume that the private security firms were not the source of
the unbreakable algorithm.
E. The publication of information about the strength and benefit of the privatelydeveloped encryption algorithms would not disprove that private security firms were behind the difficult to break email encryption algorithm experienced by the government.

---

Correct Answer: D
This question asks you to take the statements and draw a conclusion. One major trap in this type of question is an answer that is logical, but not supported by the statements in the stimulus.

A. The stimulus does not define what constitutes a well written story nor does it speak about what is a poorly written story. Consequently, it is difficult to make a statement like this that will logically follow from the stimulus.

B. Although this statement is probably true, it does not follow from the stimulus. Instead, the stimulus states that authors use an incompetent investigator to add complexity to the storyline (thereby making the reader's attempts to solve the case more challenging) not to show that investigations are complex.

C. While the stimulus states that stories "frequently" include an incompetent investigator who does not solve the case correctly, we cannot conclude an incompetent investigator "never" solves a case correctly.

D. This statement is quite similar to the final sentence of the stimulus  logically follows from the stimulus. The statement that authors write in the way they do "to provide readers additional complexity and challenge in solving the investigation" provides the basis to conclude that authors write "to make predicting the correct outcome of the investigation more difficult."

E. Although this statement is probably true, there is no evidence of it in the stimulus. Instead, the stimulus indicates that the complexity is added not for its resemblance to real life but for its ability to increase the challenge posed to readers seeking to solve the case correctly.

---

Correct Answer: B
The conclusion of the commentator's argument is: "It is essential that the government loosen its control on the media."
To see this, consider the points that the author makes:
(1) Political and journalistic freedom are essential for democracy
(2) Society is strengthened by many views being expressed
(3) Our government stifles free speech
(4) Government must loosen speech controls
(5) Loosening control of the media leads to long-term strength
Notice that the logical progression of the argument is as follows: (2) -> (1) -> (3) -> (5) -> (4)
To see the relationship between premises and conclusion, notice how awkward the argument would become if a point such as 1, 2, or 3 were to be the conclusion. It makes no sense to say: since "government must loosen speech controls," therefore "political and journalistic freedoms are essential for democracy." Rather, it makes sense the other way around: Since "political and journalistic freedoms are essential for democracy," therefore "government must loosen speech controls." Some test-takers believe that the conclusion is the last sentence of the paragraph. However, this is incorrect since, in this argument, the last sentence serves as a premise to the conclusion. To see this, try to allow the second to last sentence to serve as a premise to the last sentence and it should be clear that this is not the way the sentences are functioning in the argument.

A. Although this statement is true, it is a premise not a conclusion. It is because the government is exercising too much control that "it is essential that the government loosen its control on the media."

B. This is a paraphrase of the conclusion. Every other sentence or major idea in the argument serves as a premise to this statement, which is the conclusion or main point of the author's argument.

C. This mirrors the first sentence of the paragraph. However, it functions as a premise not as a conclusion. It is because democracy requires a free press that "it is essential that the government loosen its control on the media."

D. Although this is similar to the last sentence of the paragraph, it is not the conclusion. The line of reasoning in the paragraph is: democracy --> long term health --> government must open press. The reasoning is NOT: government must open press --> democracy --> long term health (it makes no sense to say that since the government must open the press,
therefore we will have long term health). Moreover, the last sentence deals with the health of the country, not the strength of the government.

E. Although this is true, it is not the main thrust of the argument. The author is not trying to make this point. Instead, he is granting that this is true and then trying to argue that the government needs to open the press.

---

Correct Answer: B
The conclusion to the argument is that "when the industry completes its transition to the new cork, there will no longer be any threat to landfills from red wine corks." The conclusion omits an important fact: even after manufacturers stop making the old wine corks, there will still be thousands of old bottles in circulation. Individuals who purchased red wine bottles years ago will consume them and discard the old corks in landfills, thereby continuing to pollute landfills. Consequently, we cannot conclude that "there will no longer be any threat to
landfills from red wine corks." To further see that this is the conclusion, consider the points of the argument and which points support a conclusion versus which point is a conclusion supported by other points. The points of the argument are:
(1) Red wine corks pose a threat to the environment
(2) A solution has been found
(3) When the industry adopts the solution, the threat will be gone
Notice that it makes no sense to say that since (3) is true, therefore (1) must be true, as would be the case if (3) were a premise and (1) were a conclusion. Instead, it makes sense to say that since (1) and (2) are true, therefore weconclude (3). Now the task at hand is to see how even though (3) is the conclusion, it is not an extremely sound conclusion.

A. The timing of the industry's transition is irrelevant due to the qualifier in the conclusion: "when the industry completes its transition to the new cork."

B. This statement properly identifies a weakness in the conclusion.

C. The time taken to produce a cork does not impact matters of pollution.

D. At first glance, this answer has some appeal. However, the conclusion relates to pollution in a landfill-not fumes omitted into the air during production.

E. The cost to produce the new cork is not pertinent in a consideration of landfill pollution.

---

Correct Answer: E
The article draws a conclusion on the basis of the findings of a single study. However, the link between eating beets and cancer prevention cannot be verified without ruling out other variables. If the participants who ate beets were also similar in another way that distinguished them from the group that did not, it would become impossible to prove that beets - and not the other factor - were responsible for reducing the risk of cancer on the basis of this study alone.

A. The effectiveness of flax seed oil in reducing the risk of cancer has no bearing on the effectiveness of beets in doing so. This answer is off topic.

B. This answer strengthens, rather than weakens, the argument. If the subjects ate only beets and no other vegetables, there is more evidence for the fact that beets and no other vegetable were responsible for reducing the risk of cancer.

C. The study would be more convincing if it had been conducted in more than one city. However, this fact alone does not do the most to weaken the argument.

D. This other experiment is about the role of beets in the recovery rates of cancer patients, rather than in the risk of diagnosis. Therefore, it does not weaken the conclusion of the article, which focuses on cancer prevention, not recovery.

E. Because study participants who ate beets were also more likely to exercise regularly than those who did not eat beets, it is impossible to determine whether
beets or regular exercise were more influential in preventing cancer. This is the
correct answer.