Summary
The author concludes that at most 25% of the films released in 1992 were based on books published in 1991. His reasoning is that 25% of the films released in 1992 were based on novels published in 1991.
Missing Connection
The author’s conclusion is about books, but his premise is about novels. What if there were movies based on books (e.g. biographies) that aren’t novels? We need to close this gap in the argument. We could do so by adding the assumption that all movies released in 1992 that were based on 1991 books were based on novels.
A
None of the scripts used in films released in 1992 were written by professional novelists.
This is irrelevant, because the conclusion is about the source material of the films (novels vs. other kinds of books), not the professional background of the screenwriters.
B
None of the films released in country Z in 1992 were based on books other than novels.
This is saying that, if a film based on a book was released in 1992, then it was based on a novel. If so, the 25% of 1992 films based on 1991 novels are the only films based on 1991 books. And the conclusion that 25% is the max percentage of such films is guaranteed.
C
None of the books that were published in country Z in 1992 were based on plots of films released in 1991.
This doesn’t close the gap in the argument: there could still be 1992 films based on 1991 books that aren’t novels. And thus the percentage of 1992 films based on 1991 books could be higher than 25%.
D
Some of the films released in country Z in 1992 were based on older films that had been released for the first time many years earlier.
This doesn’t close the gap in the argument: there could still be 1992 films based on 1991 books that aren’t novels. And thus the percentage of 1992 films based on 1991 books could be higher than 25%.
E
Some of the films released in 1991 in country Z were based on novels that were published in 1991.
The conclusion is about 1992 films, so 1991 films are irrelevant.
Debbie: But consider this: a person for whom a doctor wants to schedule surgery can simply be told what pain to expect and can then decide whether or not to undergo the operation. So you see, pain protocols are unnecessary for human beings.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Debbie concludes that pain protocols are unnecessary for humans. As evidence, she points out that humans are able to communicate directly with doctors and decide from there whether they will undergo an operation.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Debbie counters the position held by Carl. She does this by pointing out a crucial difference between human beings and animals: human beings are capable of communicating and deciding for themselves, whereas animals are not.
A
showing that one of the claims on which Carl bases his conclusion is inaccurate
Debbie never claims that any of Carl’s premises are inaccurate. Rather, Debbie questions Carl’s conclusion by pointing out additional evidence Carl’s argument does not consider.
B
pointing out a relevant difference to undermine an analogy on which Carl bases his conclusion
The relevant difference is between that of human beings and animals. Debbie states that human beings are capable of being told about what pain to expect and make their own decisions. The animals in Carl’s analogy are incapable of these things.
C
claiming that Carl’s argument should be rejected because it is based on an appeal to sentimentality rather than on reasoned principles
Carl’s argument is not an appeal to sentimentality. Rather, his argument is an appeal to analogy.
D
drawing an analogy that illustrates a major flaw in Carl’s argument
Debbie does not draw an analogy. Carl draws an analogy between human beings and animals, and Debbie rejects this analogy by pointing out a relevant difference between the two.
E
offering a specific example to demonstrate that Carl’s argument is based on a claim that can be neither confirmed nor disproved
Debbie concludes that pain protocols for human beings are unnecessary.