Psychiatrist: We are learning that neurochemical imbalances can cause behavior ranging from extreme mental illness to less serious but irritating behavior such as obsessive fantasizing, petulance, or embarrassment. These findings will promote compassion and tolerance when looking at a mental illness, quirk, or mere difference between two persons, since being mentally healthy can now begin to be seen as simply having the same neurochemical balances as most people.

Summarize Argument

The psychiatrist predicts that recent findings about the neurochemical causes of behavioral issues will result in a more compassionate, tolerant view of things like mental illness and behavioral differences. Why the kinder view? Because people can start to view the idea of “mental health” as really just a certain neurochemical balance that happens to be more common.

Identify Conclusion

The psychiatrist’s conclusion is his prediction: “These findings [about neurochemical balances being a cause of mental illness and other issues] will promote compassion and tolerance when looking at a mental illness, quirk, or mere difference between two persons.”

A
Understanding the role of the neurochemical in behavior will foster empathy toward others.

This paraphrases the psychiatrist’s conclusion: knowledge about how neurochemical imbalances affect behavior will “promote compassion and tolerance” or “foster empathy” toward those with mental health or behavioral issues.

B
Neurochemical imbalances can cause mental illness and other behaviors.

The psychiatrist uses this fact as context. His conclusion is that this fact will produce a certain effect: it will promote compassion and tolerance toward those with mental health or behavioral issues.

C
Neurochemical balances and imbalances are the main determinants of mental behavior.

The psychiatrist never suggests what the main determinant of mental behavior is. He merely states that neurochemical balances and imbalances are one potential determinant.

D
Being mentally healthy is a matter of having the same neurochemical balances as most people.

The psychiatrist states that mental health can be viewed this way, but this forms his premise, not his conclusion. The fact that mental health can be seen in this light leads him to conclude that people will become more tolerant of mental health and behavioral issues.

E
Advances in neurochemistry enhance our theories of mental illness.

The psychiatrist doesn’t reach any conclusions about theories of mental illness. He presents findings about a possible cause of mental illness, and concludes that those findings will affect people’s attitudes.


2 comments

Sociologist: The welfare state cannot be successfully implemented because it rests on the assumption that human beings are unselfish—a seemingly false assumption. The welfare state is feasible only if wage earners are prepared to have their hard-earned funds used to help others in greater need, and that requires an unselfish attitude. But people innately seek their own well-being, especially when the interests of others threaten it.

Summarize Argument
The author claims that the welfare state is not feasible. They explain this claim by saying that the welfare state rests on the false assumption that people are unselfish. We know that the welfare state rests on this assumption because it can only work if wage-earners will let their money be used to help those who need it more, which requires unselfishness. We know that the assumption of unselfishness is false because people innately focus on their own benefit, especially when that benefit is threatened by other people’s interests.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s assertion that the welfare state won’t work: “The welfare state cannot be successfully implemented.”

A
The welfare state will not work.
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. Everything else in the argument supports the claim that the welfare state “cannot be successfully implemented,” meaning that it won’t work.
B
The welfare state unfairly asks those who work hard to help those in greater need.
The author does not claim that it is unfair to ask hard-working people to help others in greater need. According to the author, people may not want to help, but fairness is never mentioned.
C
The assumption that human beings are unselfish is false.
This is a sub-conclusion or major premise in the argument, not the main conclusion. This claim is supported by the statement that “people innately seek their own well-being”, but in turn this claim supports the main conclusion that the welfare state is not viable.
D
The interests of the less fortunate impinge on the interests of others.
This is not a claim the argument supports. The suggestion that some people’s interests may threaten other people’s interests emphasizes the claim that people are not selfish, but is not supported by anything else.
E
The welfare state relies on the generosity of wage earners.
This claim is not supported by the rest of the argument. Instead, it supports the idea that the welfare state requires people to be unselfish, which helps lead to the main conclusion.

102 comments

2:39 - Correction
In the video I labeled "no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable" as the conclusion. An attentive 7Sager pointed out that it's actually the sub-conclusion. It's supported by an appeal to authority premise "any professional meteorologist will tell you that". The main conclusion is "I disagree."

Restructured, the Meteorologist's argument starts with an appeal to authority, supporting a general sub-conclusion, supporting a specific sub-conclusion.


56 comments

Scientist: My research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have a gene variant that increases sensitivity to dopamine. From this, I conclude that there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that a certain gene variant causes an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior. This is based on the fact that the author’s research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have that gene variant.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a correlation between the gene variant and impulsive behavior proves a causal relationship. The author also assumes that the cause of impulsive behavior in children also causes adult thrill-seeking behavior.

A
Many impulsive adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine.
The author never suggested every adult has the gene variant. So, the fact many impulsive adults aren’t unusually sensitive (and therefore might not have the gene variant) doesn’t undermine the author’s reasoning.
B
It is not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior.
This shows that the alleged correlation shown by the author’s research doesn’t reliably tell us about impulsive behavior. If we can’t be sure that the author’s research identified impulsive behavior, that reduces the support provided by the research for a causal relationship.
C
Children are often described by adults as engaging in thrill-seeking behavior simply because they act impulsively.
The argument is about alleged impulsive behavior in children and adult thrill-seeking behavior. Whether children’s behavior is called thrill-seeking doesn’t affect the potential cause of impulsive behavior or adult thrill-seeking behavior.
D
Many people exhibit behavioral tendencies as adults that they did not exhibit as children.
The author never suggested that every child with impulsive behavior grows up to exhibit adult thrill-seeking behavior. So, even if many adults end up not impulsive and not thrill-seeking, that doesn’t undermine the underlying correlation the author observed.
E
The gene variant studied by the scientist is correlated with other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior.
This suggests the gene variant might cause other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior. But it doesn’t suggest the gene variant might not cause thrill-seeking behavior. (E) could have weakened if the thrill-seeking was correlated with a different gene.

66 comments

Sociologist: Some economists hold that unregulated markets should accompany democratic sovereignty because they let people vote with their money. But this view ignores the crucial distinction between the private consumer and the public citizen. In the marketplace the question is, “What do I want?” At the voting booth the question is always, “What do we want?” Hence, supporters of political democracy can also support marketplace regulation.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In this argument, the sociologist is arguing that one can support both political democracy and marketplace regulation. To support this, the sociologist cites the distinction between the private consumer, who makes individual decisions, and the public citizen, who makes decisions that consider a broader community. Because people are considering different factors in the market and the voting booth, support for market regulation and democratic sovereignty can coexist.

Identify Conclusion
The sociologist concludes that support for two ideas that some view as contradictory can coexist: “Supporters of political democracy can also support marketplace regulation.”

A
Voters think of themselves as members of a community, rather than as isolated individuals.
This idea is implied when the argument says that voters ask “What do we want?” However, this implication is not the main conclusion; it provides some support for the distinction made between voters and customers.
B
Unregulated markets are incompatible with democratic sovereignty.
Our conclusion discusses what ideas people can support; this answer says that two institutions/structures themselves (unregulated markets and democratic sovereignty) are (in)compatible. We are want to know that support for two ideas is compatible.
C
Where there is democratic sovereignty there should be unregulated markets.
This answer choice is the conclusion made by some economists; this is the claim that the sociologist’s conclusion works to refute.
D
Private consumers are primarily concerned with their own self-interest.
This idea is implied when the argument says that consumers ask “What do I want?” However, this implication is not the main conclusion; it provides some support for the distinction made between voters and customers.
E
Opposition to unregulated markets is consistent with support for democracy.
This is the conclusion of the argument. This answer is a paraphrase of the last sentence, which we identified as the main conclusion of the argument. The rest of sociologist’s argument works to provide support for this idea.

63 comments