Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Other people argue that we should ban cloning because the clones would exist to indulge the vanity of the people from whom the clones are made. The author’s implicit conclusion is that this argument’s reasoning is flawed. The author supports this conclusion by showing that in other contexts that do not involve bans, people use others for their own selfish interests. Thus, the author implies, a ban on cloning can’t be justified merely because the clones are used by the original people.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is support for the implicit conclusion that the other people’s argument for banning cloning is not persuasive.
A
It supports the ethicist’s view that society does not value individuality as much as many opponents of cloning think it does.
This misdescribes the author’s view. She never suggests that society doesn’t value individuality as much as opponents of cloning think it does.
B
It supports the conclusion that forcing children to pursue academic success is not objectionable.
This misdescribes the author’s conclusion. The conclusion relates to the other people’s view that cloning should be banned. The conclusion does not concern forcing children to pursue academic success.
C
It is implied by the ethicist’s conviction that clones are not subpeople.
The referenced text is not an implication of the author’s belief. It’s support for that belief.
D
It supports the ethicist’s view that vanity’s being the motivation for cloning is not enough of a reason to ban cloning.
This accurately describes the support role played by the referenced text.
E
It describes a legal position that the ethicist argues should be changed.
The author doesn’t suggests the referenced line needs to be changed. The author accepts the truth of this line and uses it undermine the other people’s view concerning a ban on cloning.
Sales manager: The highest priority should be given to the needs of the sales department, because without successful sales the company as a whole would fail.
Shipping manager: There are several departments other than sales that also must function successfully for the company to succeed. It is impossible to give the highest priority to all of them.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The sales manager concludes that the highest priority should be given to the sales department, because the company would fail without successful sales.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The shipping manager counters the sales manager’s argument by showing that he makes an unreasonable assumption. The sales manager assumes that the sales department should be given highest priority because it’s necessary to the company’s success. But the shipping manager points out that many departments are necessary, and giving them all the top priority would be impossible and illogical.
A
that the sales department taken by itself is not critical to the company’s success as a whole
The shipping manager never refutes the claim that the sales department is necessary to the company’s success. She just says that there are other departments that are also necessary to its success.
B
the ambiguity of the term “highest priority”
The shipping manager doesn't make this mistake; she uses the term “highest priority” consistently throughout her argument.
C
that departments other than sales are more vital to the company’s success
The shipping manager never claims that other departments are more important than sales; she just claims that there are other departments that are also necessary to the company’s success.
D
an absurd consequence of its apparent assumption that a department’s necessity earns it the highest priority
The sales manager assumes that a department’s necessity earns it the highest priority. The shipping manager points out an absurd consequence of this assumption by saying that there are many necessary departments, and it makes no sense to give everyone the highest priority.
E
that the sales manager makes a generalization from an atypical case
The shipping manager doesn’t argue that the sales manager makes a generalization from an atypical case. If anything, she argues that the sales department’s necessity is not an atypical case, because there are many necessary departments.
Summary
The author concludes that either (1) Caravaggio is not an early practitioner of the Baroque style, or (2) we should reject Mather’s definition requiring “Baroque” painting to display opulence, heroic sweep, and extravagance.
This is based on the fact that Caravaggio’s realism and use of light and shadow broke with contemporary styles and influenced Baroque painting.
This is based on the fact that Caravaggio’s realism and use of light and shadow broke with contemporary styles and influenced Baroque painting.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts at least one of these must be true: (1) Caravaggio’s paintings were not Baroque, or (2) Baroque paintings do not require the combination of opulance, heroic, sweep and extravagance.
To prove that at least one of these must be true, we must show that if (1) is NOT true, then (2) must be true. Or, that if (2) is NOT true, then (1) must be true.
Let’s say that (1) is NOT true — in other words, that Caravaggio’s paintings WERE Baroque. On the current premises, would we be allowed to infer that Mather’s definition of Baroque painting is wrong? Not necessarily — Mather says that Baroque paintings must have opulence, heroic sweep, and extravagance. Who’s to say that Caravaggio’s paintings don’t have these qualities? The author is *assuming* that Caravaggio’s paintings don’t have these qualities. This is why the author believes that if we accept Caravaggio’s paintings as Baroque, then Mather’s definition of Baroque must be wrong.
To prove that at least one of these must be true, we must show that if (1) is NOT true, then (2) must be true. Or, that if (2) is NOT true, then (1) must be true.
Let’s say that (1) is NOT true — in other words, that Caravaggio’s paintings WERE Baroque. On the current premises, would we be allowed to infer that Mather’s definition of Baroque painting is wrong? Not necessarily — Mather says that Baroque paintings must have opulence, heroic sweep, and extravagance. Who’s to say that Caravaggio’s paintings don’t have these qualities? The author is *assuming* that Caravaggio’s paintings don’t have these qualities. This is why the author believes that if we accept Caravaggio’s paintings as Baroque, then Mather’s definition of Baroque must be wrong.
A
Paintings that belong to a single historical period typically share many of the same stylistic features.
(A) doesn’t establish any of qualities of Caravaggio’s paintings. So it doesn’t establish that if Caravaggio’s paintings are Baroque, that Mather’s definition of Baroque is wrong.
B
A painter who makes use of the interplay of light and shadow need not for that reason be considered a nonrealistic painter.
(B) doesn’t establish any of qualities of Caravaggio’s paintings. So it doesn’t establish that if Caravaggio’s paintings are Baroque, that Mather’s definition of Baroque is wrong.
C
Realism was not widely used by painters prior to the seventeenth century.
(C) doesn’t establish any of qualities of Caravaggio’s paintings. So it doesn’t establish that if Caravaggio’s paintings are Baroque, that Mather’s definition of Baroque is wrong.
D
A realistic painting usually does not depict the world as opulent, heroic, or extravagant.
(D) is close to something that would make the argument valid. But it doesn’t establish that Caravaggio’s paintings did not involve opulence, heroic sweep, or extravagance. (D) establishes that realistic paintings “usually” don’t have these things — but it leaves open the possibility that Caravaggio’s paintings did have these things.
E
Opulence, heroic sweep, and extravagance are not present in Caravaggio’s paintings.
If Caravaggio’s paintings didn’t have opulence, heroic sweep, or extravagance, then his paintings would not fit Mather’s definition of Baroque. So if Caravaggio’s paintings actually are Baroque, then Mather’s definition is wrong.
Respondent: By definition, all teaching and learning are hierarchical, for all teaching and learning must proceed from simple to complex. In teaching mathematics, for example, arithmetic must precede calculus. Thus, the hierarchy in lecturing is a strength.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The respondent concludes that hierarchy in lecturing is a strength. He supports this by saying that all teaching and learning involve hierarchy since they move from simple to complex concepts. As an example, he notes that arithmetic must be taught before calculus.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the author uses a key term in different ways. The respondent uses "hierarchy" to refer to the order of concepts from simple to complex. But the debater used "hierarchy" to describe power dynamics between lecturers being above students.
Since the respondent applies "hierarchy" differently than the debater, he sidesteps the debater’s whole argument. Simple concepts may need to be taught before complex ones, but this doesn’t address whether those concepts should be taught by a peer or by an authority figure.
A
concedes one of the major assumptions on which the debater’s argument depends
By saying that all teaching is hierarchical, the respondent does concede that lecturing is hierarchical, but this is a premise, not a major assumption. Regardless, (A) isn’t a flaw in the respondent’s argument; he can concede a claim and still disagree with the conclusion.
B
takes for granted that teaching methods that are effective in mathematics are also effective in other academic disciplines
Like (E), the respondent doesn’t assume that moving from simple to complex concepts is effective in other academic disciplines; he explicitly states it. He says that “all teaching and learning must proceed from simple to complex,” and just uses math as an example.
C
fails to consider the possibility that some characteristics of lecturing other than hierarchy are weaknesses
The respondent is only addressing whether hierarchy is a weakness or a strength of lecturing. Any other potential weaknesses of lecturing are irrelevant.
D
applies a key concept to a different aspect of education than the aspect to which the debater applied it
The respondent uses "hierarchy" to refer to the difficulty of concepts, while the debater uses it to describe the power difference between teachers and students. The respondent never addresses whether the teacher-student hierarchy is a strength because he misapplies the term.
E
takes for granted that the conceptual structure of mathematics is sufficiently representative of the conceptual structure of at least some other academic disciplines
Like (B), the respondent doesn’t assume that moving from simple to complex concepts in math is representative of other disciplines; he explicitly states it. Regardless, he still never addresses whether the teacher-student hierarchy is a strength or a weakness.
Summary
The stimulus says that stress often causes high blood pressure. Also, some people can calm their minds to lower their stress and thus reduce their blood pressure. Finally, most people can calm their minds by exercising.
In Lawgic, this looks like:
P1. calm mind -s→ lower stress -s→ lower BP
P2. exercise -m→ calm mind
In Lawgic, this looks like:
P1. calm mind -s→ lower stress -s→ lower BP
P2. exercise -m→ calm mind
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The stimulus supports the conclusion that some people can probably use exercise to lower their blood pressure.
In Lawgic, this means combining the premises listed above to look like:
P1. exercise -m→ calm mind -s→ lower stress -s→ lower BP
In Lawgic, this means combining the premises listed above to look like:
P1. exercise -m→ calm mind -s→ lower stress -s→ lower BP
A
For at least some people, having lower blood pressure has at least some tendency to cause their stress levels to be reduced.
This is not supported. The stimulus tells us about a causal link where high stress can cause high blood pressure, not the other way around.
B
Most people with high blood pressure can lower their blood pressure by reducing their stress levels.
This is not supported. Reading closely, the stimulus only says that stress is a “common” cause of high blood pressure. “Common” doesn’t equate to “most.” Instead, it would be better translated as “some,” which does not support this inference.
C
Most people who do not exercise regularly have higher stress levels as a result.
This is not supported. Firstly, most people can calm their minds by exercising, but a calm mind only sometimes reduces stress—maybe less than half the time, we don’t know. Secondly, there may be other ways to calm the mind and reduce stress without exercising.
D
Engaging in exercise can directly lower one’s blood pressure.
This is not supported. The stimulus describes a very indirect mechanism for exercise to sometimes lower blood pressure: we need the intermediate steps of calm mind and stress reduction first. That’s definitely not a direct link between exercise and lower blood pressure.
E
For at least some people, engaging in exercise can cause their stress levels to be reduced.
This is strongly supported. Based on the stimulus, exercise can calm the mind, which can reduce stress, which can reduce blood pressure. None of these steps is guaranteed, but it seems very likely that at least some people make it all the way to lower blood pressure.