Summarize Argument
The author concludes that any impact from viewers’ perception that political candidates who blink excessively during a debate perform less well than those who blink an average amount is harmful. This is because a candidate’s rate of blinking is not a feature that contributes to performing well in elected office.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that blink rate is not a signal of features that are relevant to performing well in office, such as confidence.
A
Voters’ judgments about candidates’ debate performances rarely affect the results of national elections.
The argument never specifies that it’s concerned only with national elections. Effects on state elections or local elections can still be harmful. Also, the conclusion doesn’t assert that there are any effects on elections. Only that if there are effects, they’re harmful.
B
Blinking too infrequently during televised debates has the same effect on viewers’ judgments of candidates as blinking excessively.
This simply describes another way that blink rate can affect someone’s perception of a candidate. This doesn’t undermine the author’s position that perceptions based on blink rate are harmful.
C
Excessive blinking has been shown to be a mostly reliable indicator of a lack of confidence.
This suggests that excessive blink rate can be a signal of confidence, which is a feature that contributes to performance in elected office. So, judging a candidate based on excessive blinking might not be harmful, because it’s an indicator of something we were told is relevant.
D
Candidates for top political offices who are knowledgeable also tend to be confident.
This doesn’t tell us anything about blink rate or why judging candidates based on blink rate might not be harmful.
E
Viewers’ judgments about candidates’ debate performances are generally not affected by how knowledgeable the candidates appear to be.
This doesn’t tell us anything about blink rate or why judging candidates based on blink rate might not be harmful.
Ivan: I disagree with your analysis. The country’s economy is tied to the global economy. Whatever happens to the global economy also happens here, and the global economy has slowed. Therefore, the government’s action did not cause the economy’s slowdown.
Speaker 1 Summary
Gabriella claims that the government’s recent interest rate increase has slowed the economy. How so? By encouraging people to borrow more money and spend less money. (Gabriella is making an assumption that borrowing more and spending less slows the economy.)
Speaker 2 Summary
Ivan says that the interest rate increase didn’t slow the economy. In support, Ivan explains that whatever happens to the global economy is reflected in the country’s economy. Also, the global economy has slowed. Ivan sees this as an alternative explanation for the domestic slowdown.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Gabriella and Ivan disagree about whether the government’s interest rate increase caused the country’s economy to slow.
A
the economic slowdown in the country has caused people to spend less
Neither speaker talks about the effect the economic slowdown may have had on people’s behavior. Gabriella claims that lower spending helped to cause the slowdown, but doesn’t mention whether the slowdown could then further lower spending.
B
the economy of the country is tied to the economies of other countries
Ivan agrees that this is the case, but Gabriella doesn’t state an opinion. Gabriella only talks about the domestic economy, and says nothing about how the international economy might be involved.
C
raising interest rates caused a significant decrease in borrowing
Gabriella disagrees that this is the case, but Ivan doesn’t express an opinion. Gabriella thinks that raising interest rates increased, not decreased, borrowing. Ivan doesn’t talk about borrowing at all.
D
raising interest rates caused the country’s economy to slow
Gabriella thinks this is true and Ivan thinks it’s false, meaning that this is the point of disagreement. Gabriella’s conclusion is that the interest rate increase caused the slowdown. Ivan says that the global economy caused the slowdown, so interest rates are irrelevant.
E
the global economy has slowed
Ivan agrees with this, but Gabriella doesn’t state an opinion. Gabriella only talks about the domestic economy, and never mentions a belief that the global economy has slowed or not.
Lecturer: If I say, “I tried to get my work done on time,” the meanings of my words do not indicate that I didn’t get it done on time. But usually you would correctly understand me to be saying that I didn’t. After all, if I had gotten my work done on time, I would instead just say, “I got my work done on time.” And this example is typical of how conversation works.
Summary
The lecturer gives us an example of a statement that, in a conversation, contains meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words. The literal meaning of “I tried to get my work done on time” does not express that I didn’t get my work done on time. But if I made that statement, you’d be correct to understand me as asserting that I didn’t get my work done on time. This example is typical of other statements in a conversation.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
People say things that contain meanings beyond the literal meaning of the words.
A
Understanding what people say often requires more than just understanding the meanings of the words they use.
Strongly supported. We have an example of a statement that contains meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words. This was typical of conversations. So, understanding the meaning of some other things people say requires more than just the meaning of the literal words.
B
It is unusual for English words to function in communication in the way that “tried” does.
Unsupported. The stimulus gave us an example of something that is typical (usual) in conversations. There’s no support for a claim about the function of certain words being unusual.
C
Understanding what people use a word to mean often requires detecting their nonverbal cues.
Unsupported. We don’t know that understanding the meaning of the example in the stimulus requires nonverbal cues. We might get the meaning from the context in which it’s made, or from the fact the person didn’t say something else.
D
Speakers often convey more information in conversation than they intend to convey.
Unsupported. The example in the stimulus concerns a speaker who intends to express more than what the literal words mean. It doesn’t concern someone who expressed more than he intended.
E
Listeners cannot reasonably be expected to have the knowledge typically required for successful communication.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t tell us anything about how likely people will interpret statements accurately. Maybe most people interpret statements in conversations accurately; there’s no evidence either for or against this possibility.
Summary
The author concludes that Downing did not act in a praiseworthy manner when he told the truth about his partner’s fraud. This is based on the following:
Downing was motivated by concern for his own well-being.
In order for it to be morally praiseworthy to be honest, it is necessary that the honesty be done out of respect for morality.
Downing was motivated by concern for his own well-being.
In order for it to be morally praiseworthy to be honest, it is necessary that the honesty be done out of respect for morality.
Missing Connection
We know from the premises that if one’s honesty is not motivated by respect for morality, one does not deserve praise for that honesty. So in theory we could conclude that Downing did not act in a way that deserves praise...as long as we know he was not motivated by respect for morality.
Another premise tells us that Downing was motivated by self-concern. Does this guarantee that he was not motivated by respect for morality? Not necessarily, since someone can have multiple motivations. To make this argument valid, then, we want to establish that if someone’s motivation is self-concern, then they cannot also be motivated by morality.
Another premise tells us that Downing was motivated by self-concern. Does this guarantee that he was not motivated by respect for morality? Not necessarily, since someone can have multiple motivations. To make this argument valid, then, we want to establish that if someone’s motivation is self-concern, then they cannot also be motivated by morality.
A
An action motivated by concern for oneself cannot be deserving of moral condemnation.
We want to know that actions motivated by self-concern can’t be motivated by morality. (A) merely establishes that actions motivated by self-concern don’t deserve condemnation. This leaves open the possibility that Downing was still motivated by morality.
B
Some actions that are essentially honest are not morally praiseworthy.
Learning at least one (”some”) action that is honest isn’t morally praiseworthy does not prove that Downing’s action is not praiseworthy. The particular actions that are praiseworthy in (B) might refer to other actions. (Remember, this is a Suff. Assump. question. Not a MBT or MSS.)
C
An action performed out of respect for morality cannot also be an action motivated by concern for oneself.
(C) establishes that Downing’s action, which was motivated by self-concern, was not also motivated by morality. And this in turn proves that Downing’s action did not meet what’s necessary in order to be considered morally praiseworthy.
D
The moral praiseworthiness of an action can be judged only according to standards that refer to the circumstances of the person acting.
(D) doesn’t establish that Downing’s action was not motivated by morality. So it leaves open the possibility that Downing’s action can be morally praiseworthy.
E
Morality demands that one be honest, even in cases where this could be detrimental to one’s own well-being.
(E) doesn’t establish that Downing’s action was not motivated by morality. So it leaves open the possibility that Downing’s action can be morally praiseworthy.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the efforts to clean the Lalolah River are working. He supports this by saying that the river was ranked the third most polluted this year, while it was ranked the most polluted last year.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the flaw of confusing relative and absolute change. The author shows that the Lalolah River is less polluted this year than the top two most polluted rivers, and then assumes that it’s cleaner than it was last year. But just because the Lalolah River is less polluted than other rivers doesn’t mean that it’s actually gotten less polluted.
The other rivers might have just gotten much dirtier, while the Lalolah River stayed the same. If so, the author can’t conclude that the cleanup efforts are working.
A
interprets lack of evidence for a claim as support for an opposing claim
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that an opponent’s conclusion is false, simply because their argument lacks evidence. The author doesn’t make this mistake; he isn’t countering someone else’s position or supporting an opposing claim at all.
B
relies on an ambiguity in the expression “most polluted”
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the argument uses the same term in different ways. The author doesn’t make this mistake. He may not explain the exact meaning of “most polluted,” but he does use the term clearly and consistently throughout his argument.
C
does not disclose the basis for the ranking used
The author doesn’t need to explain how the pollution rankings are determined. Even if he did, his argument would still be flawed because he confuses the river being cleaner than other rivers with it being cleaner overall.
D
confuses the state of the individual rivers in the water district with that of the water district as a whole
The author never makes any claims about the state of the water district as a whole. Instead, he confuses the state of the Lalolah River compared to other rivers with the state of the Lalolah River this year compared to last year.
E
equates a decrease relative to the other ranked rivers with an absolute decrease
Just because the Lalolah River is less polluted than two other rivers does not mean that it’s less polluted than it was last year. Maybe the other rivers just got dirtier.