Insta–DART (Daily Aptitude and Reasoning Test) 1 May 2021

Answer : a

Option (a): weakens the argument by showing that even if ex-prisoners do not pursue the occupation for which they have prepared whilst in prison, the skills they have learn during training in prison may nevertheless be of use in whatever occupation they take up.

Option (b): provides an objection to scrapping career training programmes in prison. But this 1s not the same as weakening the argument, because it has no impact on the claim that it is unwise to continue such programmes since they do not achieve their aims.

Option (c): mentions an advantage of prison career training programmes, thereby to some extent weakening the claim that it is unwise to continue them. But this does not weaken the argument as much as (a), which shows that the claim upon which the conclusion of the argument is based, that the programmes do not achieve their aim (which we can assume is to provide skill which will be useful in future employment) – is not true.

Option (d): does not weaken the argument, because it simply emphasises that training programmes have the goal which the argument claims they do not achieve. (d) tells us nothing about whether they achieve that goal, hence has no impact on the conclusion that these programmes should be scrapped.

Answer : d

Option (b): suggests that for some people who are lying, lie detectors will indicate symptoms of only moderate stress. But this does not weaken

Option (c): does not weaken the argument, because it does not suggest that it is impossible to find and train the personnel who can use lie detection instruments effectively.

Answer : C

The conclusion of the argument is that it is unreaslistic to expect flu vaccines to given total protection against the virus. The reasons given for this are that the prediction as to which flu strains will be circulating is made a long time before the vaccine is used, and that if a new strain of flu appears the vaccine will not be protective against it.

Option (c): strengthens the argument by providing another reason why total protection cannot be guaranteed, since if the vaccine works less well in those people who are most at risk, it can be expected that some people will not be protected by the vaccinations.

Option (a): is irrelevant to the argument, became the conclusion refers specifically to protection against the flu virus, and there is no information in the passage as to connections between the flu Virus and colds.

Option (b): suggest that it may be wise to vaccinate children against flu, in order to reduce the spread of the virus, but is not relevant to the claim that we can not expect total protection from vaccinations.

Option (d): does not strengthen the argument because it given a reason for accepting that the flu vaccination is extremely effective, and givens no reason as to why it is unrealistic to expect it to be effective in all cases.

Answer : d

The argument concludes that allowing drivers to use the hard shoulder on motorways at peak times is preferable to other possible measures, on the grounds that it solves the problem of congestion motorways relatively easily and cheaply, as  evidenced by the success of a recent trial of the scheme. However, if (d) is true, then the increase of traffic may mean that the scheme does not solve the problem of congestion on motorways, despite the fact that the trial run was successful, and this may mean that other schemes would provide more effective solutions.

Option (a): is irrelevant to the claim that using hard shoulders would solve the problem of congestion. It simply suggest that it is possible to have motorways without hard shoulders, but has no implications as to how this would affect traffic flow

Option (b): does not weaken the argument, since although it suggests that many people are not discouraged from using motorways by the availability of public transport, it gives no definite information as to future increases in the volume of motorway traffic

Option (c): gives a reason for thinking that the measures that the argument rejects could be difficult to implement, hence it does not weaken the argument.

Answer : d

The argument given two reasons for disapproving of carbon offsetting; first, that the availability of the scheme makes people think there is nothing Wrong with flying, and second that customers cannot know that their financial contribution does reduce carbon emissions.

Option (d): strengthens the case against carbon offsetting by showing that in some cases any reduction in carbon emissions would have happened anyway, thus cannot be claimed to compensate for the carbon emissions caused by someone taking a flight.

Option (a): gives a reason for thinking that thee business of carbon offsetting may eventually be better regulated, and thus that some of the objections in the argument may eventually not apply. Hence it does not strengthen the argument.

Option (b): does not strengthen the argument, since it suggests that the carbon emissions

produced by aircraft may be less problematic than the argument assumes.

Option (c): neither strengthens nor weakens the argument. It suggests that it is worth-while to make financial contributions to energy saving schemes, but has no implications for the question as to whether this should be done by carbon off setting schemes.