Mendez: But news stories, along with popular art, provide a wealth of information about what the people of an era thought and felt.
Speaker 1 Summary
Logan claims that old newspapers are useless to historians. Why are they useless? Because newspapers have only ever focused on minor matters, without paying any attention to larger changes in society. (Logan is also assuming that the only knowledge that’s useful to historians is about those larger changes in society.)
Speaker 2 Summary
Mendez’s argument is designed to support the idea that newspapers are useful to historians, although this is implied rather than stated. To lead to this conclusion, Mendez says that news stories and popular art are a good source of knowledge about people’s thoughts and feelings. (Mendez is assuming that this knowledge is useful to historians.)
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement. Logan and Mendez disagree about whether historical newspapers are useful to historians.
A
newspapers accurately report the most important changes taking place in a society
Logan disagrees with this, and Mendez never contradicts Logan’s position. If anything, Mendez seems to accept this claim, and instead focuses on other useful knowledge that newspapers can provide.
B
the study of previous eras should include investigations of the conventions of newspaper reporting
Neither speaker talks about what historians should investigate when studying previous eras. All we know is what Logan and Mendez think about newspapers’ usefulness. We can’t assume that that translates into concrete directions for historians to investigate or not.
C
popular art is an important source of information about what the people of previous eras thought and felt
Mendez would agree with this, but Logan never mentions popular art. The only opinions we know from Logan are about newspapers, so we can’t say whether the speakers agree or disagree about art.
D
newspapers ought to focus more on the types of stories they have glossed over in the past
Neither speaker makes any claim about what newspapers should do now or in the future. We can’t know if the speakers’ opinions about newspapers as a historical source have any bearing on their opinions about what modern newspapers should report on.
E
newspaper reports from former eras are useful sources of material for understanding the past
Logan disagrees with this and Mendez agrees, so this is the point of disagreement. Logan states that newspapers are not useful to historians. Mendez, however, brings up a way that newspapers can be useful, supporting the implied conclusion that they are useful.
Summary
Cezanne’s work inspired twentieth-century modernist abstract artists. Most experts categorize Cezanne as an early modernist. Some say Cezanne was not an early modernist. Cachin says that Cezanne’s work is too often viewed from a modernist point of view.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Cezanne’s work inspired modernist art. Some experts disagree about whether Cezanne was an early modernist himself.
A
Cézanne’s work is highly controversial.
This is unsupported because the debate is over how to categorize Cezanne, not over Cezanne’s work. Also, a few dissenters doesn’t support the notion of Cezanne being highly controversial.
B
Cézanne was an early creator of abstract art.
This is unsupported because there is disagreement regarding whether Cezanne was a creator of abstract art, and this question has not been resolved by the stimulus.
C
Cézanne’s work helped to develop modernism.
This is supported because the first sentence states that Cezanne inspired early modernists. While there is disagreement as to whether Cezanne was a modernist, there is no disagreement over whether Cezanne inspired other modernists.
D
Modern art owes less to Cézanne than many experts believe.
This is unsupported because the experts don’t disagree over how much modern art owes to Cezanne.
E
Cézanne’s work tends to be misinterpreted as modernist.
This is unsupported because some people say that Cezanne’s work is in fact modernist, and the author doesn’t help us determine whether those people are right or wrong.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that biologists disagree about which species of fish from which humans evolved. The author proceeds to outline two biologists’ perspectives. The biologists agree that frogs are related to this species of fish. Dr. Stevens-Hoyt says that lungfish are the ancestor of humans because the mitochondrial DNA of lungfish is similar to that of frogs. Dr. Grover rejects Dr. Stevens-Hoyt because mitochondrial DNA evolves too rapidly to demonstrate relationships between species. Rather, Dr. Stevens believes that coelacanths are the ancestor of humans because the hemoglobin of coelacanths matches that of tadpoles.
Identify Argument Part
The proposition in the question stem refers to a point of agreement between the scientists.
A
Since it implies that human beings are not descended from lungfish, it is cited as evidence against the claim that humans are descended from lungfish.
The proposition in the question stem does not imply that human beings are not descended from lungfish. The author does not take a side in this dispute; the author simply provides a brief outline of two different theories.
B
Since it implies that human beings are not descended from coelacanths, it is offered as evidence against the claim that human beings are descended from coelacanths.
The proposition in the question stem does not imply that human beings are not descended from coelacanths. The author does not take a side in this dispute; the author simply provides a brief outline of two different theories.
C
It is offered as evidence for the contention that human beings must be descended from either lungfish or coelacanths.
The author does not say definitively that either Dr. Stevens-Hoyt or Dr. Grover must be correct; the author is simply outlining two different theories. The author does not contend that humans must be descended from either lungfish or coelacanths.
D
It is an assumption that both parties to the dispute use as a starting point for their arguments about human evolution.
Both biologists use the fact that frogs are related to the species of fish from which humans evolved as a premise for their arguments. This is a point of agreement; while they draw different conclusions from this information, it is a key premise for each argument.
E
It implies that either a match of mitochondrial DNA or a match of hemoglobin between lungfish and coelacanths would show that human beings evolved from one of these two species.
The claim in (E) is not an implication made by the argument.