Statement & Conclusion

There are no effective boundaries when it comes to pollutants. Studies have shown that toxic insecticides that have been banned in many countries are riding the wind from countries where they remain legal. Compounds such as DDT and toxaphene have been found in remote places like the Yukon and other Arctic regions.
This paragraph best supports the statement that

A:

toxic insecticides such as DDT have not been banned throughout the world.

B:

more pollutants find their way into polar climates than they do into warmer areas

C:

studies have proven that many countries have ignored their own antipollution laws.

D:

DDT and toxaphene are the two most toxic insecticides in the world.

Answer: A

The support for this choice is in the second sentence, which states that in some countries, toxic insecticides are still legal. Choice b is incorrect because even though polar regions are mentioned in the paragraph, there is no support for the idea that warmer regions are not just as affected. There is no support for choice c. Choice d can be ruled out because there is nothing to indicate that DDT and toxaphene are the most toxic. Choice e is illogical.

📖

During colonial times in America, juries were encouraged to ask questions of the parties in the courtroom. The jurors were, in fact, expected to investigate the facts of the case themselves. If jurors conducted an investigation today, we would throw out the case.
This paragraph best supports the statement that

A:

juries are less important today than they were in colonial times.

B:

jurors today are less interested in court cases than they were in colonial times.

C:

courtrooms today are more efficient than they were in colonial times.

D:

jurors in colonial times were more informed than jurors today.

Answer: E

The paragraph focuses on the idea that the jury system is different from what it was in colonial times. There is no support given for choices a, b, and c. Choice d is incorrect because, even though jurors in colonial times were expected to investigate and ask questions, this does not necessarily mean that they were more informed than today's jurors.

📖

In the 1966 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona, the court held that before the police can obtain statements from a person subjected to an interrogation, the person must be given a Miranda warning. This warning means that a person must be told that he or she has the right to remain silent during the police interrogation. Violation of this right means that any statement that the person makes is not admissible in a court hearing.
This paragraph best supports the statement that

A:

police who do not warn persons of their Miranda rights are guilty of a crime.

B:

a Miranda warning must be given before a police interrogation can begin.

C:

the police may no longer interrogate persons suspected of a crime unless a lawyer is present.

D:

the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Miranda should be reversed

Answer: B

This answer is clearly supported in the second sentence. Nothing in the paragraph suggests that it is a crime not to give a Miranda warning, so choice a is incorrect. Choice c is also wrong because police may interrogate as long as a warning is given. There is no support given for either choice d or e.

📖

Mathematics allows us to expand our consciousness. Mathematics tells us about economic trends, patterns of disease, and the growth of populations. Math is good at exposing the truth, but it can also perpetuate misunderstandings and untruths. Figures have the power to mislead people.
This paragraph best supports the statement that

A:

the study of mathematics is dangerous.

B:

words are more truthful than figures.

C:

the study of mathematics is more important than other disciplines.

D:

the power of numbers is that they cannot lie.

Answer: E

This answer is clearly stated in the last sentence of the paragraph. Choice a can be ruled out because there is no support to show that studying math is dangerous. Words are not mentioned in the passage, which rules out choice b. Choice d is a contradiction to the information in the passage. There is no support for choice c.

📖

Human technology developed from the first stone tools about two and a half million years ago. At the beginning, the rate of development was slow. Hundreds of thousands of years passed without much change. Today, new technologies are reported daily on television and in newspapers.
This paragraph best supports the statement that

A:

stone tools were not really technology.

B:

stone tools were in use for two and a half million years

C:

there is no way to know when stone tools first came into use.

D:

In today's world, new technologies are constantly being developed

Answer: D

The last sentence states that new technologies are reported daily, and this implies that new technologies are being constantly developed. There is no support for choice a.With regard to choice b, stone tools were first used two and a half million years ago, but they were not neessarily in use all that time. Choice c is clearly wrong since the paragraph states when stone tools first came into use. Although some may agree that choice e is true, the author of the paragraph does not give support for this opinion.

📖

Questions for: Analyzing Arguments