Lorraine: The general public, unlike people in government, is unwilling or unable to become informed about foreign-policy issues. Therefore, the introduction of such referenda would lead to foreign-policy disaster.
Summarize Argument
Lorraine concludes that introducing referenda in France would be a disaster for foreign policy. This is because the general public is, and will continue to be, uninformed on foreign policy.
Notable Assumptions
Lorraine assumes that it’s preferable to give power to a small group of people who lack a mandate than to an ignorant general public. Even if the public knows nothing about foreign policy, governmental foreign policy could also be an utter disaster. This would mean that referenda are no worse than leaving things up to the government.
A
The public would become better informed about an issue in foreign policy if a referendum were held on it.
This weakens Lorraine’s argument. She claims referendums shouldn’t happen because people are uninformed, but people would inform themselves if referendums were to happen.
B
Not every issue would be subject to referendum, only the major outlines of policy.
The general public doesn’t know anything about foreign policy. Lorraine’s not saying they only lack the specifics.
C
Decision by referendum would make the overall course of policy unpredictable, and countries friendly to France could not make reasonable decisions based on a consistent French line.
This strengthens the claim that referendums would be a “disaster” for French foreign policy. France’s allies want predictable policy, but referendums would make policy unpredictable.
D
Requiring a large minimum number of voters’ signatures on a petition for a referendum would ensure that many people would consider the issue and treat it as important.
Like (A), this weakens Lorraine’s argument. The public would have to become informed for referendums to take place.
E
Elections decided mainly on foreign-policy issues have perhaps constituted ratifications by the public of past decisions, but certainly not judgments about future issues posing new problems.
This isn’t talking about referendums. We don’t care.
The label is correct: This video is Misc. PSA and not Principle. Ignore the first 10 seconds of the video.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that citation analysis will not encourage good academic work. This is because citation analysis works in a way where scientist will receive more citations by taking on short-term projects in fad areas rather than long-term projects.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that long-term projects more often constitute “good work” than short-term projects in fad areas. The author also assumes the latter leads to more citations than the former without providing any evidence to substantiate the claim.
A
In general scientific research is not referred to in journals until the research is completed.
Long-term, multi-year research won’t be cited until it’s completed. Thus, a scientist hoping for high citations per year likely won’t want to pursue such research.
B
Areas of science that are faddish at some point are not necessarily lacking in significance.
This undermines the author’s argument. Short-term, faddish work isn’t “good work” according to the author.
C
Research that is initially criticized in scientific journals sometimes turns out to be ground-breaking work.
We have no idea what will be criticized. The author doesn’t care about how research is received.
D
Scientists are sometimes hostile to interim assessments of ongoing research, since such assessments might threaten continuity of funding.
The author never mentions nor implies anything to do with interim assessments.
E
Scientists often cite their colleagues’ work when they think it is unfairly neglected by the scientific establishment.
Irrelevant. We have no idea what constitutes the “scientific establishment.”
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that biologists disagree about which species of fish from which humans evolved. The author proceeds to outline two biologists’ perspectives. The biologists agree that frogs are related to this species of fish. Dr. Stevens-Hoyt says that lungfish are the ancestor of humans because the mitochondrial DNA of lungfish is similar to that of frogs. Dr. Grover rejects Dr. Stevens-Hoyt because mitochondrial DNA evolves too rapidly to demonstrate relationships between species. Rather, Dr. Stevens believes that coelacanths are the ancestor of humans because the hemoglobin of coelacanths matches that of tadpoles.
Identify Argument Part
The proposition in the question stem refers to a point of agreement between the scientists.
A
Since it implies that human beings are not descended from lungfish, it is cited as evidence against the claim that humans are descended from lungfish.
The proposition in the question stem does not imply that human beings are not descended from lungfish. The author does not take a side in this dispute; the author simply provides a brief outline of two different theories.
B
Since it implies that human beings are not descended from coelacanths, it is offered as evidence against the claim that human beings are descended from coelacanths.
The proposition in the question stem does not imply that human beings are not descended from coelacanths. The author does not take a side in this dispute; the author simply provides a brief outline of two different theories.
C
It is offered as evidence for the contention that human beings must be descended from either lungfish or coelacanths.
The author does not say definitively that either Dr. Stevens-Hoyt or Dr. Grover must be correct; the author is simply outlining two different theories. The author does not contend that humans must be descended from either lungfish or coelacanths.
D
It is an assumption that both parties to the dispute use as a starting point for their arguments about human evolution.
Both biologists use the fact that frogs are related to the species of fish from which humans evolved as a premise for their arguments. This is a point of agreement; while they draw different conclusions from this information, it is a key premise for each argument.
E
It implies that either a match of mitochondrial DNA or a match of hemoglobin between lungfish and coelacanths would show that human beings evolved from one of these two species.
The claim in (E) is not an implication made by the argument.