Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author claims that the current theory about earthquakes doesn’t fully explain the results we observe when earthquakes happen. This is supported by an example of the theory not matching reality. The theory predicts that earthquakes should generate a lot of heat, but in practice no earthquake-related temperature increases have been observed. That does sound mysterious.
Identify Conclusion
The author’s conclusion is that the current theory still leaves at least one aspect of earthquakes “mysterious” in that the theory’s predictions don’t quite match the actual data.
A
No increases in temperature have been detected following earthquakes.
The argument states this claim as a fact, and does not provide any support for it, which means it’s not a conclusion. Instead, this is used to support the conclusion that the current theory is incomplete.
B
The current theory does not fully explain earthquake data.
This is exactly what the author is trying to say. The conclusion that the theory leaves something “mysterious” just means that it doesn’t fully explain observed data. The discussion of temperature supports this with a concrete example.
C
No one will ever be sure what the true cause of earthquakes is.
This is not stated in the argument. The author never claims that earthquakes are impossible to understand, just that the current theory isn’t 100% perfectly complete.
D
Earthquakes produce enormous amounts of heat that have so far gone undetected.
This is not stated in the argument. The author only establishes that a mystery exists, but does not suggest any possible explanations for what might resolve the mystery.
E
Contrary to the current theory, earthquakes are not caused by adjoining plates of rock sliding past one another.
This is not stated in the argument. The author never claims that the current theory is fundamentally incorrect, just that it still needs improvement to explain every aspect of earthquake data.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the program to improve high school morale is working. Why? Because students who think they are failing tend to drop out, and the dropout rate last year was much lower than the previous year.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s no other reason last year’s dropout rate was abnormally low or the previous year’s dropout rate was abnormally high. In addition, she assumes a higher school morale makes students more likely to think they’re succeeding, and that there’s no other reason besides the program for morale to have improved.
A
There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city.
This suggests dropout rates last year were low because there were fewer opportunities for employment. It offers an alternative explanation for the improving dropout rate that doesn’t depend on the morale-boosting program.
B
The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school.
This doesn’t mean the program to improve morale failed. It’s possible the program improved the morale of some students who entered high school with low morale, and that those students therefore didn’t drop out.
C
As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out.
This doesn’t mean the change in dropout rate was insignificant. The author does not suggest a dropout rate is high only if more than half of current students drop out.
D
High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employment.
This is not necessarily an incentive for students to stay in school. Students who see themselves struggling may not expect to graduate anyway, making these placement offices for graduates a poor motivator for them.
E
The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving students’ morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates.
This is irrelevant. It’s not stated whether schools with the largest dropout rates experienced any improvement—only that the city’s overall dropout rate improved.
Sergio: No. Oceans have always been viewed as mysterious and unpredictable—qualities that people have invariably associated with eccentricity.
Speaker 1 Summary
Tina believes that the link between oceans and human eccentricity is probably due to the Renaissance practice of using ships as asylums. She doesn’t provide any support for this belief; she simply asserts that it’s true without providing a premise.
Speaker 2 Summary
Sergio concludes that the linkage between oceans and human eccentricity is not due to the practice of using ships as asylums. Oceans and human eccentricity have always been linked to each other, even before that practice emerged.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about the origin of the link between oceans and human eccentricity. Tina thinks the link is due to the practice of using ships as asylums. Sergio does not think this is the origin.
A
Eccentric humans were considered socially undesirable during the European Renaissance.
Sergio doesn’t express an opinion. He doesn’t comment on people during the Renaissance or how they might have been viewed.
B
Oceans have always been viewed as mysterious and unpredictable.
Tina expresses no opinion about this. She comment about the linkage between oceans and human eccentricity. But she doesn’t comment on whether oceans have been viewed as mysterious and unpredictable.
C
The linkage between oceans and eccentricity explains the European Renaissance custom of using ships as asylums.
Sergio expresses no opinion. He believes the linkage did not result from ships as asylums. But whether the practice of ships as asylums resulted from the linkage is not discussed. (Tina probably disagrees with this answer, but it doesn’t matter, since Sergio has no opinion.)
D
People have never attributed the same qualities to oceans and eccentrics.
Tina expresses no opinion. She doesn’t comment on any of the qualities of oceans or whether they have been attributed to people.
E
The linkage between oceans and eccentricity predates the European Renaissance.
There is support for a disagreement. Tina thinks the origin of the linkage was a practice in the Renaissance. Sergio believes humans have “invariably” associated qualities of the ocean with eccentricity. To him, this suggests the linkage existed before the Renaissance.
Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician Pierre de Fermat died in 1665 without leaving behind any written proof for a theorem that he claimed nonetheless to have proved. Probably this alleged theorem simply cannot be proved, since—as the article points out—no one else has been able to prove it. Therefore it is likely that Fermat was either lying or else mistaken when he made his claim.
Laura: Your encyclopedia is out of date. Recently someone has in fact proved Fermat’s theorem. And since the theorem is provable, your claim—that Fermat was lying or mistaken—clearly is wrong.
A
It purports to establish its conclusion by making a claim that, if true, would actually contradict that conclusion.
Laura’s premise doesn't support her conclusion well, but it doesn’t contradict her conclusion.
B
It mistakenly assumes that the quality of a person’s character can legitimately be taken to guarantee the accuracy of the claims that person has made.
Laura doesn’t make any claims or assumptions about the quality of Fermat’s character or how his character affects the accuracy of his claims.
C
It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.
In order for Laura’s conclusion— that Fermat was neither lying nor mistaken about proving the theorem— to follow, it is necessary that the theorem is actually provable. But the theorem being provable does not ensure that this conclusion follows.
D
It uses the term “provable” without defining it.
It’s true that Laura never defines the term “provable,” but this isn’t an error in her argument. She doesn’t need to define the term.
E
It fails to distinguish between a true claim that has mistakenly been believed to be false and a false claim that has mistakenly been believed to be true.
Laura doesn’t mention either of these kinds of claims, nor does she fail to distinguish between them. Joseph mistakenly believes a true claim— that the theorem is provable— to be false, but this doesn’t describe an error in Laura’s argument.