Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that crying must have the effect of reducing emotional stress. This is based on the following:
Human tears have many of the same hormones that the body produces in times of emotional stress.
Shedding tears removes a lot of these hormones from the body.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the hormones that are present in times of stress are a causal factor in producing stress. This is flawed because the evidence has only established a correlation between the presence of hormones and the feeling of stress. It’s possible that the actual causal relationship is reversed; maybe stress causes the hormones. Or maybe there’s a third factor that causes both the hormones and stress.
A
overlooks the possibility that if crying has a tendency to reduce emotional stress, this tendency might arise because of something other than the shedding of tears
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because it concedes that “crying has a tendency to reduce emotional stress.” We want to point out why crying might not reduce emotional stress; that’s how we point out why the argument is flawed.
B
confuses a condition that is required for the production of a given phenomenon with a condition that in itself would be sufficient to cause the production of that phenomenon
The stimulus doesn’t present any condition that’s required to produce something else. We’re never told that feeling stress is required in order for the body to produce the hormones. Maybe the hormones can be produced during other times, too, beyond just times of stress.
C
fails to adequately address the possibility that, even if one phenomenon causally contributes to a second phenomenon, the second phenomenon may causally influence the first as well
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because it concedes that “one phenomenon causally contributes to a second.” We don’t want to concede a causal relationship. The flaw must related to why crying does not reduce stress, or why hormones do not cause stress.
D
fails to adequately distinguish between two distinct factors that are jointly responsible for causing a given phenomenon
The premises don’t present any factors that “are jointly responsible for causing” anything. We don’t know what causes stress, and we don’t know what causes the hormones to be produced. We have no basis to identify anything as jointly responsible for causing something.
E
takes for granted that because certain substances are present whenever a condition occurs, those substances are a cause of that condition
The argument assumes that because the hormones are present whenever emotional stress occurs, the hormones are a cause of the emotional stress. This assumption underlies the author’s belief that getting rid of the hormones will help reduce stress.
Amar: Making it legal to keep those fish would probably lead to a lot more “accidents.”
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Amar implicitly concludes that Sarah’s recommendation to allow fishers to keep accidentally caught fish should not be implemented. He argues that making this legal would likely lead to more "accidents," implying that fishers would claim that certain fish were caught accidentally just so that they could keep the fish.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Amar responds to Sarah’s argument by pointing out that her suggestion would likely lead to a negative consequence: fishers claiming fish were caught accidentally in order to keep fish they caught illegally.
A
question whether Sarah’s recommendation can be put into practice
Amar never questions whether Sarah’s recommendation can practically be implemented. He simply argues that her recommendation would likely bring a negative consequence.
B
point out that Sarah used a crucial term in two distinct senses
Amar himself uses the term "accidents" to suggest that fishers would falsely claim they caught certain fish by accident. However, Sarah uses "accident" to mean a true accident, and Amar doesn't argue that she uses the term in two different ways.
C
allude to a factor that supposedly strengthens the case for Sarah’s recommendation
Amar doesn’t strengthen the case for Sarah’s recommendation, he argues against her recommendation.
D
contend that Sarah’s recommendation has an important negative consequence
Amar argues that Sarah’s recommendation has an important negative consequence: fishers claiming fish were caught accidentally in order to keep fish they caught illegally.
E
maintain that Sarah overlooks important lessons from past policies
Amar never mentions anything about past policies, he just argues that Sarah’s recommendation would have a negative consequence.