Scientist: Some colonies of bacteria produce antibiotic molecules called phenazines, which they use to fend off other bacteria. We hypothesize that phenazines also serve as molecular pipelines that give interior bacteria access to essential nutrients in the environment surrounding the colony.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that one of the functions of phenazines is to serve as molecular pipelines that give interior bacteria access to essential nutrients in the environment surrounding the colony.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that it’s possible for phenazines to have more than one function. The author also assumes that phenazines are able to provide nutrients to interior bacteria.

A
Bacteria colonies that do not produce phenazines form wrinkled surfaces, thus increasing the number of bacteria that are in direct contact with the surrounding environment.
This provides evidence that corroborates the author’s hypothesis. Without phenazines, more bacteria must contact the surrounding environment, possibly to get access to nutrients. This makes the theory that phenazines give interior bacteria access to nutrients more plausible.
B
The rate at which a bacteria colony produces phenazines is determined by the number of foreign bacteria in the environment immediately surrounding the colony.
This connects production of phenazines to foreign bacteria. But this has no clear impact. We want an answer that connects phenazines to the need to access nutrients.
C
When bacteria colonies that do not produce phenazines are buried in nutrient-rich soil, they grow as quickly as colonies that do produce phenazines.
We still have no reason to think phenazines provide nutrients to interior bacteria. If anything, this is in the direction of a weakener, since we might think non-phenazine bacteria shouldn’t grow as quickly when buried in the soil.
D
Bacteria colonies that produce phenazines are better able to fend off other bacteria than are bacteria colonies that do not produce phenazines.
This connects phenazines to ability to fend off other bacteria. But this has no clear connection to the provision of nutrients to interior bacteria.
E
Within bacteria colonies that produce phenazines, interior bacteria are more likely to die than are bacteria along the edges.
It doesn’t help the author’s hypothesis to learn that interior bacteria die more quickly. We would still have no reason to believe phenazines provide nutrients to interior bacteria.

72 comments

Political scientist: One of the most interesting dilemmas in contemporary democratic politics concerns the regulation of political campaign spending. People certainly should be free, within broad limits, to spend their money as they choose. On the other hand, candidates who can vastly outspend all rivals have an unfair advantage in publicizing their platforms. Democratic governments have a strong obligation to ensure that all voices have an equal chance to be heard, but governments should not subsidize expensive campaigns for each candidate. The resolution of the dilemma, therefore, is clear: _______.

Summary

The political scientist tells us about a dilemma regarding campaign spending. People should generally get to spend their money freely, but it’s also unfair that some candidates are able to far outspend others. The government should ensure that all candidates’ voices have a more equal chance to be heard. However, the government should not subsidize everyone’s expensive election campaigns.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

One strongly supported conclusion is that the government should intervene rather than allowing the unfair status quo to continue. Another is that the government should level the playing field by limiting campaign spending, which wouldn’t require subsidies.

A
only candidates with significant campaign resources should be permitted to run for public office

This is anti-supported. The political scientist says that the government should allow all voices an equal chance, and banning candidates who don’t have lots of money would do the opposite.

B
an upper limit on the political campaign spending of each candidate is warranted

This is strongly supported by the stimulus. The political scientist tells us that campaign finance discrepancies are unfair, and the government should ensure more equality. However, we shouldn’t subsidize campaigns, so the remaining option is spending limits.

C
government subsidization of all political campaigns at a low percentage of their total cost is warranted

This is anti-supported by the stimulus. The political scientist thinks that we should reduce the unfair spending advantage of some candidates over others, and paying for an equal portion of all campaigns would leave everyone just as unequal as ever.

D
all wealthy persons should be prohibited from spending their own money on political campaigns

This is anti-supported. The political scientist claims that in general, people should be allowed to spend their money freely, with only certain “broad” limits. An extreme limitation like this would be totally at odds with that principle.

E
each candidate should be allowed to spend as much money on a political campaign as any other candidate chooses to spend

This claim is anti-supported. The political scientist’s point is that allowing total freedom in campaign spending results in an unfair advantage for some candidates, which we should be trying to fix, not allowing to go ahead.


14 comments