Summary
The traditional difference between rural and urban lifestyles depends on geographic location. However, this view is changing with the impact of communications technology. For example, people who rarely communicate electronically with anyone live a rural lifestyle, and people who frequently communicate electronically with other people are living an urban lifestyle.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
How often a person communicates with others electronically is a more important consideration when determining what kind of lifestyle they lead.
A
Frequency of electronic communication with others is superseding geographical considerations in defining our lifestyles.
This answer is strongly supported. The author is drawing a comparison between two types of views to determine what type of lifestyle a person lives. Between these two views, the author concludes that a view based on electronic communication makes more sense.
B
Many people who use electronic technology find urban lifestyles more satisfying than they find rural lifestyles.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what type of lifestyle a person would find satisfying from the stimulus.
C
People who live rural lifestyles communicate less frequently than do people who live urban lifestyles.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to people who communicate electronically with other people. It could be the case that people living a rural lifestyle communicate more frequently without the use of technology.
D
We are unable to foresee the magnitude of the changes that the information revolution may have in defining our lives.
This answer is unsupported. There is nothing about foreseeability in the stimulus, and there is nothing about the information revolution. The stimulus is limited to how to best determine what type of lifestyle a person leads.
E
People are choosing to live in different regions of the nation than previously because of the impact of electronic communications technology.
This answer is unsupported. There is nothing in the stimulus to suggest what types of regions people are choosing to live. Additionally, we don’t know if advances in electronic communications would be the cause for this change.
Primatologist: Although I agree that your assumption helped you make those predictions, your conclusion does not follow. You might as well argue that since we can predict the output of some bank cash machines by assuming that these machines actually want to satisfy the customers’ requests, these cash machines must really have desires.
Speaker 1 Summary
The anthropologist claims that an assumption about vervet monkeys’ knowledge of the hierarchy within their troupe has been proven true. How so? Because this assumption led to accurate predictions of the monkeys’ group behavior.
Speaker 2 Summary
The primatologist believes that the anthropologist’s predictions do not provide sufficient support to conclude that the anthropologist’s assumption is true. This is supported by an example: assuming that an ATM wants to help customers can lead to accurate predictions of the ATM’s outputs, but that doesn’t mean the ATM actually has desires.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. The key disagreement is about whether the anthropologist’s predictions are sufficient support for the conclusion that the assumption about monkey knowledge is true.
A
whether the anthropologist successfully predicted the behavior of individual monkeys by use of the map of the troupe’s dominance hierarchy
The speakers agree about this point. The anthropologist claims that these successful predictions happened, and the primatologist accepts that the anthropologist was able to predict the monkeys’ behaviour.
B
whether the output of a bank cash machine can be accurately predicted on the basis of knowledge of the requests made to it by customers
The primatologist believes that such a prediction is possible. The anthropologist, on the other hand, never says anything about cash machines. There’s certainly no indication that the anthropologist disagrees with the primatologist on this point.
C
whether vervet monkeys can have knowledge of the complete hierarchy of dominance relations that exists within their own troupe
The anthropologist believes that vervet monkeys can have this knowledge. In fact, it’s a necessary assumption for the conclusion drawn. The primatologist offers no opinion; the disagreement is about having grounds to believe a claim, not whether the claim is actually true.
D
whether the fact that the anthropologist’s assumption led to such successful predictions provides sufficient grounds for the claim that the vervet monkeys had knowledge of their dominance hierarchy
The anthropologist thinks that the predictions are sufficient grounds—that’s the anthropologist’s entire argument. The primatologist thinks that the predictions are insufficient and that the anthropologist’s conclusion “does not follow.” This is the point of disagreement.
E
whether the behavior exhibited by vervet monkeys in experimental situations can be used as the basis for a generalization concerning all vervet monkeys
Neither speaker says anything about generalizing vervet monkeys’ behaviour in experimental situations to apply to all vervet monkeys. This simply isn’t discussed.
Sarah: Reporters, by allotting time to some events rather than others, are exercising their judgment as to what is newsworthy and what is not. In other words, they always interpret the news.
Ramon: Reporters should never interpret the news. Once they deem a story to be newsworthy, they are obliged to relay the facts to me untainted.
Speaker 1 Summary
Sarah argues that reporters “always interpret the news.” How so? When reporters decide what is and isn’t newsworthy, they’re using their judgment. This, Sarah implies, is an act of interpretation.
Speaker 2 Summary
Ramon argues that “reporters should never interpret the news.” As support, he says that reporters have an obligation to objectively communicate the facts of anything they deem newsworthy. This indicates that Ramon doesn’t think that determining newsworthiness counts as interpretation as long as the facts are “untainted.”
Objective
We need to find an idea that the speakers disagree on. One such idea is whether determining the newsworthiness of an event counts as interpretation. Sarah thinks it does, but Ramon thinks it doesn’t.
A
Reporters actually do interpret the news every time they report it.
Sarah agrees with this, but Ramon doesn’t express an opinion. Ramon’s argument is all about what reporters “should” do, and never goes into what they actually do or don’t do.
B
Reporters should exercise their own judgment as to which events are newsworthy.
Like (D), neither speaker offers an opinion on this. Sarah never says anything about what reporters should or shouldn’t do. Ramon never discusses the standard by which reporters should deem events newsworthy, so it could be by their judgment or some other standard.
C
Reporters’ primary responsibility is to see that people are kept informed of the facts.
Neither speaker discusses the ranking of reporters’ responsibilities. Sarah doesn’t mention any kind of responsibility at all, while Ramon talks about an obligation not to taint the facts, but doesn’t say what reporters’ primary responsibility might be.
D
Reporters should not allot time to reporting some events rather than others.
Like (B), neither speaker discusses this. Lucy only talks about what does happen, not what should happen. Ramon does talk about what should happen, but only in the context of leaving facts “untainted” rather than how reporters should allot their time.
E
Reporting on certain events rather than others qualifies as interpreting the news.
Lucy agrees with this, but Ramon disagrees, so this is the point of disagreement. This is the conclusion of Lucy’s argument. On the other hand, Ramon thinks that deciding what’s newsworthy doesn’t count as interpreting as long as the facts are left “untainted”.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author claims it is impossible for all uses of language to be metaphorical, contrary to what “some extremists” believe. This is demonstrated logically: the author tells us that unless some uses of language are literal, no uses of language can be nonliteral. By the definition given, metaphor is a nonliteral use of language. Therefore, there must be literal uses of language.
P1. Any nonliteral uses → some literal uses;
P2. Metaphor is a nonliteral use;
Therefore, there must be some literal uses.
P1. Any nonliteral uses → some literal uses;
P2. Metaphor is a nonliteral use;
Therefore, there must be some literal uses.
Identify Conclusion
The author’s conclusion is that it “cannot be so” that all uses of language are metaphorical.
A
It is not the case that all uses of language are metaphorical.
This is a good statement of the author’s conclusion. The argument is designed to prove that there must be some literal uses of language, and since metaphor is nonliteral, that means it’s impossible for all language use to be metaphorical.
B
Either all uses of words are literal or all uses of words are metaphorical.
This is not a claim the author makes. The argument takes for granted the existence of some nonliteral uses (metaphor) and attempts to prove that there must also be literal uses. It’s not all-or-nothing.
C
Nonliteral meaning is possible only if some uses of words employ their literal meanings.
This claim is not supported by anything else in the argument. It is used by the author in combination with affirming the sufficient condition (nonliteral use being possible) to conclude that literal uses must exist. This is a premise, not a conclusion.
D
Metaphors are nonliteral uses of language that can be used to suggest similarities between objects.
This claim is not supported by anything else in the argument. It affirms the sufficient condition of the conditional claim made by the author to bring us to the conclusion that literal uses of language must exist. In other words, this is a premise.
E
The ordinary meanings of words must be fixed by convention if the similarities between objects are to be representable by language.
The author never says this. The ordinary meanings of words play no part in this argument, which just focuses on the theoretical debate of whether language is 100% metaphor or not.
Lucy: Nonsense. You’ve always acknowledged that philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline and that, like most people, you think of philosophy as addressing issues also addressed by the disciplines of linguistics, mathematics, and psychology. A field of study is a genuinely autonomous discipline by virtue of its having a unique methodology rather than by virtue of its addressing issues that no other field of study addresses.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Lucy denies Mario’s claim that a genuinely autonomous discipline has its own domain inquiry and instead concludes a field is autonomous by virtue of having its own methodology. As evidence, she points out that in the past Mario has acknowledged philosophy as a genuinely autonomous discipline despite also thinking philosophy addresses issues also addressed by linguistics, mathematics, and psychology.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Lucy counters the position held by Mario. She does this by pointing out that Mario has demonstrated beliefs in the past that directly contradict the principle he asserts. If Mario has believed philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline, then it’s not supported that a genuinely autonomous discipline must have a unique domain inquiry.
A
questioning Mario’s expertise in cognitive science
Lucy does not address Mario’s credentials or expertise. She only addresses the inconsistencies between Mario’s beliefs.
B
demonstrating that Mario confuses the notion of a field of study with that of a genuinely autonomous discipline
Lucy’s claims demonstrate that Mario has an incorrect definition of what it means for a discipline to be genuinely autonomous. This is different from confusing a genuinely autonomous discipline with a field of study.
C
showing that some of Mario’s beliefs are not compatible with the principle on which he bases his conclusion
The belief Mario holds is the belief that philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline. This belief contradicts Mario’s principle that a genuinely autonomous discipline must have a unique domain inquiry, because philosophy addresses issues also addressed by other disciplines.
D
disputing the accuracy of Mario’s description of cognitive science as addressing issues also addressed by other disciplines
Lucy does not address the topic of cognitive science specifically.
E
establishing that Mario is not a philosopher
Lucy does not address Mario’s status as a philosopher. We cannot assume this just because Lucy establishes that Mario holds inconsistent beliefs about philosophy.
A
address the expense of building or refitting a refrigerator with the new technology
This is a key possibility that the argument ignores. If these expenses outweigh the money saved from keeping the food in the oxygen-removing refrigerators at a warmer temperature, the oxygen-removing models may not be significantly cheaper than current models in the long term.
B
address the possibility of consumer discomfort with the new refrigerators
Consumer discomfort with the new refrigerators is irrelevant. The argument is only concerned with how much cheaper the new refrigerators could potentially be than current models.
C
explain the technology that enabled the oxygen-removing membrane to be developed
The technology doesn’t need to be explained. The author is just making the case that refrigerators fitted with this technology will be cheaper, in the long run, than current refrigerator models.
D
take into account the effectiveness of current refrigerator technology in preventing food spoilage
It’s not clear that the author doesn’t take this into account, but even if he doesn’t, the effectiveness of current refrigerator technology in preventing food spoilage has no bearing on whether oxygen-removing models will be cheaper in the long term.
E
take into account the inconvenience caused by food spoilage in current refrigerators
It’s not clear that the author doesn’t take this into account, but even if he doesn’t, the inconvenience caused by food spoilage in current refrigerators has no bearing on whether oxygen-removing models will be cheaper in the long term.
Greenwall: But many of those customers could easily be lying because they are too embarrassed to admit that they don’t exercise anymore.
Faden: You have no way of showing that customers were lying. Your objection is absurd.
Summarize Argument
Faden concludes that Greenwall’s objection, that many of Faden’s customers could be lying about still using their year-old exercise machines, is absurd because Greenwall doesn’t have a way to prove the objection.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Faden asserts that since a survey shows most of his customers claim to still use their year-old exercise equipment, most of their machines are still in use after a year. Greenwall points out that many of those customers could be lying, and Faden argues that Greenwall’s objection is absurd because Greenwall has no way to prove the objection.
A flaw in Faden’s reasoning is that Greenwall’s objection isn’t necessarily absurd just because Greenwall can’t prove the objection. An objection can lack evidence and still have merit.
A flaw in Faden’s reasoning is that Greenwall’s objection isn’t necessarily absurd just because Greenwall can’t prove the objection. An objection can lack evidence and still have merit.
A
Greenwall takes for granted that many customers have stopped using the equipment but are too embarrassed to admit it.
Greenwall doesn’t argue or imply that the customers have stopped using the equipment. He just points out that many of the customers could be lying about using the equipment.
B
Greenwall presumes, without giving justification, that most people are dishonest about their personal habits.
Greenwall doesn’t make a claim about most people’s personal habits. His statement only addresses the possibility that customers could be lying about using their equipment.
C
Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the more conclusive the evidence is for a claim, the less believable the claim becomes.
Faden doesn’t make the case that people are less likely to believe a claim as stronger evidence is presented to support that claim.
D
Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the evidence for a claim has not been undermined unless that evidence has been proven false.
This is a flaw in Faden’s reasoning. Faden presumes that his argument hasn’t been undermined because Greenwall hasn’t definitively disproved that argument. However, an objection to an argument can hold weight even if that objection doesn’t totally disprove the argument.
E
Greenwall ignores the possibility that some people stopped using the equipment but were not embarrassed about it.
Greenwall isn’t concerned with the possibility that some people stopped using their equipment but aren’t embarrassed about it. Greenwall only makes the case that some people may be lying about still using their equipment because they’re embarrassed to admit they stopped.