Brigita: That traditional definition of full employment was developed before the rise of temporary and part-time work and the fall in benefit levels. When people are juggling several part-time jobs with no benefits, or working in a series of temporary assignments, as is now the case, 5 percent unemployment is not full employment.
Speaker 1 Summary
Constance claims that it is correct to define full employment as a 5 percent unemployment rate. Why? Because when unemployment drops below 5 percent, inflation increases.
Speaker 2 Summary
Brigita argues that 5 percent unemployment is truly full employment. Why not? Because Constance’s definition doesn’t account for modern working conditions. Brigita says that when people are working multiple part-time or temporary jobs, 5 percent unemployment is not full employment. Furthermore, people currently do work in those conditions. Thus, 5 percent unemployment is not actually full employment.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Constance and Brigita disagree about whether full employment can be accurately defined as a 5 percent unemployment rate.
A
what definition of full employment is applicable under contemporary economic conditions
Constance thinks that the traditional definition of 5 percent unemployment is applicable. However, Brigita thinks that contemporary conditions make the traditional definition inapplicable. This is the speakers’ point of disagreement.
B
whether it is a good idea, all things considered, to allow the unemployment level to drop below 5 percent
Neither speaker makes a claim about whether it would be good or bad to allow unemployment to drop below 5 percent. Constance says that inflation rises when the unemployment rate is below 5 percent, but doesn’t say whether that’s a good or bad thing.
C
whether a person with a part-time job should count as fully employed
Neither speaker talks about the meaning of a individuals being fully employed. Constance and Brigita’s discussion is about full employment on a larger scale, across a whole economy.
D
whether the number of part-time and temporary workers has increased since the traditional definition of full employment was developed
Brigita agrees with this, but Constance doesn’t express an opinion. Constance thinks that the traditional definition is accurate, but that doesn’t mean she thinks there isn’t more part-time and temporary employment now.
E
whether unemployment levels above 5 percent can cause inflation levels to rise
Neither speaker claims that this is the case. Constance only says that unemployment levels below 5 percent cause inflation to rise, and Brigita doesn’t say anything about inflation. We don’t know what either speaker thinks about unemployment being over 5 percent.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that studies don’t necessarily indicate that melatonin helps people with insomnia. This is because few of the studies dealt with people with insomnia, and very people in the studies overall were significantly affected by melatonin.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that people with insomnia are categorically different than other people when it comes to falling asleep. If this wasn’t true, then insomniacs wouldn’t have to be included in the study for the study to work. The author also assumes that melatonin has to significantly help one fall asleep in order for melatonin to be helpful in treating insomnia.
A
A weaker correlation between taking melatonin and the inducement of sleep was found in the studies that included people with insomnia than in the studies that did not.
We have no idea if the weaker correlation actually featured people with insomnia. If it didn’t feature. those people, then this doesn’t strengthen the author’s argument.
B
None of the studies that suggested that taking melatonin tablets can induce sleep examined a fully representative sample of the human population.
We don’t need that sample to be fully representative. The author seems to think that sample simply has to represent or focus on people with insomnia.
C
In the studies that included subjects with insomnia, only subjects without insomnia were significantly affected by doses of melatonin.
When people with insomnia were included in the studies, they didn’t derive any great benefit from melatonin. This shows that melatonin isn’t terribly helpful for people with insomnia.
D
Several people who were in control groups and only given placebos claimed that the tablets induced sleep.
Irrelevant. We have no idea if these people had insomnia.
E
If melatonin were helpful in treating insomnia, then every person with insomnia who took doses of melatonin would appear to be significantly affected by it.
We don’t know if anyone who has insomnia was actually given melatonin in these studies.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people who refrain from comparing themselves to others will most likely be self-accepting and accepting of others. This is based on the fact that constantly comparing oneself with those one sees are more successful leads to self-disparagement. And, constantly comparing oneself with those one sees as less successful leads to be dismissive of others.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that there are no other ways to be self-disparaging and dismissive of others besides comparing oneself to those one sees as more successful or less successful. This overlooks the possibility that even if you stop comparing yourself to others, you might still self-disparage or dismiss others. The argument also assumes that if you’re not self-disparaging, you’ll be self-accepting, and that if you don’t dismiss others, you’ll accept others.
A
overlooks the possibility that one can compare oneself both to those one perceives to be more able and more successful than oneself and to those one perceives to be less able and less successful than oneself
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument. Perhaps someone can compare oneself both to people thought of as more successful and people thought of as less successful. The author’s conclusion concerns what happens if you stop comparing yourself to anybody at all.
B
overlooks the possibility that constantly comparing oneself to others may have beneficial effects that those who refrain from making such comparisons are deprived of
The conclusion is not a recommendation that you shouldn’t compare yourself to others. It’s simply a description of what the author thinks will happen regarding self-acceptance and acceptance of others. Other benefits from comparison have no impact on this conclusion.
C
takes for granted that if one is both dismissive of others and self-disparaging, one will not be self-accepting and accepting of others
One assumption is that NOT being self-disparaging implies self-acceptance, and NOT being dismissive of others implies accepting others. (C) wrongly turns this into the idea that being self-disparaging implies NOT self-accepting, and being dismissive implies NOT accepting others.
D
overlooks the possibility that self-disparagement and being dismissive of others can result from something other than comparing oneself to others
If this possibility were true, the conclusion does not follow. Refraining from comparisons could not be expected to lead to avoidance of self-disparagement and dismissiveness if there were other things that caused these feelings. So overlooking this possibility is a flaw.
E
takes for granted that whenever one compares oneself to others one sees them as more successful and more able than oneself or less successful and less able than oneself
The author is open to the idea that not all comparisons involve people you think of as better/worse. The author simply asserts that if you don’t compare yourself to anyone, you’ll avoid things that we know result from comparing yourself to people you think of as better/worse.
Cookie Cutter Review
Flaw - (B) circular reasoning
(A) bad analogy
(C) failure to prove not X confused for proof of X
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that human behavior can’t be fully understood without inquiring into nonphysical aspects of humans. This is based on the following line of reasoning: If we had a complete account of physical aspects of a human action, we still wouldn’t comprehend the action or why it occurred.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author uses circular reasoning. The premise — the idea that if we had a complete physical account of a human action, we still wouldn’t comprehend the action — assumes that human behavior can’t be fully understood without investigating nonphysical aspects. Nobody would accept the premise unless they already accept the conclusion.
A
No support is offered for its conclusion other than an analogy that relates only superficially to the issue at hand.
The author doesn’t point to similarities between two things in order to conclude another similarity. Also, the premise is not just superficially related to the conclusion. It assumes the conclusion is true. This isn’t good reasoning, but that doesn’t make the premise irrelevant.
B
The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true.
The purported evidence (the idea that a complete understanding of physical aspects of a human action still wouldn’t constitute comprehension of the action) assumes that understanding human actions requires something beyond an understanding of physical aspects.
C
It concludes that a proposition must be true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false.
The premise does not assert that there’s no evidence against the idea that understanding human behavior requires inquiry into nonphysical aspects.
D
It fails to indicate whether the speaker is aware of any evidence that could undermine the conclusion.
Arguments do not have to mention anything about the author’s awareness of potential counterevidence. Although the existence of counterevidence could hurt an argument, it’s not a flaw to omit whether you’re aware of counterevidence.
E
It presumes, without providing justification, that science can provide a complete account of any physical phenomenon.
The author asks us to “suppose” that we had a complete scientific account of physical aspects. This doesn’t mean the author thinks science actually can provide such an account. We’re just considering this hypothetical for the sake of following a line of reasoning.
Cookie Cutter Review
Flaw - (B) circular reasoning
(A) bad analogy
(C) failure to prove not X confused for proof of X