Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author presents the hypothesis that garbage dumps don’t harm wildlife. This hypothesis is supported by observations of baboons in the Masai-Mara game reserve : baboons who scavenge in the reserve’s garbage dumps grow faster and have more offspring than baboons who don’t eat garbage.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that eating garbage is not causing other harms to the baboons who scavenge in dumps. In other words, the author assumes that growth speed and number of offspring accurately represent the baboons’ health.
The author also assumes that there’s no alternative explanation for the differences between the baboons who eat garbage and the baboons who do not.
Finally, the author assumes that, even if the Masai-Mara baboons aren’t harmed by garbage, observations of these baboons can support a conclusion about wildlife in general.
The author also assumes that there’s no alternative explanation for the differences between the baboons who eat garbage and the baboons who do not.
Finally, the author assumes that, even if the Masai-Mara baboons aren’t harmed by garbage, observations of these baboons can support a conclusion about wildlife in general.
A
The baboons that feed on the garbage dump are of a different species from those that do not.
This weakens the argument, because it proposes an alternative explanation for the differences between the scavenging and non-scavenging baboons. If we can’t accurately compare the impact of garbage between these groups, the argument is weakened.
B
The life expectancy of baboons that eat garbage is significantly lower than that of baboons that do not eat garbage.
Like (C) and (E), this weakens the argument by adding a new way that eating garbage could harm the baboons’ health. If the scavenging baboons grow faster and have more offspring, but also die faster, it becomes much harder to say that garbage does not harm them.
C
The cholesterol level of garbage-eating baboons is dangerously higher than that of baboons that do not eat garbage.
Like (B) and (E), this weakens the argument by giving us another example of how garbage could be harming the baboons. This rebuts the author’s assumption that growth speed and birth rates are the only relevant markers of the baboons’ health, thus weakening.
D
The population of hyenas that live near unregulated garbage landfills north of the reserve has doubled in the last two years.
This does not weaken the argument. If these garbage dumps are helping the hyena population grow, that may even strengthen by demonstrating another species that isn’t harmed. Even if not, this doesn’t give us any reason to doubt the argument, so does not weaken.
E
The rate of birth defects for the baboon population on the reserve has doubled since the first landfills were opened.
Like (B) and (C), this weakens the argument by demonstrating a harm possibly caused by the garbage dumps that the author has overlooked. This harm isn’t just to the scavenging baboons, but the timing relative to the dumps opening suggests a possible causal link, thus weakening.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that psychologists who claim empathy is the best way, in theory, to understand someone else are wrong. He concludes this by arguing that since it’s impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person’s motivations, there’d be no way to achieve understanding according to the psychologists, and since one can understand people, the psychologists are wrong.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author reasons that if the psychologists are right, we can’t achieve understanding. However, this reasoning is flawed because the psychologists didn’t argue that deep empathy is the only way to understand people, only that it’s the best way. Also, the author’s reasoning that the psychologists are wrong is flawed. Just because the theoretically best way to do something wouldn’t work in practice, it doesn’t mean it’s not the theoretically best way.
A
fails to adequately define the key phrase “deep empathy”
The term “deep empathy” is defined right after it’s first mentioned.
B
assumes something that it later denies, resulting in a contradiction
The author erroneously assumes that the psychologists’ claim is contradictory to fact. However, the author never denies this assumption.
C
confuses a theoretically best way of accomplishing something with the only way of accomplishing it
This flaw is committed. The author reasons that if the psychologists are right, understanding can’t be achieved. However, the psychologists never argued that deep empathy is the only way to understand people. They only argued that it’s the best way.
D
accepts a claim on mere authority, without requiring sufficient justification
The author doesn’t accept any claims on mere authority. The author argues that the psychologists’ claim is incorrect.
E
fails to consider that other psychologists may disagree with the psychologists cited
The author’s argument isn’t concerned with other psychologists. The author only argues that the psychologists who claim that deep empathy is the best way to understand another person are wrong.
Summary
Chronic back pain is often caused by a damaged spinal disk. Usually, pain develops long after the damage occurs. To further this point, it is estimated that a significant number of people have a damaged disk but no chronic pain. For these people, pain usually develops due to muscle weakness caused by a lack of exercise.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A lack of exercise can contribute to the onset of chronic back pain.
Exercise may play a role in preventing chronic back pain.
Many people have damaged disks, but do not experience chronic pain.
A damaged spinal disk does not necessarily mean one will experience chronic pain.
Exercise may play a role in preventing chronic back pain.
Many people have damaged disks, but do not experience chronic pain.
A damaged spinal disk does not necessarily mean one will experience chronic pain.
A
Four out of five people over the age of 30 can be sure they will never develop chronic back pain.
Unsupported. This is too strong to conclude this about the remaining 4/5. This group could develop chronic back pain from sources other than a damaged disk. They could also have a damaged disk that DOES show chronic symptoms.
B
People who exercise their abdominal and spinal muscles regularly are sure to be free from chronic back pain.
Unsupported. This only talks about chronic back pain caused by damaged disks - we can’t draw conclusions about all back pain. Additionally, we know that pain in certain cases is generally caused by weakened muscles - not all. We cannot be sure.
C
Patients rarely suffer even mild and fleeting back pain at the time that a spinal disk first becomes herniated or degenerated.
Unsupported. The stimulus discusses chronic pain symptoms. Chronic is prolonged - we cannot conclude from this about acute pain that may or may not occur at the time of injury.
D
Doctors can accurately predict which people who do not have chronic back pain will develop it in the future.
Unsupported. We know that not everyone that has a damaged disk will develop back pain. While a lack of exercise may play a role, there is no evidence to support a method for being able to accurately predict who will develop back pain.
E
There is a strategy that can be effective in delaying or preventing the onset of pain from a currently asymptomatic herniated or degenerated spinal disk.
Strongly supported. Exercise is a strategy can be effective for delaying or preventing the onset of pain by preventing the deterioration of the abdominal and spinal muscles in those with a damaged disk.