Higuchi: I disagree. More than one factor must be considered: A victim who recovers the use of personal property after two years is owed more than a victim who recovers its use after only one year.
Speaker 1 Summary
Davis concludes that the compensation for property damage or theft should be based solely on the value of the property damaged or stolen. This is because the harm to the victim is directly proportional to that value.
Speaker 2 Summary
Higuchi concludes that the compensation should be based on more than just the value of the property damaged or stolen. This is because how quickly the victim recovers the property should influence the compensation.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree on whether compensation for property damage or theft should be based on more than just the value of the property. Davis thinks it should be based only on the value of the property. Higuchi thinks it should include consideration of when the victim recovered the property.
A
It is possible to consistently and reliably determine the amount of compensation owed to someone whose property was damaged or stolen.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. They tell us about certain factors they think are relevant to compensation. But whether we can make reliable and consistent calculations about compensation amounts is not discussed.
B
Some victims are owed increased compensation because of the greater dollar value of the damage done to their property.
This is not a point of disagreement. Davis agrees that value matters for determining compensation, and there’s no evidence Higuchi disagrees that value matters.
C
Victims who are deprived of their property are owed compensation in proportion to the harm they have suffered.
Not a point of disagreement. Davis agrees and thinks harm should be measured by the value of the property. We can’t say Higuchi disagrees. He may want other factors included in how we measure harm, but there’s no evidence he thinks compensation shouldn’t be based on harm.
D
Some victims are owed increased compensation because of the greater amount of time they are deprived of the use of their property.
This is a point of disagreement. Davis thinks time of deprivation shouldn’t be a factor in compensation; only value of the property matters. Higuchi thinks time of deprivation should be a factor in compensation.
E
The compensation owed to victims should be determined on a case-by-case basis rather than by some general rule.
Not a point of disagreement. Both speakers advocate for a general rule for calculating compensation. They may disagree about specific factors that should be part of that rule, but they both advocate for a rule.
Robert: They are not nostalgic for the recent past, but for the distant past, which the prerevolutionary regime despised; this indicates that although they are troubled, they do not regret the revolution.
Speaker 1 Summary
Marc concludes that the people regret the recent revolution. This is based on the fact that the people look back on the past with a lot of nostalgia.
Speaker 2 Summary
Robert concludes that people don’t regret the revolution. This is because people are nostalgic for the distant past, not the more recent past.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of agreement. Both speakers agree that the people are nostalgic for some aspect of the past, and that this nostalgia allows us to draw inferences about whether the people regret or don’t regret the revolution.
A
tend to underrate past problems when the country faces troubling times
Neither speaker has an opinion about what people tend to do. They argue only about what the nostalgic feelings of the people indicate about the people’s feelings concerning the recent revolution.
B
are looking to the past for solutions to the country’s current problems
Neither speaker has an opinion. Neither suggests anyone is looking for solutions. They may have nostalgia for the past, but this doesn’t indicate the presence of solutions in the past.
C
are likely to repeat former mistakes if they look to the country’s past for solutions to current problems
Neither speaker has an opinion. Neither suggests anyone is likely to make another mistake.
D
are concerned about the country’s current situation and this is evidenced by their nostalgia
This is a point of agreement. They acknowledge the people are nostalgic for the past. Marc believes this nostalgia shows regret for the revolution. Robert believes this indicates people are troubled. This supports agreement that people are “concerned” as shown by the nostalgia.
E
tend to be most nostalgic for the things that are the farthest in their past
Neither speaker has an opinion. Neither suggests what people tend to be most nostalgic about. Neither speaks about different degrees of nostalgia.
</section
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that moral socialization has had a net effect of increasing the total amount of suffering. This is based on the premise that in many people, the shame that is caused by moral socialization results in feelings of guilt and self-loathing that can be a severe hardship for those people.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author makes a conclusion about the net effect of moral socialization on the total amount of suffering in the world, but only describes one factor that increases suffering. This overlooks the possibility that moral socialization has effects that reduce suffering that might outweigh the increase in suffering described by the author.
A
overlooks the possibility that the purported source of a problem could be modified to avoid that problem without being eliminated altogether
The author does not assume that moral socialization cannot be changed in the future. The author’s conclusion is solely about the effect moral socialization has had until this point.
B
fails to address adequately the possibility that one phenomenon may causally contribute to the occurrence of another, even though the two phenomena do not always occur together
The author does not assume that there is no causal relationship between two things. The author’s assumption is that the increase in moral suffering caused by the feelings of guilt/self-loathing in many people is not outweighed by a reduction in suffering in other people.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that a phenomenon that supposedly increases the total amount of suffering in a society should therefore be changed or eliminated, regardless of its beneficial consequences
The author does not conclude that any aspect of how we socialize children should be changed or eliminated. The author’s conclusion is simply a descriptive statement about the effect of moral socialization.
D
takes for granted that a behavior that sometimes leads to a certain phenomenon cannot also significantly reduce the overall occurrence of that phenomenon
The author thinks that because moral socialization sometimes leads to suffering (by causing many to feel shame), it can’t significantly reduce overall suffering. This is flawed because moral socialization might help reduce suffering in others, thus reducing suffering overall.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that if many people have a negative psychological reaction to a phenomenon, then no one can have a positive reaction to that phenomenon
The author doesn’t assume that “no one” can have a “positive reaction” to moral socialization. Some people might react positively; as long as this reaction isn’t a reduction in suffering enough to outweigh the increased suffering in many people, this doesn’t hurt the argument.
All parrots can learn to speak a few words and phrases. Not all parrots have equally pleasant dispositions, though some of those native to Australia can be counted on for a sweet temper. Almost any parrot, however, will show tremendous affection for an owner who raised the bird from a chick by hand-feeding it.
Summary
All parrots can learn to speak a few words and phrases. Most parrots will show tremendous affection for an owner who raised the bird from a chick by hand-feeding it. Some parrots native to Australia can be counted on for a sweet temper, but not all parrots have equally pleasant dispositions.
Notable Valid Inferences
Some parrots that can learn to speak a few words and phrases can be counted on for a sweet temper.
Some parrots that can learn to speak a few words and phrases show tremendous affection for an owner who raised the bird from a chick.
A
Some parrots that can learn to speak are sweet tempered.
Must be true. As shown below, if all parrots can learn to speak and some parrots are sweet tempered, then there must be some overlap between parrots that can learn to speak and parrots that are sweet tempered. 
B
If a parrot is not native to Australia, then it will be sweet tempered only if it is hand-fed as a chick.
Could be false. We only have a condition about some parrots that are native to Australia. Moreover, as shown in our diagram, being hand-fed is not a necessary condition for being sweet tempered.
C
The sweetest-tempered parrots are those native to Australia.
Could be false. We only know that some parrots native to Australia are sweet-tempered, but we don’t know which ones are the sweetest.
D
Australia is the only place where one can find birds that can both learn to speak and be relied on for a sweet temper.
Could be false. We know that there are parrots native to Australia with these characteristics, but to say that Australia is the only place is too extreme.
E
All species of pet birds that are native to Australia can be counted on for a sweet temper.
Could be false. We only know that some parrots native to Australia can be counted on for a sweet temper. All species of pet birds is too broad of a statement to be supported by the stimulus.
Summarize Argument
The toxicologist concludes that the use of dioxin should be completely banned. The support for this recommendation is that research has shown that dioxin causes cancer in rats.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is used to support the toxicologist’s recommendation that dioxin be completely banned.
A
It is presented as the hazard that the researcher is concerned with preventing.
The hazard that the researcher is concerned with preventing is cancer in humans, not cancer in rats.
B
It is presented as a benefit of not acting on the recommendation in the conclusion.
The claim in the question stem is used as support for the recommendation in the conclusion, not as a benefit of not acting on the recommendation in the conclusion.
C
It is presented as evidence for the claim that similar research will never be done on humans.
The argument does not provide evidence for the claim that similar research will never be done on humans.
D
It is presented as a finding that motivates the course of action advocated in the conclusion.
The research mentioned in the question stem is used to support the recommendation in the conclusion to ban dioxin.
E
It is presented as evidence for the claim that similar research has never been done on humans.
The argument does not provide evidence for the claim that similar research has never been done on humans.