Summarize Argument
The environmentalist concludes that returning land to an uncultivated state could avoid a major decrease in meat production while also restoring biodiversity. We know this because the prairie once supported 30 to 70 million bison––which is similar to the number of cattle that the North American prairie currently supports (50 million). However, in order to support the current cattle population, the prairie has been destroyed to produce cattle feed. Bison provide as much meat as cattle, but without needing the pesticides, machinery, or government subsidies that damage the prairie ecosystem.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion tells us that it is possible to balance restoring biodiversity with maintaining meat production: “Returning as much land as possible to an uncultivated state could restore biodiversity without a major decrease in meat production.”
A
If earlier North American agricultural techniques were reintroduced, meat production would decrease only slightly.
This conditional statement is not supported by the argument, and it is not what the argument intends to prove, so it is not the main conclusion. We only know that uncultivated land would avoid a major decrease in production, not that it would definitely decrease slightly.
B
Protecting the habitat of wild animals so that we can utilize these animals as a food source is more cost effective than raising domesticated animals.
This is an attempt to make a generalization from the information given; this generalization is not made or supported in our argument so it is not the conclusion. Further, the argument does not address what is cost effective.
C
The biodiversity of the North American prairie ecosystem should not be restored if doing so will have intolerable economic consequences.
The “should” in this answer is a value judgement, while the argument consists of descriptive statements, so this is not the main conclusion. Further, the argument does not specifically address economic consequences.
D
Preservation of the remaining North American bison would be a sensible policy.
The argument only specifically talks about the impacts of returning to uncultivated land on meat production and biodiversity; the argument does not make a judgement on what is or is not sensible.
E
The devastation of the North American prairie ecosystem could be largely reversed without significantly decreasing meat production.
This statement about the relationship between agriculture practices and meat production is what the rest of the argument sets out to support. This answer is a paraphrase of the last part of the argument, which we identified as the main conclusion.
Galina: It must be something other than sugar, because the concentration of sugar in the maple sap is so low that a squirrel would need to drink an enormous amount of sap to get any significant amount of sugar.
Summarize Argument
Galina disagrees with Lydia’s conclusion that red squirrels make holes in sugar maple trees in order to get the sugar in the trees’ sap. Galina concludes instead that the red squirrels are after something other than sugar. As support for this claim, Galina says that the concentration of sugar in the sap is so low that the squirrels would have to drink a very high amount of sap just to get a bit of sugar.
Notable Assumptions
Galina assumes that the red squirrels do not benefit from an insignificant amount of sugar. Galina also assumes that the red squirrels consume the sap by drinking it directly.
A
Squirrels are known to like foods that have a high concentration of sugar.
Squirrels’ preferences for other foods are irrelevant to the argument. Lydia and Galina are discussing squirrels’ motivations for consuming tree sap––we know that the squirrels consume the sap; Galina and Lydia just disagree about if they’re eating the sap to get the sugar.
B
Once a hole in a sugar maple trunk has provided one red squirrel with sap, other red squirrels will make additional holes in its trunk.
The topic of the argument is squirrels’ motivation for consuming sap. (B) just provides information about squirrels’ behavior patterns, but it does not say anything that could help determine whether squirrels are consuming the sap in order to get sugar, or for some other reason.
C
Trees other than sugar maples, whose sap contains a lower concentration of sugar than does sugar maple sap, are less frequently tapped by red squirrels.
Information about sugar concentrations in other trees is irrelevant. The arguments discuss squirrels’ motivation for consuming sugar maple tree sap; we don’t care about other trees. We don’t know why the squirrels are avoiding the other trees, and it’s the “why” that counts here.
D
Red squirrels leave the sugar maple sap that slowly oozes out of the holes in the tree’s trunk until much of the water in the sap has evaporated.
This weakens Galina’s argument because it shows that the squirrels are able to access the sugar in the sugar maple tree sap without drinking an enormous amount of sap. (D) makes it so that Galina’s premise does not provide support for her conclusion.
E
During the season when sap can be obtained from sugar maple trees, the weather often becomes cold enough to prevent sap from oozing out of the trees.
The arguments discuss squirrels’ reasons for consuming the sap. (E) tells us that accessing the sap may be difficult, but does not address squirrels’ motivations, so it does not weaken the argument.
Carla: But how do you go about choosing whose perspective is the valid one? Is the foot soldier’s perspective more valid than that of a general? Should it be a French or an English soldier? Your approach would generate a biased version of history, and to avoid that, historians must stick to general and objective characterizations of the past.
Speaker 1 Summary
Mark argues that historians should try to record what it was like to experience past events, which is supported by the reasoning that this approach would convey an understanding of those events. Mark offers the example of a foot soldier’s direct experience of the Battle of Waterloo.
Speaker 2 Summary
Carla claims that historians should instead describe the past in a general and objective way. This is because capturing a direct experience means one must choose which individual’s perspective is most important, which would lead to a biased version of history.
Objective
We need to find a disagreement between Mark and Carla. They disagree about whether historians should try to convey a direct experience of past events.
A
The purpose of writing history is to convey an understanding of past events.
Mark agrees with this, but Carla never disagrees. Carla’s argument never disputes that historians should try to convey an understanding of past events—the issue is just the perspective they use to do so.
B
The participants in a battle are capable of having an objective understanding of the ramifications of the events in which they are participating.
Neither speaker agrees or disagrees with this claim. Mark never even mentions objectivity, and Carla never says whether or not individual soldiers can be capable of objectivity.
C
Historians can succeed in conveying a sense of the way events in the distant past seemed to someone who lived in a past time.
Mark seems to agree with this claim, but Carla doesn’t take a position. Carla’s point is that historians shouldn’t try to convey a personal perspective of past events, whether or not that’s actually possible.
D
Historians should aim to convey past events from the perspective of participants in those events.
Mark agrees and Carla disagrees, making this the point of disagreement. This is the conclusion of Mark’s argument, while Carla’s conclusion is that historians should focus on a general, objective perspective instead (meaning they would not use an individual perspective).
E
Historians should use fictional episodes to supplement their accounts of past events if the documented record of those events is incomplete.
Neither speaker talks about the possible use of fiction to supplement historians’ accounts of past events. Fiction doesn’t come up in this discussion at all.