Summarize Argument
The appliance dealer concludes that consumers have little reason to object to manufacturers’ practice of modifying existing models without giving the modified versions new model names. As support, the appliance dealer cites the fact that these changes are always improvements that benefit the buyer.
Notable Assumptions
The appliance dealer assumes that customers don’t have a reason to object to getting “improved” models without knowing it. It could be the case that customers were specifically looking for features of the previous (”unimproved”) model. The argument also ignores the fact that, because the model names aren’t changed, consumers have no way to determine which model they purchased.
A
Appliances are generally purchased with the expectation that they will continue to be used for several years.
The argument discusses consumers’ attitudes upon acquisition of appliances, so the extended use of these appliances is outside of the scope of the argument.
B
Appliances usually carry a model number that provides substantially more detailed information about the product than does the model name.
This tells us that consumers have a way to determine which exact model they’re purchasing, even if the model name isn’t informative. Consumers can just use the model number to see which product they get, so this information may even support the argument.
C
Appliance manufacturers frequently sell identical products under several different model names.
The argument is about customers’ objections to the practice of listing different products under the same name; having the same products with different names is not relevant to this issue.
D
Improved versions of appliances typically become available before vendors have stopped selling the older versions of the appliance with the same model name.
This weakens the argument because it shows that customers could purchase an appliance without knowing if they’re getting the older version or the “improved” version. If a customer can’t know if they are getting the old or the improved version, they may have a reason to object.
E
The high cost of product advertising makes appliance manufacturers generally reluctant to change model names to reflect modifications to their products.
This information refers to manufacturers’ motivations, while the argument discusses consumers’ reactions to manufacturers’ practices. This information is outside the scope of the argument.
Professor Sedley: According to your argument, students should not be allowed to satisfy the university’s foreign language requirement by learning French or Spanish either, since they too are the native languages of many North Americans. Yet many students currently satisfy the requirement by studying French or Spanish, and it would be ridiculous to begin prohibiting them from doing so.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Professor Sedley concludes Professor Beckstein’s claim that students should not be able to satisfy the foreign language requirement with American Sign Language is ridiculous. To support his claim, Sedley points out that learning French or Spanish should also not satisfy the requirement because French and Spanish are native languages to many North Americans. Yet many students currently do satisfy the foreign language requirement by learning French or Spanish.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Professor Sedley counters the position held by Professor Beckstein. He does this by describing an analogous argument with an obviously absurd conclusion.
A
attempting to demonstrate that the reasoning used to reach a certain conclusion leads to another conclusion that is undesirable
The reasoning used by Beckstein is that a student should not be able to satisfy the foreign language requirement with a language that is native to North Americans. Sedley, by way of analogy, demonstrates that this reasoning would also exclude French and Spanish.
B
trying to show that a certain conclusion contradicts some of the evidence used to support it
Sedley does not show that the evidence used by Beckstein contradicts his conclusion. In fact, Sedley accepts Beckstein’s evidence and constructs it into an analogous argument.
C
questioning an opponent’s authority to address the issue under discussion
Sidley does not question Beckstein’s authority. He addresses Beckstein’s argument directly without focusing on personal characteristics.
D
offering an alternative explanation of the facts used to arrive at a specific conclusion
Sidley does not propose an alternative explanation why American Sign Language should not satisfy the foreign language requirement.
E
agreeing with the conclusion of a particular argument while rejecting the evidence used to support the conclusion
Sidley does not agree with Beckstein’s conclusion. In fact, he disagrees with Beckstein’s conclusion and implies students should be able to satisfy the foreign language requirement by learning American Sign Language.
Professor Sedley: According to your argument, students should not be allowed to satisfy the university’s foreign language requirement by learning French or Spanish either, since they too are the native languages of many North Americans. Yet many students currently satisfy the requirement by studying French or Spanish, and it would be ridiculous to begin prohibiting them from doing so.
Speaker 1 Summary
Beckstein concludes that students shouldn’t be allowed to satisfy the foreign language requirement by learning ASL. This is because he believes ASL isn’t a foreign language, based on the fact that it’s the native language of many people in North America.
Speaker 2 Summary
Sedley undermines Beckstein’s argument by pointing out that Beckstein’s logic would commit him to arguing that French and Spanish shouldn’t satisfy the foreign language requirement, because many North Americans speak these languages natively. The point is Beckstein’s assumption for what’s required to be considered a foreign language is absurd.
Objective
They disagree on whether a language is foreign simply because it’s native to many North Americans.
A
whether American Sign Language is the native language of a significant number of North Americans
Sedley has no opinion. He doesn’t say anything suggesting an opinion about whether ASL is native to a lot of North Americans.
B
whether any North American whose native language is not English should be allowed to fulfill the university’s foreign language requirement by studying his or her own native language
Sedley doesn’t have an opinion. He doesn’t comment on whether studying one’s own native language should satisfy the foreign language requirement. (Beckstein also doesn’t have an opinion, but it’s easier to see that Sedley doesn’t.)
C
whether the university ought to retain a foreign language requirement
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t comment on whether universities should keep this requirement.
D
whether any other universities in North America permit their students to fulfill a foreign language requirement by learning American Sign Language
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t comment on the requirements of other universities besides the university that Beckstein refers to.
E
whether the fact that a language is the native language of many North Americans justifies prohibiting its use to fulfill the university’s foreign language requirement
This is a point of disagreement. Beckstein assumes that if a language is native to many North Americans, it shouldn’t fulfill the requirement. Sedley disagrees. He says French/Spanish are native to many, but that we shouldn’t disqualify these from satisfying the requirement.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Other people argue that we should ban cloning because the clones would exist to indulge the vanity of the people from whom the clones are made. The author’s implicit conclusion is that this argument’s reasoning is flawed. The author supports this conclusion by showing that in other contexts that do not involve bans, people use others for their own selfish interests. Thus, the author implies, a ban on cloning can’t be justified merely because the clones are used by the original people.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is support for the implicit conclusion that the other people’s argument for banning cloning is not persuasive.
A
It supports the ethicist’s view that society does not value individuality as much as many opponents of cloning think it does.
This misdescribes the author’s view. She never suggests that society doesn’t value individuality as much as opponents of cloning think it does.
B
It supports the conclusion that forcing children to pursue academic success is not objectionable.
This misdescribes the author’s conclusion. The conclusion relates to the other people’s view that cloning should be banned. The conclusion does not concern forcing children to pursue academic success.
C
It is implied by the ethicist’s conviction that clones are not subpeople.
The referenced text is not an implication of the author’s belief. It’s support for that belief.
D
It supports the ethicist’s view that vanity’s being the motivation for cloning is not enough of a reason to ban cloning.
This accurately describes the support role played by the referenced text.
E
It describes a legal position that the ethicist argues should be changed.
The author doesn’t suggests the referenced line needs to be changed. The author accepts the truth of this line and uses it undermine the other people’s view concerning a ban on cloning.
Summarize Argument
The ethicist believes that, in the choice between two medicines, there are more considerations at play than just the cost vs. the effectiveness of each medicine. In support, we are told that letting a patient die just because the less expensive medicine was used would cause more grief to that patient’s family members. This is one example of the additional considerations that, according to the ethicist, should inform the choice of medicine.
Identify Conclusion
The ethicist’s conclusion is that the decision of which medicine to use is not simply about cost vs. lives saved; it “must also be weighed against such considerations” as the grief experienced by patients’ families.
A
ASA should never be given to postoperative cardiac patients in place of TPA.
This is not stated in the argument. The ethicist never makes an absolute claim about which medicine should be used over the other, the argument is just about what factors warrant consideration.
B
TPA is a slightly more effective clot-dissolving agent than ASA.
Like (D), this can be inferred from the facts stated, but it’s context for the argument rather than being part of the argument itself. The ethicist’s focus is on including considerations beyond cost vs. effectiveness, and this claim isn’t part of that.
C
The extra expense of TPA cannot be weighed simply against the few additional lives saved.
This accurately captures the main conclusion. The ethicist says we need to weigh the cost of this type of medicine against more factors than just effectiveness, and the example of grief is used to support that.
D
ASA is a less expensive clot-dissolving agent than TPA.
Like (B), this is part of the argument’s context, not part of the argument. The argument is about considering more factors than just cost vs. effectiveness, the discussion of cost just sets the stage for that conversation.
E
Relatives of a patient who has died grieve more if the patient received ASA rather than TPA.
This statement in the argument isn’t offered any support, it’s just stated as a fact. Furthermore, it’s used as an example to support the conclusion about taking more factors into consideration when deciding on a medicine. That makes this a premise, not the conclusion.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people would want to be informed if they had any serious medical condition. As support, the author says that in each of several recent studies, over 80% of those surveyed said that they would want to be informed if they had a serious medical condition.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that these studies surveyed a group that was representative enough to make broad, generalized conclusions that apply to “most people.” The author also assumes that the sample sizes for these surveys was high enough to make conclusions that apply to “most people.” Additionally, the author assumes that the survey design was high quality for each survey, and that the questions were not phrased in a way that could bias the results.
A
In another recent study, most of the people surveyed indicated that they would not want to be told if they had a serious medical condition.
(A) weakens the argument because it introduces survey data that contradicts our author’s conclusion. We have no information about how any of these surveys were conducted, or how many studies support our argument, so a survey with contradictory information weakens the argument.
B
People often do not indicate their true feelings when responding to surveys.
(B) weakens the argument because it provides a reason to doubt survey data as legitimate evidence to make the kind of claim that the author is making.
C
Some of the researchers conducting the studies had no background in medicine.
If someone has no background in medicine, it does not mean that they would be unable to conduct a quality survey. Also, we only know that “some” of the researchers had no background in medicine, which only tells us that this applies to at least one researcher.
D
Some questions asked in the studies suggested that reasonable people would want to be told if they had a serious medical condition.
This weakens the argument because it says that at least some of the survey questions were phrased in a way that would bias the results, which gives reason to doubt the validity of these surveys.
E
The people surveyed in the studies were all young students in introductory psychology courses.
(E) tells us that the surveys were not conducted on a representative sample. This weakens the argument because it makes it far less likely that the results of the survey can be generalized to make a conclusion about “most people.”