Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that an unstable climate was likely a major factor in the fall of the Roman empire. This is based on an observation that Europe’s climate was unstable during the time of the Roman empire’s decline and fall. The author suggests a causal link with the empire’s fall, because an unstable climate could be bad for food production, thus weakening the empire.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there are not other, much more significant alternative explanations for the fall of the Roman empire. The author also assumes that any difficulty caused by lower food production was great enough to contribute to the empire’s downfall.
A
Political failures within the Roman empire during its last years led to conflicts that hampered agricultural production.
This weakens the author’s hypothesis by providing an alternative explanation for the fall of the Roman empire. Either way, this doesn’t support unstable climate as a major cause.
B
The areas of the Roman empire that had the greatest climatic instability between 250 A.D. and 550 A.D. did not experience unusual levels of unrest during that period.
This weakens the author’s assumption that an unstable climate had a negative enough effect to bring down the empire; if that were the case, we would expect the areas with more climactic instability to have higher unrest.
C
Poor farming practices led to depleted soil in many parts of Europe during the last years of the Roman empire.
This weakens the author’s hypothesis by providing an alternative explanation for instability due to poor food production: poor farming practices, rather than an unstable climate. In other words, the unstable climate may have only been a minor cause.
D
During periods when the Roman empire was thriving, Europe consistently experienced weather that was favorable for agriculture.
This strengthens the author’s hypothesis by more closely correlating climate stability with the empire’s strength, supporting the hypothesis that an unstable climate could have been a major factor in the empire’s failure.
E
Total food production in Europe was likely greater in the years around 550 A.D. than in the years around 250 A.D.
This is irrelevant, because it still doesn’t tell us how significant the impact of the unstable climate was on food production. Sure, production rose and fell, but how much? It also doesn’t offer any explanation of how food production impacted the Roman empire.
Summarize Argument
An organization sent a fund-raising letter to 5,000 people. The author concludes that most of the 5,000 people to whom the letter was sent agreed with the organizaton’s position on a particular social issue. This is supported by results of a survey that was sent with the letter. Out of the 300 who responded to the survey, 283 responded that they agreed with the organization.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the people who responded to the survey are unrepresentative of the people who didn’t respond to the survey with respect to their opinion on the issue. It’s possible that the people who responded are much more likely than the average recipient to be supportive of the organization’s position.
A
It draws a conclusion about a population from observations of a subgroup that is quite likely to be unrepresentative of that population in certain relevant respects.
The conclusion is based on responses of survey responders. It’s reasonable to think that responders are more likely to agree with the organization’s position than people who didn’t respond. So they’re likely unrepresentative of the entire group of 5,000.
B
It takes for granted that most individuals do not vary significantly in the opinions they would express on a given issue if surveyed regarding that issue on different occasions.
The conclusion asserts that most of the 5,000 agreed with the organization’s position. This doesn’t mean the author thinks people might not change their opinions later and respond differently later.
C
It relies on the accuracy of a survey made under conditions in which it is probable that most of the responses to that survey did not correctly reflect the opinions of the respondents.
We have no reason to suspect that when people responded that they agreed with the organization, that they actually didn’t agree. It’s possible this happened, but we have no reason to think it’s “probable.”
D
It uses evidence about an opinion held by the majority of a population in an attempt to justify a conclusion regarding the opinion of a small part of that population.
(D) is reversed. The author uses evidence concerning a small portion of a population (the survey responders) to justify a conclusion about a majority of the population (most people who got the letter and survey).
E
It takes for granted that the fund-raising letter had some influence on the opinions of most of the people who received it.
The author doesn’t assume that the letter affected anyone’s opinions. The argument simply interprets the survey results as indicative of the opinion of most people who got the letter.
Critic: The Gazette-Standard newspaper recently increased its editorial staff to avoid factual errors. But this clearly is not working. Compared to its biggest competitor, the Gazette-Standard currently runs significantly more corrections acknowledging factual errors.
Summarize Argument
The critic concludes that the Gazette-Standard’s increase in editorial staff isn’t working. His evidence is that the Gazette-Standard runs more corrections of factual errors than its competitors.
Notable Assumptions
The critic assumes that the Gazette-Standard runs more corrections of factual errors because more factual errors appear in its pages than those of competing newspapers. This means the critic doesn’t think other newspapers are making as many or more mistakes without correcting them.
A
The Gazette-Standard pays its editorial staff lower salaries than its biggest competitor pays its editorial staff.
We don’t care how much the Gazette-Standard pays its editorial staff. We have no idea how that would affect their quality of work.
B
The Gazette-Standard has been in business considerably longer than has its biggest competitor.
We don’t care how long these newspapers have been in business. We care about the recent editorial changes.
C
The Gazette-Standard more actively follows up reader complaints about errors in the paper than does its biggest competitor.
The Gazette-Standard runs more corrections because it follows up on reader complaints. We therefore can’t conclude the Gazette-Standard actually has more errors than its competitor, who may only follow up on a small portion of reader complaints.
D
The Gazette-Standard’s articles are each checked by more editors than are the articles of its biggest competitor.
If these articles are being checked by more editors, then the newspaper shouldn’t have to keep running so many corrections. This seems to support the author’s argument.
E
The increase in the Gazette-Standard’s editorial staff has been offset by a decrease in the reporting staff at the newspaper.
Less reporters doesn’t mean the newspaper will necessarily have more editorial errors. We have no idea what effect less reporters would have on the newspaper.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the regulation banning PCBs was effective in reducing human exposure to those chemicals. This is based on a study that measured the levels of toxic chemicals in the bodies of 11 volunteers. Although scientifically valid inferences can’t be drawn from the study, the author states that the study showed that younger people showed much lower levels of PCBs than older people. PCBs were banned in the 1970s.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Despite acknowledging that we can’t draw scientifically valid inferences from the study due to its small sample size, the author proceeds to draw a conclusion based on that study. The author contradicts himself.
A
takes an inconsistent stance regarding the status of the inferences that can be drawn from the study
The author’s stance regarding whether we can draw valid inferences from the study is inconsistent. The author first says we can’t. But the author then tries to draw a conclusion.
B
overlooks the possibility that two or more chemicals produce the same effects
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because the reasoning doesn’t involve the effects of chemicals. The argument is based on a study that shows younger people in the study had lower levels of PCBs. The effects of PCBs, however, are not at issue.
C
concludes that a generalization has been proven true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false
The author doesn’t reach the conclusion on the basis of a claim that nobody has proven that the regulation banning PCBs wasn’t effective. The conclusion is based on a study.
D
takes something to be the cause of a reduction when it could have been an effect of that reduction
It doesn’t make sense to think that a reduction in PCBs could cause the regulations banning PCBs. Not every cause and effect relationship can be reversed.
E
does not consider the possibility that PCBs have detrimental effects on human health several years after exposure
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because the reasoning doesn’t involve the effects of chemicals. The argument is based on a study that shows younger people in the study had lower levels of PCBs. The effects of PCBs, however, are not at issue.
Carl: But such modernizing prevents students from understanding fully what the plays said to premodern audiences. Thus, modernizing plays is of no use for teaching history, because students cannot gain deep knowledge of the past from modernized plays.
Speaker 1 Summary
Lyle thinks that modernized plays are a useful way to teach history, albeit an imperfect one. To explain why modernized plays are useful, Lyle says that modernization makes the plays accessible to students who would otherwise not enjoy the play at all.
Speaker 2 Summary
Carl argues that modernized plays are useless to teach history. To explain why, Carl says that modernizing plays prevents students from completely understanding the plays’ original meanings. This then prevents the students from gaining deep knowledge of the past. (Carl is assuming that not providing deep knowledge of the past makes something useless for teaching history.)
Objective
We need to find a disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether modernized plays are useful for teaching history.
A
whether modernizing the language of premodern plays results in plays that have different pedagogical value than the originals
Carl agrees with this, and most likely, so does Lyle. Carl’s conclusion is that modernized plays are pedagogically worse than the originals, which is a difference. Lyle acknowledges that modernized plays are aesthetically poorer, which likely means a different pedagogical value.
B
whether the loss in aesthetic quality that results from modernizing the language of premodern plays lessens the plays’ usefulness for teaching history
Carl agrees that modernized plays are less useful to teach history, but never specifies that it’s because of a loss of aesthetic quality. Lyle never compares the usefulness of modernized and original plays at all, just says that the latter are still useful.
C
whether the highest form of aesthetic enjoyment of premodern plays comes from seeing them as they were originally performed
Neither speaker makes this claim. Neither Lyle nor Carl discusses how one can get the most enjoyment of premodern plays, nor do they talk about seeing the plays performed versus reading them.
D
whether increasing the accessibility of premodern plays through modernizing their language is valuable for teaching history
Lyle thinks that this is true but Carl thinks that it’s false; this is the disagreement. Lyle says that modernized plays are useful because they’re more accessible. Carl argues that modernized plays are useless for teaching because they don’t give deep knowledge of the past.
E
whether using plays with modernized language to teach history requires that there be some loss in the aesthetic quality of the plays
Lyle agrees with this, but Carl doesn’t state an opinion. Carl doesn’t talk about aesthetic quality at all, instead giving different reasons why modernized plays are a poor tool for teaching history.