Pat: No, not always. The flexibility of being able to work either on one’s own or in a group is invaluable in a world where both skills are in demand.
Speaker 1 Summary
Dana argues that educational methods should always be tailored to each child's natural style of learning. For example, Dana believes that children raised in more communal environments would learn better through group activities.
Speaker 2 Summary
Pat disagrees that a child's learning style should *always* dictate the educational method used. Pat argues that flexibility in individual and group work is important because both skills are needed in the real world.
Objective
Disagree: Dana and Pat disagree over whether a child’s educational methods should always be tailored to their natural style of learning.
A
All children can learn valuable skills from individual activities.
This is too broad for either speaker to have an opinion on. Dana is focused on tailoring educational methods, while Pat argues for a more flexible approach.
B
All children should learn to adapt to various educational methods.
Dana disagrees with this because he believes a child’s natural learning style should always dictate the learning method used. Pat argues that flexibility is important, suggesting that children should learn to adapt to different educational methods.
C
Many children would learn better through group, rather than individual, activities.
Dana suggests that some children would learn better through group activities, but Pat does not agree/disagree with this point. Pat is focused on the flexibility of learning styles.
D
The main purpose of education is to prepare children to meet the demands of the job market as adults.
This is too broad for either speaker to have an opinion. Neither speaker gives a viewpoint on the “main purpose” of education.
E
It is sometimes desirable to tailor educational methods to the way a child learns best.
Dana believes it is *always* desirable to tailor methods to a child’s learning style, and Pat does not give any position on whether it is “sometimes” desirable.
Summarize Argument
People claim that excessively restrictive policies on natural resources make it financially difficult to adopt and sustain environmental policies. Their evidence is that North American and western Europe are more heavily forested and have better air quality than 50 years ago.
Notable Assumptions
The people in question assume that North America and western Europe not only didn’t adopt restrictive policies on natural resources in the last 50 years, but that North America and western Europe also implemented effective environmental policies that relied on wealth. If clean air and forestation somehow came in spite of government policies, then these people wouldn’t have a very convincing argument.
A
Nations sustain their wealth largely through industrial use of the natural resources found within their boundaries.
If nations restrict their natural resource use, they restrict their primary source of wealth. Thus, restrictive laws on natural resource use absolutely would diminish nations’ wealth.
B
The more advanced the technology used in a nation’s industries, the greater is that nation’s ability to devote a portion of its resources to social programs.
We don’t care about technology. This doesn’t factor into the argument.
C
A majority of ecological disasters arise from causes that are beyond human control.
We don’t care about ecological disasters. We’re talking about the ecological damage governments can control through policy.
D
If a compromise between the proponents of economic growth and the environmentalists had been enacted rather than the current policies, the environment would have seen significantly less improvement.
We have no idea what that compromise would look like. Nor do we know what policies environmentalists advocated for.
E
The concern demonstrated by a nation for the health and integrity of its natural ecosystems leads to an increase in that nation’s wealth.
This relationship doesn’t appear in the argument. The causal relationship is: more wealth causes more environmental protection.