Summarize Argument
The author concludes that athletes’ use of nonaddictive drugs should not be banned. As support, the author claims that almost everything in sports is unnatural (and that many things are permitted despite being unnatural). The author also says that focus should be on more serious issues in sports that result in deaths and injuries instead of focusing on banning nonaddictive drugs because they are unnatural.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that nonaddictive drugs are not physically harmful and do not result in injury or death. Additionally, the author just rejects one reason to ban nonaddictive drugs, then claims that nonaddictive drugs should not be banned. The most that the author has done is demonstrate that nonaddictive drugs should not be banned on the basis of being unnatural; there could be other reasons why nonaddictive drugs should be banned.
A
Massive doses of aspirin and vitamins enhance athletic performance.
The examples of tools given by the author (high-tech running shoes and specialized machines) also enhance athletic performance. The author isn’t saying that things that enhance athletic performance should be banned; the author is just saying that nonaddictive drugs shouldn’t be banned.
B
Addictive drugs are just as unnatural as nonaddictive drugs like aspirin and vitamins.
The author believes that addictive drugs should be banned. But this is because they are physically harmful, not because they are unnatural. Also, the argument concerns nonaddictive drugs, so additional information about addictive drugs does not weaken the argument.
C
Unnecessary deaths and injuries occur in other walks of life besides modern sports.
The argument is about whether or not nonaddictive drugs should be banned in sports; risk of death or injury in other areas of life is completely irrelevant to the specific claims made in this argument.
D
There would be more unnecessary deaths and injuries if it were not for running shoes, boxing gloves, and bodybuilding machines.
(D) demonstrates some benefits of other unnatural tools used in sports; this does not weaken the argument. This actually gives a reason that some unnatural things have a positive role in sports.
E
Taking massive doses of aspirin or vitamins can be physically harmful.
The author accepts that addictive drugs are banned because they are physically harmful; there is no information given on the physical impacts of nonaddictive drugs. If nonaddictive drugs are physically harmful, the argument that they shouldn’t be banned is much weaker.
Summarize Argument
Our argument concludes that there are no guidelines for defining objects as art. It supports that conclusion by identifying an attribute called representation, which is present in some art and dependent upon the art’s context. The argument then says there are no guidelines for determining aspects of art that rely on context (including representation), which the argument then stretches into the conclusion that there are no guidelines for defining art.
Identify and Describe Flaw
What if determining whether or not an object has representation is not the only way to identify it as art? Our author never defined representation as a necessary aspect for art; in fact, they told us that only some art has it. They failed to exclude the possibility that other attributes are sufficient for calling something art.
A
because some works of art are nonrepresentational, there is no way of judging our aesthetic experience of them
Our conclusion depends on characteristics and relationships associated with representational art; because this AC deals with nonrepresentational art, it goes outside the scope of our argument and does not correctly identify a flaw.
B
an object may have some aesthetic properties and not be a work of art
Irrelevant. Similarly to A, this AC goes outside the scope of our argument—we’re dealing with one specific aesthetic property and things that are art, not with other properties or non-art things.
C
aesthetically relevant properties other than representation can determine whether an object is a work of art
This addresses our argument’s underlying assumption. If aesthetically relevant properties other than representation can qualify something as art, our author’s argument is moot.
D
some works of art may have properties that are not relevant to our aesthetic experience of them
This is consistent with the argument and does not impact the validity of its conclusion. Properties like weight or smell probably don’t impact an artwork's aesthetic. The truth of this statement has nothing to do with our conclusion and does not make its logic flawed.
E
some objects that represent things other than themselves are not works of art
Similarly to A and B, this AC reaches outside the scope of our argument. The stimulus focuses on things that are art and have context-dependent properties. If something is not art, that does not impact the strength of the conclusion.
Summary
One of the most challenging problems in historiography is dating an event when sources offer conflicting information. Historians should minimize the number of these sources by eliminating less credible ones. Once this happens, historians should try to determine independently which of the sources is most likely to be right, although they are sometimes unsuccessful.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
There are some events that historians have not reliably dated.
A
We have no plausible chronology of most of the events for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date.
This is too broad to support. There is not enough support to contend that we have no plausible chronology of “most” disputed events. The stimulus says that historians were unable to successfully date *some* events.
B
Some of the events for which there are conflicting chronologies and for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date cannot be dated reliably by historians.
The stimulus says that historians “on occasion unsuccessfully” try to determine the date for an event after minimizing competing sources. This implies that there are at least some events that cannot be dated reliably.
C
Attaching a reliable date to any event requires determining which of several conflicting chronologies is most likely to be true.
This is too broad to support. The stimulus only concerns dates where the usual sources offer conflicting information, not “any event.”
D
Determining independently of the usual sources which of several conflicting chronologies is more likely to be right is an ineffective way of dating events.
This is antisupported. The stimulus suggests this method to date events.
E
The soundest approach to dating an event for which the usual sources give conflicting chronologies is to undermine the credibility of as many of these sources as possible.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus says that this is *an* approach, not that this is the *soundest* or best approach. Be wary of these strong words in answer choices! They can sometimes be supported, but make sure to double-check the stimulus for the support.