Years ago, some in the government's intelligence community feared the work of telecommunications researchers at then-emerging private security

firms. The government experts concluded that these private firms posed the biggest risk to successful government espionage. As the private security firms began publicly releasing and advertising encryption algorithms and other security products, these government experts saw support for their conclusion when an encryption algorithm that government experts could not break began appearing in countless emails. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the conclusion of the government experts referred to above? A) Shortly before the government experts reached their conclusions, two private security companies each claimed to have developed "the world's strongest email encryption algorithm"

B)

The private security firms' decision to advertise their products and sell them publicly led to other members of the private sector and academia scrutinizing the encryption algorithms.

C)

An open-source encryption algorithm, developed by an academic and freely available from popular websites, is recognized by numerous ex-government code breakers as the most unbreakable algorithm ever developed.

D)

An enemy government recently succeeded in placing a spy within the government espionage operations referred to above.

E)

To strengthen the reputation of the private security firms, employees of these firms publish information about the strength of their products and the benefits of using them.

Hide Answer Correct Answer: C Hide Explanation 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 breakand 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 publicsector 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 privately-developed encryption algorithms would not disprove that private security firms were behind the difficult to break email encryption algorithm experienced by the government.

# On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern Canada, scientists uncovered skeletal remains from about 100,000 years ago. Surprisingly, all the skeletal remains, which included many species from differing biological families and spanned about two thousand years, showed evidence of experiencing temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit (or 538 degrees Celsius). Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent paradox between the cold environment and the evidence of the bones experiencing hot temperatures?

A)

Other scientific research released two years before the expedition showed that the remote region of northern Canada underwent considerable warming in the past 100,000 years.

B)

Chemical changes that naturally occur during the process of decay in only one north Canadian species produce the same evidence of the species' skeletons being exposed to hot temperatures as the expedition scientists found.

C)

A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada.

D)

Strong evidence exists that as early as 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens around the world relied heavily on fire to cook animals.

E)

In the same expedition and in roughly the same layer of excavation, scientists found rudimentary wood cutting and hunting tools used by early humans.

Hide Answer Correct Answer: E Hide Explanation The paradox: Northern Canada is quite cold and yet skeletal remains show evidence of experiencing very hot temperatures. This paradox could be explained by finding evidence that fires regularly occurred that would have subjected the bones to excruciatingly hot temperatures. If evidence existed that early humans from this time period hunted animals and started fires (implicitly for the purpose of cooking the animals--thereby creating skeletons of animals that experienced hot temperatures), a large step in explaining the paradox would be taken. A. Unraveling the paradox depends on providing an explanation of how the skeletal remains experienced such hot temperatures yet this answer only heightens the paradox as it provides evidence that the skeletons' environment was much colder (not warmer) many years ago. B. Although this provides an explanation of how "exactly one north Canadian species'" skeletons showed evidence of exposure to hot temperatures, it fails to account for why "many species from differing biological families [that] spanned about two thousand years showed" the same evidence of exposure to hot temperatures. C. This answer provides an explanation for skeletons showing evidence of experiencing hot temperatures. However, this answer does not explain why this evidence appeared among skeletons whose date "spanned about two thousand years." Further, the fire occurred "a little over 103,000 years ago" while the original argument makes clear that some of the skeletons which showed evidence of experiencing hot temperatures dated after this fire (i.e., the skeletons were from 100,000 years ago and "spanned about two thousand years" while the fire occurred "over 103,000 years ago"). D. The paradox exists in skeletons dating back to 100,000 years ago. Consequently, explaining how a fire (and thus hot temperatures) could have existed "as early as 70,000 years ago" does not explain the paradox. In other words, this answer does not explain how the skeletons of animals 100,000 years old experienced hot temperatures (although it would explain how skeletons 70,000 years old experienced hot temperatures). E. While this answer does not prove what caused the chared skeletal remains, it "best explains" how the skeletons experienced hot temperatures (i.e., the hunters cut wood and, implied in this, they started fires to cook animals).

# Political Commentator: In order for a democracy to flourish, it is essential that political and journalistic freedom of expression exist. Even if commentators voice ideas that do not support the current government, a society is strengthened by the variety of views expressed. Yet, our government continues to exercise a stranglehold on certain forms of speech. It is essential that the government loosen its control on the media. Despite the potential short-term instability this may cause the country, it will strengthen the long-term health of the country. Which of the following expresses the conclusion of the argument? A) B) C) D) E) The government is exercising too much control over the media The government needs to open the media and release its hold on certain forms of speech Democracy requires a strong and free press Even ideas not supportive of democracy can strengthen a government The future of the media lies in the hands of the government

Hide Answer Correct Answer: B

Hide Explanation 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 freedom are essential for democracy." Rather, it makes sense the other way around: Since "political and journalistic freedom 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.

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." 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. 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."

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. 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.