Q1
Recently, the research and development departments at major pharmaceutical companies have been experimenting with new injections that provide the boost in iron that anemic children need to reverse their condition. These companies have expressed confidence that children who are suffering from anemia will be cured relatively simply through the use of such biochemical supplements.

In concluding that the biochemical remedy being developed will have its desired effect, the pharmaceutical companies assume that

a. major pharmaceutical companies have the primary responsibility to cure childhood anemia
b. a low iron level in the body is the major factor influencing the incidence of anemia in children
c. a diet rich in iron cannot improve the conditions of children suffering from anemia to the point that biochemical supplements would become unnecessary
d. children afflicted with anemia will find out about and submit to injections that can reverse their conditions
e. the use of biochemical supplements is the safest way to cure anemia in children

Q2
Dean: Anything that hinders the students hinders the University. Anything that hinders the University hinders the students. Therefore, the Senator’s proposal, which includes a provision to restrict the employment of new professors, hinders the students.

The above argument depends logically on which of the following assumptions?

a. The Senator’s proposal was designed to hinder the University.
b. Most professors at the University support the Senator’s proposal.
c. The University will be unable to continue operation if the Senator’s proposal is approved.
d. Educational institutions that are not universities also object to the Senator’s proposal.
e. Restricting the employment of new professors would hinder the University.

1. B
2. A

For second question, E cannot be the answer. What is stated is that the senator's proposal hinders the student. In order to know that the proposal hinders the student, we have to assume that the senator's proposal hinders the university. This will establish the causal link between the university and students and vice versa
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

I guess enough Hyenas have chewed on this carcass. Let me just explain what they ate.


Q2 is simple. I wont explain.

Here is the explaination from the source of the question for Q1

he author's conclusion reflects the companies' confidence that anemic children will be cured relatively simply with a new iron injection. The evidence is the first sentence: A new injection can apparently reverse children's anemia. Can you see any gaps between the conclusion and evidence? Notice that the evidence explains that something can be done and the conclusion states that something will be done. Just because the cure is possible doesn't mean it will automatically be administered. Any number of factors could serve to block implementation. The author assumes that children will receive the injection based on the fact that it exists. Choice (D) expresses this more concretely: the author assumes that children are aware of and willing to receive this injection.

The argument concerns whether the cure will become available, but (A) is concerned with who has primary responsibility for the cure, so it's outside the scope. (B) gives us outside the scope information about causes. The author states that iron shots reverse children's anemia, regardless of the specific cause, so Choice (B) need not be assumed. (C) states that a managed diet would not cure anemia. But the author doesn't state that the injection is the only cure for anemia, so the argument needn't assume that no other cure exists. (E) is both extreme and outside the scope. The author only claims that the injection cures anemia "relatively simply." Safety never comes up as an issue and there is no need to assume that the injections are the safest method to reverse anemia.

Nice one... good question. When it seems too obvious, we all chew into the carcass
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul