City official: Landowners must clear the snow from the sidewalks along the edge of their property by 24 hours after the end of a snowstorm. The city has the right to clear any sidewalk that is still covered more than 24 hours after a snowstorm’s end, and whenever it does so, it will bill the landowner for the service. All landowners whose sidewalks have not been cleared within 48 hours of the end of a snowstorm will receive citations, which always result in fines unless the landowners can demonstrate extenuating circumstances.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
If the sidewalk is covered by snow after 24 hours, the city might bill the landowner for the cleaning.
A
If the city clears a sidewalk of snow 50 hours after the end of a snowstorm, the owner will be billed for the service and will receive a citation.
Must be true. As shown below, if the city clears the sidewalk, the owner will be billed. If the sidewalk hasn’t been cleared within 48 hours, then the owner will receive a citation.
B
All landowners who fail to clear their sidewalks by 24 hours after the end of a snowstorm will be billed by the city for snow removal.
Could be false. If the sidewalk is covered after 24 hours, the city has the right to clear the sidewalk, but this isn’t a guarantee that the city will actually do it. It could be the case that the city doesn’t clear someone’s sidewalk (and that they wouldn’t be billed).
C
All sidewalks in the city will be cleared of snow within 50 hours of the end of a snowstorm.
Could be false. If the sidewalk is covered by snow after 24 hours, the city has the right to clear it, but the city isn’t required to do so. If the sidewalk isn’t cleared after 48 hours, the landowner is cited, but this doesn’t guarantee that the sidewalk will be cleared.
D
Nearly all landowners who do not clear their sidewalks within 48 hours after the end of a snowstorm will be fined.
Could be false. The stimulus does not provide information to support inferences about quantities of landowners; we don’t know what happens to “nearly all” landowners. It could be the case that these landowners’ sidewalks were cleared by the city before 48 hours.
E
Landowners who can demonstrate extenuating circumstances will not be billed by the city for snow removal service.
Could be false. The bill comes from performing the service of clearing the sidewalk; it is still the case that if these landowners receive the service of the city clearing their sidewalks, then they will be billed.
Summarize Argument
The theorists who argue that it is naive to view literary works as embodying varying levels of aesthetic value succumb to the this very view. This is because these theorists judge literary works based on how interesting and successful they are.
Identify Argument Part
The claim showcases how these theorists engage in thinking they disagree with. It is a premise supporting the main conclusion.
A
It is presented as evidence for the conclusion that it is naive to view literary works as embodying a distinct aesthetic value to a greater or lesser degree.
This misidentifies the conclusion. The main conclusion is that these theorists succumb to the view they wish to undermine.
B
It is presented as evidence against the claim that it is naive to view literary works as embodying a distinct aesthetic value to a greater or lesser degree.
The claim is not evidence against the prior claim. It highlights an inconsistency in the theorists' actions. The argument assumes that evaluating the aesthetic value of literary works is the same as judging them based on how interesting and successful they are.
C
It is a conclusion for which the claim that it is naive to maintain that literary works embody a distinct aesthetic value to a greater or lesser degree is offered as evidence.
This is not a conclusion. It does not receive any support.
D
It is presented as evidence for the conclusion that the literary theorists succumb to the view they wish to undermine.
The claim showcases how these theorists engage in thinking they disagree with. It is a premise for the following sentence (the main conclusion).
E
It is presented as evidence against the claim that literary works are expressions of ideology.
This claim does not cast doubt on the claim that literary works are expressions of ideology. It highlights a perceived inconsistency in the literary theorists’ argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the use of heating pads is more effective than stretching is at relieving lower back pain. This is based on the fact that an athlete first tried unsuccessfully to overcome lower back pain through stretching. After, the athlete tried a heating pad. Several days later, the pain was gone.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the heating pad caused the lower back pain to go away. This overlooks alternate explanations, such as the possibility that the pain went away simply with more time.
The author also assumes that this athlete’s experience is representative of others concerning what will relieve lower back pain.
The author also assumes that this athlete’s experience is representative of others concerning what will relieve lower back pain.
A
It fails to consider that even if the use of heating pads is more effective at relieving lower back pain than stretching is, it may be much less effective at helping to heal the underlying injury responsible for the pain.
This possibility is irrelevant, because the conclusion concerns only what is more effective at relieving lower back pain. What is better healing the underlying injury is a separate issue from what’s better at relieving pain.
B
It fails to consider the fact that lower back pain resulting from athletic competitions often disappears after several days regardless of any attempts to relieve it.
This possibility shows that the athlete’s relief from lower back pain does not have to be a result of the heat pad. It could have been due to the additional time after the athletic competition.
C
It fails to consider that the athlete’s experience regarding the effectiveness of different methods of relieving lower back pain may not have been representative of that of the general population.
This points out that the athlete’s experience may not be representative of the general population. So the author cannot conclude what is “generally” more effective at relieving back pain simply based on this one athlete.
D
It overlooks the possibility that the effectiveness of different methods of relieving lower back pain may vary substantially depending on the underlying cause of the lower back pain.
If back pain from some other cause — such as moving heavy objects — might be affected differently from pain relief methods, then we cannot conclude what is “generally” more effective from this one athlete’s experience after an athletic competition.
E
It overlooks the possibility that there might be ways of stretching that are much more effective at relieving lower back pain than were the ways the athlete tried.
This points out that the athlete might not have tried the most effective methods of stretching. This shows that we cannot conclude that stretching is generally less effective simply from this one athlete’s experience stretching. Maybe the athlete didn’t stretch in the right way.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The marine biologists hypothesize that young harbor seals start by avoiding all killer whales, but eventually learn which killer whales eat only fish. Why? Because seal-eating and fish-eating killer whales make chattering noises that sound different from each other, and harbor seals use that difference to tell which killer whales are dangerous.
Notable Assumptions
The marine biologists assume harbor seals avoid seal-eating killer whales because they learn to identify the fish-eating killer whales, and not for any other reason. This means assuming the reverse dynamic—that young seals start with no aversion to killer whales, but acquire an aversion to seal-eating whales—doesn’t happen. It also means assuming the ability to identify seal-eating whales is learned, not purely genetic.
A
Killer whales that eat seals also eat other marine mammals that are similar in size to seals.
This doesn’t affect the argument. It’s equally compatible with the leading alternative hypothesis: that young seals start with no aversion to killer whales, but acquire an aversion to seal-eating whales by observing them eat mammals similar to their own size.
B
Unlike harbor seals, which can hear killer-whale chatter even at great distances, most fish cannot hear that chatter, even close at hand.
This is irrelevant. There’s no indication harbor seals use the behavior of fish to distinguish between seal-eating and fish-eating killer whales.
C
When mature harbor seals first listen to the recorded chatter of killer whales that eat only fish but whose dialect is unfamiliar, the seals rapidly swim away from the sound.
This strengthens the marine biologists’ hypothesis that young seals start with an aversion to all killer whales. It casts doubt on the leading alternative hypothesis: that young seals start with no aversion to killer whales, but learn to be afraid of the seal-eating ones.
D
Young harbor seals show no natural aversion to any seal predators other than killer whales.
If anything, this makes the leading alternative hypothesis more likely. Since it means young seals start with no aversion to other predator species, it suggests the marine biologists’ hypothesis—that young seals start with an aversion to killer whales—would be an anomaly.
E
If a fish-eating killer whale mistakenly attacks a harbor seal, that seal, if it survives, will subsequently avoid all killer whales that chatter in the attacker’s dialect, but other harbor seals will not.
If anything, this makes the leading alternative hypothesis more likely. It implies harbor seals at least sometimes learn to pick out the chattering of dangerous killer whales and acquire an aversion to those whales.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The critic believes that the recent trend to humanize vampires in entertainment is unfortunate. The critic acknowledges that the overall trend in entertainment toward moral complexity is generally a good thing, but asserts that the vampire myth should remain a powerful representation of evil because evil exists in the world.
Identify Argument Part
This claim qualifies how broadly the conclusion should be applied.
A
It states a principle used to support the conclusion of the argument.
This is not descriptively accurate. The conclusion opposes humanizing vampires.
B
It places limits on how broadly the conclusion of the argument should be generalized.
The critic acknowledges that moral complexity is generally good. However, he limits this general trend by supporting the conclusion that the humanization of vampires is unfortunate.
C
It justifies the need for the argument’s being given.
This is not descriptively accurate. The statement is not a premise, so it does not justify anything. There is also no “need” for the argument being given
D
It provides a hypothesis that is rejected in the conclusion of the argument.
The statement is not a hypothesis that is rejected. The statement is acknowledged and concedes some limitations.
E
It is the conclusion of the argument.
This is not the conclusion of the argument. It does not receive support.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that one should choose a career in something other than art. He supports this by saying that an artist’s pay depends on subjective evaluations of their work, and it’s unacceptable for one’s pay to depend on subjective evaluations of one’s work.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author argues that one should choose a career outside of art because it's unacceptable for pay to depend on subjective opinions of one's work. To draw this conclusion, he must assume that other careers don't have the same issue. But what if other careers do involve some level of pay being based on subjective evaluations of one’s work? In that case, it isn’t a reason to choose a career other than art.
A
takes for granted that people should choose careers solely on the basis of how much they pay
Like (D), the author never addresses how much artists are paid. Instead, he takes issue with the fact that their pay depends on subjective evaluations of their work. He also never argues that people should choose careers solely on this basis, just that it’s a relevant factor.
B
takes for granted that a work of art will be considered beautiful either by everyone or by no one
The author argues that it’s unacceptable for one’s pay to depend on subjective evaluations of one’s work. But he never makes any assumptions about what those subjective evaluations might be. He doesn’t assume that a work of art will be considered beautiful by everyone or no one.
C
overlooks the possibility that one’s pay in any profession involves a certain degree of subjective evaluation
In order to argue that one should avoid a career in art because it's unacceptable for pay to depend on subjective evaluation, the author must assume that pay in other careers isn't also based on subjective evaluation. But if it is, why should one choose a career other than art?
D
overlooks the possibility that some artists are paid very well
Like (A), the author never makes any claims or assumptions about how much artists are paid. Even if all artists are paid very well, this doesn’t change the fact that their pay is determined by subjective evaluations of their work, which the author claims is unacceptable.
E
treats a criterion that must be satisfied in order for a career choice to be a good one as a criterion that will ensure that a career choice is a good one
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The author doesn't make this mistake. He doesn't present any criteria that are necessary for a “good” career. He only says that it’s unacceptable for pay to be determined by subjective evaluation.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the use of ordinary dictionaries is justified in interpreting the law. This is based on an analogy to how chemists use the periodic table. The periodic table is a source of agreed-upon background information that can be useful for chemists. The author believes that ordinary dictionaries can be useful to legal interpreters trying to resolve terminological issues in the same way that periodic tables are useful for chemists
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the relationship between periodic tables and the problems chemists work on is relevantly similar to the relationship between ordinary dictionaries and the resolution of terminological issues.
A
The periodic table lists the properties of the elements, and presents them in a pattern to represent relations between them, while an ordinary dictionary mostly just gives an alphabetical ordering to the words it defines.
This difference concerns how the content is laid out in periodic tables and dictionaries. But this difference doesn’t have an impact on the usefulness of each item.
B
There is wide agreement about the data on the periodic table, while disagreements between the definitions in different ordinary dictionaries are likely to be relevant to legal interpretation.
This points out a difference that is relevant to the usefulness of dictionaries in resolving disputes about terms. If there are disagreements about definitions, then dictionaries aren’t useful to solving disputes in the same way that periodic tables are useful to chemists.
C
The use of a periodic table as a reference source actually came much later in history than the use of ordinary dictionaries to describe the meanings of words.
When periodic tables and dictionaries came about doesn’t impact the usefulness of a dictionary for solving disputes about terms.
D
The periodic table contains only a relatively small amount of information that could, in theory, be memorized, while the information in an ordinary dictionary is likely to be too large for any one person to know all at once.
How easy the content is to memorize doesn’t affect the usefulness of an ordinary dictionary for resolving interpretation of terms.
E
The periodic table is used primarily by chemists, while ordinary dictionaries are not used primarily by legal scholars and legal interpreters.
Whether dictionaries are currently used to resolve interpretations does not affect whether they would be useful to scholars and interpreters in the same way that a periodic table is useful to chemists.
Amal: But allocating new revenue to transportation will free up existing transportation funds for use in other areas. Thus, the new revenue will nonetheless help reduce budget shortfalls in other areas.
Speaker 1 Summary
The additional revenue from leases will not be used to reduce budget shortfalls in other budget areas. Why? Because the additional revenue will be allocated to the transportation budget.
Speaker 2 Summary
The additional revenue will help to reduce budget shortfalls in other budget areas. Why? Because allocating revenue to transportation will free up existing transportation funds for other budget areas.
Objective
We need a statement Regina and Amal disagree on. They disagree whether the new revenue from leases will help reduce other budget shortfalls. Regina thinks that the new revenue will not reduce shortfalls since it will be allocated to transportation. Amal thinks that the new revenue will reduce shortfalls indirectly by freeing up existing transportation funds for other uses.
A
there will be shortfalls in budget areas other than transportation
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Neither Regina or Amal express whether they think shortfalls will exist.
B
the amount of money currently allocated to transportation is adequate
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. We can’t assume that either speaker thinks transportation funding is adequate solely on the basis of funds being allocated to transportation.
C
new revenue from leasing government-owned toll bridges should be allocated to transportation
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Neither speaker addresses what they think should or should not be done.
D
new revenue allocated to transportation will result in existing transportation funds being reallocated to other areas
Regina and Amal disagree on this statement. Regina disagrees that allocation to transportation will help other budget areas. Amal agrees that it will help other budget areas indirectly by freeing up existing funds.
E
leasing government-owned toll bridges to private investors will be financially beneficial to the government
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. We can’t assume that reducing budget shortfalls in any area is financially beneficial to the government.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that biologists are wrong when they think that the fossil record provides direct evidence of the course of human evolution. In other words, the fossil record does not provide direct evidence of the course of human evolution. This conclusion is based on the subsidiary conclusion that fossils can’t be interpreted objectively. As an example supporting this subsidiary conclusion, the author points out that classifying a pelvis fossil as human based on its upright posture requires assuming that apes didn’t have an upright posture.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that the biologists are wrong: “Biologists are mistaken in thinking that the fossil record provides direct evidence of the course of human evolution.”
A
No early apes had pelvises that would support an upright posture.
The author doesn’t necessarily agree with this. This is an assumption the author believes we make when classifying a pelvis as human based on its upright posture. But the author suggests this assumption might be wrong; it’s not an objective interpretation.
B
The claims made by evolutionary theorists cannot be objectively tested.
The author never stated this. Although we can infer the author would agree with this statement, he never actually stated this.
C
The fossil remains of some early hominids are difficult to distinguish from those of apes.
The author never stated this. The author never comments on the difficulty of distinguishing early hominid fossils from ape fossils. Although the author indicates that distinguishing between the two involves subjective interpretation, that’s not a comment on difficulty.
D
The fossil record does not directly reveal the course of human evolution.
This is a paraphrase of the claim that biologists are mistaken in thinking that the fossil record provides direct evidence of the course of human revolution.
E
Paleontologists’ classifications of fossils are always influenced by the theories that these scientists are testing.
This is part of the author’s support. Because paleontologists’ interpretations reflect the models they want to test, the author concludes that the fossil record does not provide direct evidence of the course of human evolution.