Summary
The argument concludes that it’s ill founded to call Linsey a bad songwriter because her lyrics are disjointed and subjective. Why? Because many modern novelists write in a way that is disjointed and subjective, but are considered to be good writers.
Notable Assumptions
The argument defends Linsey based on an analogy between her songwriting and the writing of modern novelists. For this analogy to make sense, the argument must assume that songwriting and modern novels are relevantly analogous—that this writing style has a similar effect in both types of writing.
A
Disjointed and subjective writing has a comparable effect in modern novels and in songs.
In other words, modern novels and songwriting are relevantly analogous when considering this writing style. This is the only way that modern novels can provide any insight into the quality of Linsey’s songwriting, making it a necessary assumption.
B
Some readers do not appreciate the subtleties of the disjointed and subjective style adopted by modern novelists.
This just doesn’t make any difference—we already know that these novelists are “widely held” to be good writers, so whether some people don’t like them isn’t relevant, much less necessary.
C
Song lyrics that are disjointed and subjective have at least as much narrative structure as any other song lyrics do.
The argument never brings up the idea of narrative structure as a way to assess the quality of songwriting, so this is irrelevant.
D
A disjointed and subjective style of writing is usually more suitable for novels and song lyrics than it is for any other written works.
The argument is only focused on song lyrics and novels, so whether or not this writing style is suitable for other works makes no difference.
E
The quality of Linsey’s songs is better judged by the quality of their lyrics than by the quality of their musical form.
The argument only talks about Linsey’s merit as a songwriter, so it’s irrelevant to say whether her songwriting or her musical form is more important.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes passengers are safer on airplanes equipped with collision-avoidance radar. This is because the radar warns pilots when to take evasive action.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that pilots evading phantom planes doesn’t put passengers at more risk than usual. This means the author believes this happens rarely enough to not matter, or that swerving to avoid a phantom plane carries no safety risks.
A
Evasive action taken in response to the system’s warnings poses no risk to the passengers.
Evading phantom planes poses no safety risk to passengers. Thus, the radar is entirely beneficial.
B
Commercial passenger airplanes are in greater danger of colliding with other airplanes while on the ground than they are while in flight.
Irrelevant. The radar still helps them avoid collisions while in flight.
C
Commercial passenger airplanes are rarely involved in collisions while in flight.
Like (B), irrelevant. The radar still helps them avoid collisions while in flight.
D
A study by ground-based air traffic controllers found that 63 percent of the warnings by the system were invalid.
We need to know if those invalid warnings pose safety risks to passengers. This doesn’t tell us.
E
The collision-avoidance radar system is run by a computerized device on the plane that scans the sky and calculates the distances between planes.
This explains the mechanism behind the radar. We care about how the radar effects passenger safety.
Summary
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) allow developers to use land inhabited by endangered species in exchange for preserving some habitat or replacement land nearby. Some members of endangered species are lost, but the developer ensures that the remaining animals will be protected. Environmentalists like that HCPs secure compromise from developers. Developers prefer HCPs over more restrictive prohibitions.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Environmental laws should reflect a compromise between land developers and environmentalists.
A
In order to avoid protracted legal battles environmentalists should compromise with developers.
We don’t know whether the environmentalists or land developers would initiate legal battles with each other.
B
Developers should adhere only to those environmental laws that are not overburdensome.
We don’t know if developers should only adhere to laws that are not overburdensome. The environmentalists may prefer that land developers adhere to any and all environmental laws.
C
Laws should not be designed to serve the interests of all the parties concerned since they are often so weak that no one’s interest is served well.
As the stimulus describes, HCPs do serve the interests of all concerned parties. Environmentalists are served by securing compromise from developers, and developers are served because the prefer HCPs over more restrictive laws.
D
Laws should be fashioned in such a way as to reconcile the interests of developers and environmentalists.
HCPs do serve as a compromise between developers and environmentalists.
E
The most effective means of preserving endangered species is to refrain from alienating property owners.
We don’t know what the most effective means of protecting endangered species is. HCPs are just one way we are told could help this purpose.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The astronomer considers an argument held by many people and concludes that it is possible to have both well-lighted streets and relatively dark skies. As evidence, the astronomer points out that in Sandsville the local observatory’s view is clear because the city has both restricted unnecessary lighting and installed street lamps that direct all light downward.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The astronomer counters a position held by others. She does this by offering a counterexample. It is not true that interference from lights is inevitable because in Sandsville relatively dark skies are achieved by restricting unnecessary lighting and installing special street lamps.
A
appealing to a scientific authority to challenge a widely held belief
The astronomer does not appeal to a scientific authority. We cannot assume that just because the argument is made by an astronomer that the argument appeals to scientific authority.
B
questioning the accuracy of evidence given in support of the opposing position
The astronomer does not question that streetlights are needed for safety. The astronomer addresses the conclusion believed by others, not their premises.
C
proposing an alternative scientific explanation for a natural phenomenon
The astronomer does not propose an alternative explanation for light interference.
D
making a distinction between terms
The astronomer does not distinguish any terms.
E
offering a counterexample to a general claim
The general claim is other people’s argument that interference from light is inevitable. The counterexample the astronomer offers is the city of Sandsville, which does not experience light interference.