Note: This video deals with Passage A only. In this video, J.Y. uses the split approach for comparrative passages. This means he reads through Passage A and then makes a first pass through the questions, answering them to the extent possible based solely on the information in Passage A. For an explanation of Passage B and the remaining unsolved questions, head to the next video (shift + → on your keyboard).
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that crying must have the effect of reducing emotional stress. This is based on the following:
Human tears have many of the same hormones that the body produces in times of emotional stress.
Shedding tears removes a lot of these hormones from the body.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the hormones that are present in times of stress are a causal factor in producing stress. This is flawed because the evidence has only established a correlation between the presence of hormones and the feeling of stress. It’s possible that the actual causal relationship is reversed; maybe stress causes the hormones. Or maybe there’s a third factor that causes both the hormones and stress.
A
overlooks the possibility that if crying has a tendency to reduce emotional stress, this tendency might arise because of something other than the shedding of tears
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because it concedes that “crying has a tendency to reduce emotional stress.” We want to point out why crying might not reduce emotional stress; that’s how we point out why the argument is flawed.
B
confuses a condition that is required for the production of a given phenomenon with a condition that in itself would be sufficient to cause the production of that phenomenon
The stimulus doesn’t present any condition that’s required to produce something else. We’re never told that feeling stress is required in order for the body to produce the hormones. Maybe the hormones can be produced during other times, too, beyond just times of stress.
C
fails to adequately address the possibility that, even if one phenomenon causally contributes to a second phenomenon, the second phenomenon may causally influence the first as well
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because it concedes that “one phenomenon causally contributes to a second.” We don’t want to concede a causal relationship. The flaw must related to why crying does not reduce stress, or why hormones do not cause stress.
D
fails to adequately distinguish between two distinct factors that are jointly responsible for causing a given phenomenon
The premises don’t present any factors that “are jointly responsible for causing” anything. We don’t know what causes stress, and we don’t know what causes the hormones to be produced. We have no basis to identify anything as jointly responsible for causing something.
E
takes for granted that because certain substances are present whenever a condition occurs, those substances are a cause of that condition
The argument assumes that because the hormones are present whenever emotional stress occurs, the hormones are a cause of the emotional stress. This assumption underlies the author’s belief that getting rid of the hormones will help reduce stress.
Amar: Making it legal to keep those fish would probably lead to a lot more “accidents.”
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Amar implicitly concludes that Sarah’s recommendation to allow fishers to keep accidentally caught fish should not be implemented. He argues that making this legal would likely lead to more "accidents," implying that fishers would claim that certain fish were caught accidentally just so that they could keep the fish.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Amar responds to Sarah’s argument by pointing out that her suggestion would likely lead to a negative consequence: fishers claiming fish were caught accidentally in order to keep fish they caught illegally.
A
question whether Sarah’s recommendation can be put into practice
Amar never questions whether Sarah’s recommendation can practically be implemented. He simply argues that her recommendation would likely bring a negative consequence.
B
point out that Sarah used a crucial term in two distinct senses
Amar himself uses the term "accidents" to suggest that fishers would falsely claim they caught certain fish by accident. However, Sarah uses "accident" to mean a true accident, and Amar doesn't argue that she uses the term in two different ways.
C
allude to a factor that supposedly strengthens the case for Sarah’s recommendation
Amar doesn’t strengthen the case for Sarah’s recommendation, he argues against her recommendation.
D
contend that Sarah’s recommendation has an important negative consequence
Amar argues that Sarah’s recommendation has an important negative consequence: fishers claiming fish were caught accidentally in order to keep fish they caught illegally.
E
maintain that Sarah overlooks important lessons from past policies
Amar never mentions anything about past policies, he just argues that Sarah’s recommendation would have a negative consequence.
Simon: It’s unclear whether Pellman’s leaders expected to lose in court. But I think they expected that, whether they won or lost the case, the legal fees involved in going to trial would have been more costly than the settlement. So settling the lawsuit seemed the most cost-effective solution.
Speaker 1 Summary
Justine doesn’t make an argument, because there’s no support structure to her claims. Justine just states that a company, Pellman, recently settled a lawsuit. She then expresses her opinion that the decision to settle shows that Pellman expected to lose in court.
Speaker 2 Summary
Simon’s claims support an unstated conclusion that settling doesn’t give evidence about Pellman’s expectation to lose in court. Why not? Because Pellman’s leaders likely expected the court fees not to be worth it even if they won, making settlement the cheapest option. This detaches the decision to settle from Pellman’s predictions about the case’s success.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement between Justine and Simon. They disagree about whether Pellman’s decision to settle a case shows that Pellman expected to lose.
A
If the lawsuit against Pellman had gone to trial, it is likely that Pellman would have lost in court.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Justine and Simon’s discussion is about whether they can tell that Pellman expected to lose in court. That’s a distinct question from the actual odds of the case.
B
Pellman’s corporate leaders were able to accurately estimate their chances of winning in court.
Neither Justine nor Simon talks about whether Pellman’s corporate leaders made an accurate prediction about their odds in court. They’re still trying to figure out what the prediction was in the first place.
C
If Pellman’s legal fees for going to trial would have been more costly than the settlement, then settling the lawsuit was the most cost-effective solution for the corporation.
Simon agrees with this, but Justine never disagrees. Justine just doesn’t discuss the role of cost-effectiveness in Pellman’s decision to settle.
D
If Pellman’s corporate leaders had expected that the legal fees for going to trial would have been less costly than the settlement, they would have taken the lawsuit to trial.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Simon is the only one who talks about cost-effectiveness as a factor in Pellman’s decision, but he never says that lower legal fees would have guaranteed Pellman would have gone to court.
E
If Pellman’s corporate leaders had expected to win in court, then they would not have settled the lawsuit out of court for $1 million.
Justine agrees and Simon disagrees, so this is their disagreement. Justine claims settling shows that Pellman expected to lose, meaning they would not have settled otherwise. Simon thinks they would have settled whatever their odds, because it’s less expensive than court.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that any stray cocker spaniel found near Flynn Heights likely belongs to someone who lives in Flynn Heights. This is because there are more cocker spaniels registered to addresses if Flynn Heights than to addresses in the rest of the city as a whole.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that residents of Flynn Heights aren’t significantly more likely than other residents to register their dog. If the opposite were true, then there may be no more reason to believe a stray cocker spaniel belongs to a resident of Flynn Heights than to a resident of any other neighborhood.
A
whether cocker spaniels are more likely than dogs of other breeds to stray from their owners
The author never claims cocker spaniels get lost more than other dogs. She’s simply concluding that a stray cocker spaniel near Flynn Heights likely belongs to a resident of Flynn Heights.
B
whether there are more cocker spaniels registered to addresses in Flynn Heights than any other breed of dog
We don’t care about other dog breeds. Even if residents of Flynn Heights simply had a lot of dogs, generally, that wouldn’t challenge the claim that those residents have more cocker spaniels than all other neighborhoods combined.
C
whether the city’s animal control officers find more stray dogs in and around Flynn Heights than in any other part of the city
If animal control officers found more stray dogs around Flynn Heights, that suggests either residents of Flynn Heights have more dogs than most neighborhoods or that they’re bad at caring for their dogs. Neither option challenges the author’s argument.
D
whether the number of pets owned, per capita, is greater for residents of Flynn Heights than for residents of any other neighborhood
This doesn’t have to be true or false for the author’s argument to work. If the answer was yes, then that just means people in Flynn Heights have lots of pets. If the answer was no, then they still might have lots of cocker spaniels.
E
whether residents of Flynn Heights are more likely to license their dogs than residents of other neighborhoods are
If Flynn Heights residents are more likely to license their dogs, then the number of licensed cockers doesn’t necessarily tell us how many cocker spaniels each neighborhood has. Perhaps some neighborhoods have as many cocker spaniels—just unlicensed ones.