Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that Travaillier Corporation is trying to attract new customers. Her evidence is that Travaillier is trying to expand its operations into bus tours, despite the fact most of Travaillier’s customers usually travel by air and haven’t changed their preferences
Notable Assumptions
In order for Travaillier to be attempting to attract new customers, the author must assume that its current customers aren’t interested in bus tours. While these customers usually travel by air, we have no idea whether or not they’re open to bus tours as vacation options, either in lieu of or in addition to air travel. She also assumes that, even if these travellers don’t currently want bus tours, Travaillier isn’t trying to increase their interest in bus tours rather than attract entirely new customers.
A
In the past, Travaillier has found it very difficult to change its customers’ vacation preferences.
The author claims Travaillier isn’t trying to change its customers’ vacation preferences.
B
Several travel companies other than Travaillier have recently tried and failed to expand into the bus tour business.
We don’t care if other companies have tried and failed. Travaillier might be trying, as well.
C
At least one of Travaillier’s new employees not only has experience in the bus tour industry but has also designed air travel vacation packages.
Even taking away new hires as evidence, the fact Travaillier has been negotiating with charter bus companies suggests they might be trying to break into bus tours.
D
Some of Travaillier’s competitors have increased profits by concentrating their attention on their customers who spend the most on vacations.
We don’t know if people taking bus tours spend the most on vacations.
E
The industry consultants employed by Travaillier typically recommend that companies expand by introducing their current customers to new products and services.
Travaillier isn’t trying to get new customers—they’re trying to change their current customers’ preferences. If we added this as an addition premise, the author’s conclusion wouldn’t follow.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that snoring can damage the throat of the snorer. This is because of a study showing that throat surgery patients who snored frequently were more likely to have throat abnormalities than patients who didn’t snore frequently.
Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation between snoring and throat abnormalities, the author assumes that snoring causes throat abnormalities. This means the author doesn’t believe the relationship is the reverse (i.e. that throat abnormalities cause snoring) or that some hidden third factor accounts for both snoring and throat abnormalities.
A
The study relied on the subjects’ self-reporting to determine whether or not they snored frequently.
This suggests the study was possibly flawed. That would weaken the author’s argument, whereas we’re trying to strengthen it.
B
The patients’ throat surgery was not undertaken to treat abnormalities in their throat muscles.
We don’t care what the surgeries did. These abnormalities existed before the surgeries, and were correlated with patients who snored more frequently than other patients.
C
All of the test subjects were of similar age and weight and in similar states of health.
This might actually weaken the author’s argument. If all the test subjects were otherwise equal, then that leaves open the door some unaccounted for third factor to do with age, weight, or health was responsible for their throat abnormalities.
D
People who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery.
We’re not interested in who undergoes throat surgery. We need to strengthen the connection between snoring and throat abnormalities, whereas this tries to weaken the connection between throat surgery and snoring.
E
The abnormalities in the throat muscles discovered in the study do not cause snoring.
This defends against the obvious counterargument: the causation is actually reversed. Throat abnormalities don’t cause snoring, so we can rule that out as an alternate explanation.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
There should not be prohibitions against pets in nursing homes. This is because pets can relieve stress and thereby improve a person’s health. Pets can also make time at a nursing home more fulfilling.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that there should not be prohibitions against pets in nursing homes: “these should be lifted.”
A
As the average life span increases, it will be important to more people that life in nursing homes be rewarding.
This is context. It provides background for why it is important to take measures to make living in a nursing home more rewarding, such as by allowing pets.
B
Residents of nursing homes should enjoy the same rewarding aspects of life as anyone else.
This is not mentioned in the stimulus.
C
The policy that many nursing homes have should be changed so that residents are allowed to have pets.
This rephrases the conclusion.
D
Having a pet can reduce one’s stress and thereby make one a healthier person.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion that prohibitions against pets in nursing homes should be lifted.
E
The benefits older people derive from having pets need to be recognized, especially as the average life span increases.
The conclusion of the argument is not that these benefits should be recognized, but that the prohibitions against pets in nursing homes should be lifted. The author provides evidence for this conclusion by outlining some of the benefits older people derive from having pets.