Artist: Avant-garde artists intend their work to challenge a society’s mainstream beliefs and initiate change. And some art collectors claim that an avant-garde work that becomes popular in its own time is successful. However, a society’s mainstream beliefs do not generally show any significant changes over a short period of time. Therefore, when an avant-garde work becomes popular it is a sign that the work is not successful, since it does not fulfil the intentions of its creator.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Avant-garde work that becomes popular in its own time is not successful, despite what some art collectors believe. Why? When avant-garde work becomes popular, it does not fulfill the intentions of the artist. The intentions of the artists are to challenge mainstream beliefs and initiate change. However, no such change could occur in a short period of time.

Identify Argument Part
The claim of some art collectors is what is being refuted. The art collectors think avant-garde work that becomes popular in its own time is successful, while the artist’s argument says no - that means the art is not successful.

A
It serves to bolster the argument’s main conclusion.
It is in opposition to the main conclusion. The main conclusion refutes it.
B
It identifies a view that is ultimately disputed by the argument.
The argument is dedicated to refuting/disputing this particular claim.
C
It identifies a position supported by the initial premise in the argument.
This position is given no support within the argument. The initial premise is used to support the opposite conclusion.
D
It provides support for the initial premise in the argument.
The claim provides no support for the other parts of the argument. The first premise stands alone, without any support.
E
It provides support for a counterargument to the initial premise.
This is a claim that is being refuted, and it doesn’t support anything else. Additionally, the initial premise is just a premise - the opposing arguments diverge on success, not the intentions of artists.

2 comments

Public health experts have waged a long-standing educational campaign to get people to eat more vegetables, which are known to help prevent cancer. Unfortunately, the campaign has had little impact on people’s diets. The reason is probably that many people simply dislike the taste of most vegetables. Thus, the campaign would probably be more effective if it included information on ways to make vegetables more appetizing.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that the campaign to increase vegetable intake would have been more successful if it discussed how to make vegetables taste better. This is based on the phenomenon that the campaign was ineffective, which led the author to the sub-conclusion that its ineffectiveness was because people don’t like how vegetables taste.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes causation from correlation. Specifically, the author assumes that there isn’t another reason why the campaign was ineffective—maybe it was underfunded or poorly planned, and its ineffectiveness was not because people don’t like the taste of vegetables.

A
The campaign to get people to eat more vegetables has had little impact on the diets of most people who love the taste of vegetables.

This does not affect the argument. We already know that the campaign had little impact on all people’s diets, including those who like vegetables. The author argues that it would be more successful if it targeted those who don’t like the taste of vegetables effectively.

B
Some ways of making vegetables more appetizing diminish vegetables’ ability to help prevent cancer.

This does not affect the argument. The campaign could just advertise the ways of making vegetables more appetizing that do not diminish their ability to help prevent cancer. “Some” could just mean that one method of preparation diminishes vegetables’ cancer-preventing abilities.

C
People who find a few vegetables appetizing typically do not eat substantially more vegetables than do people who dislike the taste of most vegetables.

This does not affect the argument. There is no reason to suggest that liking a few vegetables would make you eat substantially more vegetables than someone who doesn’t like most vegetables.

D
People who dislike the taste of most vegetables would eat many more vegetables if they knew how to make them more appetizing.

This strengthens the argument. It provides evidence to believe that including information on how to make vegetables appetizing in the campaign would increase its effectiveness, as people would eat many more vegetables.

E
The only way to make the campaign to get people to eat more vegetables more effective would be to ensure that anyone who at present dislikes the taste of certain vegetables learns to find those vegetables appetizing.

This weakens the argument by offering a very specific circumstance under which the campaign’s effectiveness would increase. The author doesn’t argue that vegetables must be appetizing, only that they should be made more appetizing (e.g., from horrible tasting to a little bad).


10 comments

Samuel: Because communication via computer is usually conducted privately and anonymously between people who would otherwise interact in person, it contributes to the dissolution, not the creation, of lasting communal bonds.

Tova: You assume that communication via computer replaces more intimate forms of communication and interaction, when more often it replaces asocial or even antisocial behavior.

Speaker 1 Summary
Communication via computer contributes to the dissolution of lasting communal bonds. Why? Because communication via computer is usually conducted privately and anonymously between people who would otherwise interact in person.

Speaker 2 Summary
Communication via computer more often replaces asocial or antisocial behavior. You cannot assume communication via computer replaces intimate forms of interaction.

Objective
We need a statement that Samuel and Tova disagree on. They disagree whether communication via computer dissolves social bonds. Samuel thinks that it does because communication via computer replaces in-person interactions. Tova thinks that it does not because communication via computer replaces asocial or antisocial interactions.

A
A general trend of modern life is to dissolve the social bonds that formerly connected people.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Neither speaker classifies computer communication as a general trend of modern life.
B
All purely private behavior contributes to the dissolution of social bonds.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Samuel only thinks that some private behavior contributes to this dissolution. “All” private behavior is too strong.
C
Face-to-face communication is more likely to contribute to the creation of social bonds than is anonymous communication.
Tova does not express an opinion on this statement. Tova only expresses that it’s not necessarily true that computer communication dissolves social bonds.
D
It is desirable that new social bonds be created to replace the ones that have dissolved.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. We don’t know what either speaker would believe is a desirable outcome.
E
If people were not communicating via computer, they would most likely be engaged in activities that create stronger social bonds.
Samuel and Tova disagree on this statement. Samuel agrees and thinks that this is the reason computer communication can be said to contribute to the dissolution of social bonds. Tova disagrees and thinks that computer communication replaces asocial behavior.

8 comments

Human settlement of previously uninhabited areas tends to endanger species of wildlife. However, the Mississippi kite, a bird found on the prairies of North America, flourishes in areas that people have settled. In fact, during the five years since 1985 its population has risen far more rapidly in towns than in rural areas.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why does the Mississippi kite thrive in areas settled by humans, whereas other wildlife tends to struggle in such areas?

Objective
A hypothesis explaining this pattern must state a difference between the Mississippi kite and other wildlife that includes a distinction between towns and rural areas. This difference will result in kites’ numbers rising more quickly in towns than in rural areas.

A
Residents of prairie towns have been setting off loud firecrackers near kites’ roosting spots because of the birds’ habit of diving at people and frightening them.
This deepens the mystery. If kites are frequently disturbed in towns, then the fact the kites flourish there is even more unexpected.
B
Towns on the prairies tend to be small, with a low density of human population and large numbers of wild birds and animals.
This does not explain why the kites succeed more often in towns than in rural areas. It is not implied that relatively large numbers of wild birds and animals would cause the kites to thrive.
C
Since the international migratory bird protection treaty of 1972, it has been illegal to shoot kites, and the treaty has been effectively enforced.
This states no difference between towns and rural areas that would explain the discrepancy. If the treaty has been enforced everywhere, then kite populations in neither area should be at risk from shooting.
D
Wildlife such as pigeons and raccoons had already adapted successfully to towns and cities long before there were towns on the North American prairies.
This refers to species other than the Mississippi kite. It rules out the possibility that it is impossible for a wild species to adapt to cities and towns, but does not explain why the kites thrive in those places.
E
Trees are denser in towns than elsewhere on the prairie, and these denser trees provide greater protection from hail and windstorms for kites’ nests and eggs.
This explains why the Mississippi kites flourish in towns. Tree cover there is more dense, providing the kites with good habitat.

12 comments