Mario: I see that the only rug store in Glendale has gone out of business. Evidently there’s little demand for rugs in Glendale. So if you’re planning to open a new business there, rugs would be one product to avoid.

Renate: It’s true that the store is gone, but its closing had little to do with the product it sold. All this means is that the market for rugs in Glendale is now wide open.

Speaker 1 Summary
Mario concludes that we should avoid starting a new rug business in Glendale. This is because the only rug store in Glendale has gone out of business, which suggests there’s little demand for rugs there.

Speaker 2 Summary
Renate’s implicit conclusion is that if we’re interest in opening a new business in Glendale, we don’t need to avoid rugs. This is because the closing of the previous rug store didn’t have to do with demand, which indicates that the market for rugs in Glendale is now completely open.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether rugs are a product to avoid when starting a new business in Glendale.

A
the rug store in Glendale sold rugs of inferior quality
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody discusses the quality of rugs sold by the previous store or whether the store’s closing suggests anything about the quality of rugs.
B
it is a good idea to open a rug store in Glendale
This is a point of disagreement. Mario thinks it’s not a good idea. Renate thinks it can be.
C
it is possible to determine the market for rugs in Glendale
If “market for rugs” means anything beyond the general size of the market, then the speakers don’t have an opinion. If it means only the general market size, then both think we can determine it. Mario thinks the market is small. Renate thinks the market is wide open.
D
any other stores have gone out of business in Glendale
Neither expresses an opinion. Nobody discusses other stores in Glendale or whether they have gone out of business.
E
rug stores can close because of insufficient demand for rugs
Renate doesn’t express an opinion. She acknowledges that the prior rug store closed, but says it wasn’t because of lack of demand. She doesn’t say anything suggesting lack of demand for rugs can or cannot lead to closing of a rug store.

15 comments

Researchers asked 100 fifty-year-olds and 100 twenty-year-olds whether they gave blood. Because nearly twice as many fifty-year-olds as twenty-year-olds reported that they sometimes gave blood, the researchers concluded that, on average, fifty-year-olds are more altruistic than twenty-year-olds. But there is reason for skepticism. Many people hesitate to admit that their behavior does not conform to societal expectations.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Certain researchers concluded that, on average, 50-year-olds are more altruistic than 20-year-olds. This conclusion was based on a study in which twice as many 50-year-olds as 20-year-olds, out of a sample of 100 of each group, reported sometimes donating blood.
The author concludes that there’s reason to be skeptical of the researchers’ conclusion. This is because many people hesitate to admit that their behavior doesn’t fit what society expects. (The implication is that there’s another explanation for the disparity in reported blood donations.)

Describe Method of Reasoning
The author presents an alternative hypothesis to explain the disparity in reported blood donations. Maybe the 50-year-olds exaggerated?

A
showing that the data are based on an unrepresentative sample
There’s no comment about the background/features of people who were part of the study. What the author’s suggesting is that we can’t trust the “reports.” This doesn’t mean the samples were unrepresentative.
B
offering an alternative explanation of some of the data
The author suggests that one reason the 50-year-olds might have reported donating blood at a higher rate than the 20-year-olds reported doing so is that many 50-year-olds might not have wanted to admit that they didn’t donate.
C
showing that one cannot directly observe altruism
The author could believe that it’s possible to directly observe altruism (for ex., we see someone give away a ton of money for free). The author doesn’t show that this is impossible to observe. What she suggeests is that some 50-year-olds might be lying about donating blood.
D
criticizing the motives of the researchers
The author doesn’t say anything about the motives of the researchers. She simply comments on an alternative explanation for the results of the study.
E
offering a specific counterexample
The author doesn’t bring up a 50-year-old who didn’t donate, or a 20-year-old who did. (These aren’t “counterexamples” anyway, since you can’t have a counterexample to an average or a general tendency, which already allow for exceptions.)

21 comments

Monroe: Our organization’s project has been a failure. Our stated goal was to reduce as much as possible the number of homes in the community that lack electricity. Now, at the project’s conclusion, approximately 2,000 homes are still without electricity.

Wilkerson: But before the project began, over 5,000 homes in the community had no electricity. Surely bringing electricity to around 3,000 homes counts as a success for the project.

Speaker 1 Summary
Monroe claims that a recent project was a failure. Why? Because the project’s goal was to bring electricity to as many homes as possible in the community. But now that the project is over, 2,000 homes still don’t have electricity. To Monroe, this shows that the project didn’t meet its goal.

Speaker 2 Summary
Wilkerson’s unstated conclusion is that the project was successful. How do we know? Because the project did bring electricity to 3,000 homes. And Wilkerson believes that providing electricity to 3,000 homes counts as a success, so we can infer the conclusion that the project was successful.

Objective
We want to find a disagreement between Monroe and Wilkerson. They disagree about whether or not the project was a failure.

A
Approximately 2,000 homes in the community are still without electricity.
Both speakers agree that this is true. Monroe claims this explicitly, and Wilkerson gets to it indirectly by saying that of 5,000 homes without electricity, 3,000 are now connected, which leaves 2,000 without electricity.
B
Before the organization’s project began, over 5,000 homes in the community had no electricity.
Wilkerson agrees with this, and Monroe never states a position. Monroe doesn’t discuss how many homes lacked electricity before the project started, so there’s no reason to think that the speakers disagree.
C
The organization’s project must be considered a failure if any home in the community has no electricity.
Wilkerson disagrees, but Monroe never agrees with this. Monroe thinks that 2,000 homes having no electricity counts as a failure, but doesn’t give a lower bound to this failure condition. Maybe if only one home had no electricity, Monroe would be content—we don’t know.
D
The stated goal of the project was to reduce as much as possible the number of homes in the community that lack electricity.
Monroe states this directly, and Wilkerson never disagrees. Wilkerson has different criteria for success than Monroe, but still doesn’t contradict Monroe about the project’s stated goal.
E
Leaving approximately 2,000 homes in the community without electricity at the conclusion of the project counts as a failure for the project.
Monroe agrees with this, and Wilkerson disagrees, making this their disagreement. From 2,000 homes lacking electricity, Monroe concludes that the project failed, implying this principle. However, Wilkerson thinks the project succeeded despite those 2,000 homes.

9 comments

Flynn: Allowing people to collect large damage awards when they successfully sue corporations that produce dangerous products clearly benefits consumers, since the possibility of large awards gives corporations a strong incentive to reduce safety risks associated with their products.

Garcia: Without sensible limits, damage awards can be so high that corporations are destroyed. As a result, employees lose their jobs and the productivity of the corporation is lost. This harms the economy and thus harms consumers.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Flynn concludes that allowing people to get large damage awards in lawsuits against corporations that produce dangerous products is beneficial for consumers. This is because he thinks the possibility of having to pay large damages creates an incentive for corporations to make products more safe.
Garcia disagrees and concludes that large damage awards harm consumers. This is because he thinks paying large damages can destroy corporations, which leads to job loss and loss of productivity, which hurts the economy.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Garcia points out potential harms of large damage awards.

A
arguing that the policy supported in Flynn’s argument could have undesirable consequences
Garcia argues that the policy supported by Flynn (allowing large damage awards against corporations) could have the undesirable consequences of job loss and damage to the economy.
B
providing evidence that undermines one of the premises of Flynn’s argument
Garcia never suggests that large damage awards don’t create an incentive to make products safer. So Garcia doesn’t undermine Flynn’s premise.
C
comparing Flynn’s argument to an obviously flawed argument that has the same logical structure
Garcia doesn’t compare Flynn’s argument to another argument. There is no analogous argument that Garcia brings up.
D
contending that Flynn’s argument could be used to support a policy that is inconsistent with the policy that Flynn advocates
The policy Flynn advocates is allowing large damage awards against corporations. Garcia never suggests that Flynn’s own argument supports disallowing large damage awards. Garcia presents his own, separate argument from Flynn’s against large damage awards.
E
providing an alternative explanation for a situation described in Flynn’s argument
Neither person is trying to explain a situation. They’re advocating for or against allowing large damage awards against corporations.

11 comments