Garza: But the Upper Paleolithic is exceptional for the intensive use of bone, which typically survives well in archaeological contexts, unlike other materials commonly used for musical instruments, such as wood.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Garza disputes Patterson’s conclusion that music likely first arose in the Upper Paleolithic era. Patterson’s reasoning is that bone flutes from this period are the earliest evidence of music. In response, Garza points out that bone, which preserves well, is unusually prevalent in Upper Paleolithic artifacts. Earlier instruments made from less durable materials, like wood, would be less likely to survive.
She implies that music could have existed earlier, but, if so, evidence of it wouldn’t survive due to the perishable nature of the materials used. Thus, even though there are no surviving earlier musical artifacts, there could have been earlier music.
She implies that music could have existed earlier, but, if so, evidence of it wouldn’t survive due to the perishable nature of the materials used. Thus, even though there are no surviving earlier musical artifacts, there could have been earlier music.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Garza argues that Patterson lacks enough evidence to reach his conclusion. Patterson relies on the set of all currently discovered ancient tools. But Garza says that, because some ancient tools may not have survived to the present, this sample isn’t definitive enough to support his conclusion.
Note that she isn’t saying that Patterson’s conclusion has to be false. It could be true, but he doesn’t have enough evidence to support it.
Note that she isn’t saying that Patterson’s conclusion has to be false. It could be true, but he doesn’t have enough evidence to support it.
A
arguing that the body of evidence to which Patterson appeals is insufficient for Patterson’s purposes
To reach his conclusion, Patterson relies on the set of all discovered ancient tools, which Garza argues is insufficient. She contends that pre-Upper Paleolithic musical instruments made out of non-bone materials might not have survived long enough to be discovered.
B
offering evidence to challenge the truth of the premise of Patterson’s argument
Garza doesn’t challenge the truth of Patterson’s premise (bone flutes are the earliest discovered musical instruments). She challenges its significance: even if true, it isn’t sufficient to reach his conclusion.
C
presenting a counterexample to the general conclusion drawn in Patterson’s argument
Garza presents hypothetical reasons to doubt Patterson’s conclusion, not a specific counterexample. A counterexample would be e.g. an actual pre-paleolithic wooden flute.
D
presenting an argument analogous to Patterson’s argument to reveal a potential flaw in Patterson’s reasoning
Garza provides direct reason to doubt Patterson’s reasoning; she doesn’t use an analogy.
E
using Patterson’s evidence to draw a conclusion inconsistent with the conclusion drawn in Patterson’s argument
Garza’s reasoning isn’t based on Patterson’s evidence (Upper Paleolithic bone flutes). It’s based on new considerations (the perishability of non-bone materials) not present in Patterson’s argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Thompson is the best person to lead the nation out of the candidates running. This is based on the fact that Thompson is the only candidate who opposes higher taxes, whereas the others support them. And, many people agree that those who oppose higher taxes are better leaders than those who support them.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because many people believe something, it’s actually true. This overlooks the possibility that, even though many people think one who opposes higher taxes makes for a better leader than one who supports them, these people are just wrong. Opposition to higher taxes might not make one a better leader than one who supports them.
A
Opposing higher taxes is not a factor contributing to good leadership.
This directly undermines the assumption that what “many people agree” about is correct. If opposition to higher taxes doesn’t contribute to good leadership, then it’s not a relevant to a determination of which candidate would make for a better leader than another candidate.
B
Being opposed to higher taxes is not a sufficient condition for good leadership.
The author never assumed that opposition is enough to guarantee good leadership; only that opposition to higher taxes makes one a better leader than those who support higher taxes. Even if opposition isn’t sufficient, it can still be a factor increasing one’s quality as a leader.
C
Thompson has questionable opinions concerning important issues other than taxes.
The author cites to what many people agree about as support for a rule that those who oppose higher taxes are better leaders than those who support them. So, other factors relating to other issues don’t affect the reasoning used by the author.
D
All of the past leaders who supported higher taxes performed their jobs adequately.
The author concludes that Thompson is the best person to lead out of the remaining candidates. This is a relative claim. Even if people who support higher taxes can perform adequately, the author can still prove that Thompson will be better.
E
All of the past leaders who supported higher taxes were hardworking.
The author cites to what many people agree about as support for a rule that those who oppose higher taxes are better leaders than those who support them. Other qualities of the candidates, such as potentially being hardworking, are not relevant to application of this rule.
Sarah: Watching a drama whose characters are violent allows the audience to vicariously experience the emotions associated with aggression and thus be purged of them. Hence, the access by mature audiences to such forms of entertainment should not be restricted.
Speaker 1 Summary
Liang concludes that children’s access to certain violent movies should be restricted. This is because movies that treat violence as an appropriate way to resolve problems causes increased aggression in viewers.
Speaker 2 Summary
Sarah concludes that access to dramas involving violence should not be restricted for mature audiences. This is because such dramas allow viewers to experience the emotions associated with aggression and to get rid of those emotions.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of agreement. The speakers agree that watching movie violence can have an effect on viewers. They don’t speak about the exact same effects, but they agree that there can be effects.
A
people who experience an emotion vicariously are likely to purge themselves of that emotion
Liang doesn’t express an opinion. She doesn’t say anything about vicarious experience of emotion and the results of such experience.
B
the members of a mature audience are unlikely to believe that violence is sometimes an appropriate way to resolve problems
Neither expresses an opinion. Liang doesn’t say anything about mature adults, and Sarah doesn’t say anything about violence as an appropriate way to resolve problems.
C
if violence in certain movies causes violence in viewers, access to those movies should be restricted
Sarah expresses no opinion. She doesn’t say anything suggesting an opinion about what should happen if movies cause violence in viewers.
D
the effects of dramatic depictions of violence on audiences are at least partially understood
This is a point of agreement. Each speaker makes a different comment about effects of watching violent depictions, but each believes we understand some effects. L believes one effect is increasing levels of aggression. S believes one effect is allowing purging of aggression.
E
children are more likely than adults to be attracted to dramas involving characters who behave violently
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Liang’s recommendation concerns children, but that doesn’t mean she has any thoughts on whether children are more attracted to violent dramas than adults are.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the 1/20,000 figure is less reliable than the 1 in 2 million figure concerning the chance a commercial flight will stray off course when landing. This is based on the fact that the 1/20,000 figure is based on a partial review of air traffic ccontrol tapes, while the 1 in 2 mill. figure is based on a study of flight reports of pilots for all commercial flights.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author doesn’t provide any compelling reason to think a partial review of air traffic control tapes is any less reliable than a review of flight reports for all flights. The tapes might contain more accurate information than the flight reports, even if the tapes don’t involve a review of all flights.
A
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that building runways closer together will encourage pilots to be more cautious while landing.
The argument concerns which statistic is more reliable. The impact of building runways closer together on pilots’ level of caution doesn’t bear on which statistic is more reliable.
B
The argument overlooks the fact that those who make mistakes are often unreliable sources of information about those mistakes.
The flight reports are “required of pilots”; this indicates the pilots are the sources of the reports. (B) points out that this information can be unreliable, because pilots who stray off course — which is a mistake — might not report that mistake.
C
The argument questions the integrity of those who are opposed to allowing runways to be built closer together.
The argument doesn’t question the integrity of any individuals. It relies on premises concerning the basis of the two statistics. Neither of these statistics comes from those who are against closer runways.
D
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the air traffic control tapes studied do not provide accurate information concerning specific flights.
The author doesn’t assert that the tapes cannot provide accurate information. The author’s complaint is that the review of those tapes is only “partial.” So the author is open to the possibility that information in the tapes is accurate; it may be accurate, but incomplete.
E
The argument infers from a lack of conclusive evidence supporting the higher number’s accuracy that it must be inaccurate.
The author doesn’t conclude that the 1/20,000 figure is inaccurate, only that it’s less reliable. Also, the basis of the conclusion is not a lack of conclusive evidence for the 1/20,000 figure. The basis is a comparison of the sources of the two figures.
Merriweather: It isn’t that the school paid more for each computer than it was worth, but that the computers that were purchased were much more elaborate than they needed to be.
Speaker 1 Summary
Sanchez says that the school did not spend too much money on some new computers. How do we know? Because the computers weren’t actually as expensive as many people believe. According to Sanchez, this makes their cost reasonable.
Speaker 2 Summary
Merriweather’s implied conclusion is that the school did spend too much on computers, even though they only paid what the computers were worth. How can this be? Because the school bought fancier computers than they needed, thus ultimately still overspending.
Objective
We want to find a point of disagreement. Sanchez and Merriweather disagree about whether the school spend too much on the new computers.
A
needed sixteen new computers
Like (B), neither speaker expresses an opinion about this. Whether or not the school needed new computers in the first place is not discusses by either Sanchez or Merriweather.
B
purchased more computers than it should have
Like (A), neither Sanchez nor Merriweather talks about this. The question of how many computers the school actually needed just doesn’t come up, so we can’t say either speaker states an opinion.
C
spent more in purchasing the sixteen computers than it should have
Sanchez disagrees and Merriweather agrees, so this is the point of disagreement. Sanchez explicitly states that the school did not overspend on the computers. Merriweather explains that the computers were fancier than necessary, thus implying that the school did spend too much.
D
paid more for each computer than it was worth
Both speakers disagree with this statement, meaning they are in agreement with one another. Sanchez takes the position that the school didn’t pay too much, and even Merriweather concedes that the school paid what each computer was worth.
E
has been harshly criticized for purchasing the sixteen computers
Neither Sanchez nor Merriweather discusses whether and how much people have criticized the school for this purchase, so we cannot say that either speaker has an opinion.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that existing laws have legitimacy simply because they are the laws. This is based on a subsidiary conclusion that, if the purpose of laws is not to contribute to people’s happiness, then we don’t have a basis for evaluating existing laws. This sub-conclusion is based on the premise that if the purpose of laws is to contribute to people’s happiness, then we have a basis for criticizing laws.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses a sufficient condition for having a basis for criticizing existing laws with a necessary condition. Although we know that if the purpose of laws is to contribute to happiness, then we have a basis, that doesn’t imply that if the purpose of laws is not to contribute to happiness, that we no longer have a basis to criticize laws. So the author’s jump to the sub-conclusion is flawed.
A
takes a sufficient condition for a state of affairs to be a necessary condition for it
The purpose of laws being happiness is sufficient to have a basis for criticizing laws. But the author thinks this purpose is necessary for having a basis to criticize.
B
infers a causal relationship from the mere presence of a correlation
The evidence doesn’t present a correlation.
C
trades on the use of a term in one sense in a premise and in a different sense in the conclusion
The author doesn’t use any term in two ways. “Legitimacy” means legitimacy throughout the argument. “Laws” mean laws throughout the argument.
D
draws a conclusion about how the world actually is on the basis of claims about how it should be
The evidence does not assert anything about how the world “should” be.
E
infers that because a set of things has a certain property, each member of that set has the property
The argument doesn’t commit a whole-to-part fallacy. There is no whole presented in the premises, and no individual parts of a whole presented in the conclusion.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the moose herd continue to grow while the wolves that were supposed to prey on them prospered?
Objective
The right answer will describe some aspect of the environment, the wolves’ behavior, or the moose’s behavior that caused the wolves’ introduction to have little or no negative impact on the moose population’s growth.
A
The presence of wolves in an area tends to discourage other predators from moving into the area.
This doesn’t help. Even if other predators did not move into the area after the wolves were introduced, the wolves themselves are predators, and we would expect the moose herd’s growth to have been impacted by their presence.
B
Attempts to control moose populations in other national parks by introducing predators have also been unsuccessful.
This doesn’t help. We’re looking for the reason why this particular attempt to control the moose population did not work, not other examples of failed attempts.
C
Wolves often kill moose weakened by diseases that probably would have spread to other moose.
This is what we need. If wolves often kill sick moose, they’re protecting the healthy moose from contracting illnesses which might have otherwise killed off more moose and slowed the population’s growth. Also, the diseased moose the wolves kill presumably would have died anyway.
D
Healthy moose generally consume more vegetation than do those that are diseased or injured.
This is irrelevant. We’re not looking for information about how much vegetation healthy vs. diseased or injured moose eat, and this answer choice tells us nothing about what happened when the wolves were introduced.
E
Moose that are too old to breed are just as likely to die of natural causes as of attack by wolves.
We’re not interested in moose that are too old to breed, because the factor we’re examining is population growth. Furthermore, even if older moose are just as likely to die of natural causes, wolf attacks would still presumably kill additional moose, both older and younger.