Summarize Argument
The author concludes that any stray cocker spaniel found near Flynn Heights likely belongs to someone who lives in Flynn Heights. This is because there are more cocker spaniels registered to addresses if Flynn Heights than to addresses in the rest of the city as a whole.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that residents of Flynn Heights aren’t significantly more likely than other residents to register their dog. If the opposite were true, then there may be no more reason to believe a stray cocker spaniel belongs to a resident of Flynn Heights than to a resident of any other neighborhood.
A
whether cocker spaniels are more likely than dogs of other breeds to stray from their owners
The author never claims cocker spaniels get lost more than other dogs. She’s simply concluding that a stray cocker spaniel near Flynn Heights likely belongs to a resident of Flynn Heights.
B
whether there are more cocker spaniels registered to addresses in Flynn Heights than any other breed of dog
We don’t care about other dog breeds. Even if residents of Flynn Heights simply had a lot of dogs, generally, that wouldn’t challenge the claim that those residents have more cocker spaniels than all other neighborhoods combined.
C
whether the city’s animal control officers find more stray dogs in and around Flynn Heights than in any other part of the city
If animal control officers found more stray dogs around Flynn Heights, that suggests either residents of Flynn Heights have more dogs than most neighborhoods or that they’re bad at caring for their dogs. Neither option challenges the author’s argument.
D
whether the number of pets owned, per capita, is greater for residents of Flynn Heights than for residents of any other neighborhood
This doesn’t have to be true or false for the author’s argument to work. If the answer was yes, then that just means people in Flynn Heights have lots of pets. If the answer was no, then they still might have lots of cocker spaniels.
E
whether residents of Flynn Heights are more likely to license their dogs than residents of other neighborhoods are
If Flynn Heights residents are more likely to license their dogs, then the number of licensed cockers doesn’t necessarily tell us how many cocker spaniels each neighborhood has. Perhaps some neighborhoods have as many cocker spaniels—just unlicensed ones.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
It would have been smarter to buy a tree last summer instead of this summer. The tree we bought this summer is struggling to survive because of the drought, but if we had bought it last summer, it would have received enough water from last summer’s normal rainfall to grow strong roots, which can better survive droughts.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is Brianna’s opinion that it would have been better to buy a tree last summer rather than waiting until this summer.
A
It would have been better to buy a tree last summer rather than this summer.
This statement captures Brianna’s conclusion that buying the tree last summer would have been smarter. The rest of her argument explains why: the tree would have developed strong roots with the previous summer’s normal rainfall, making it more resilient to this summer’s drought.
B
The tree purchased this summer is struggling to survive this summer’s drought.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion by showing the downside of buying the tree this summer. The tree’s struggle highlights that if they had bought it last summer, it would have developed stronger roots with the normal rainfall, helping it survive this summer's drought.
C
If a tree had been purchased last summer, it would be better able to survive this summer’s drought.
This premise supports the conclusion by highlighting the benefit of buying the tree last summer. It suggests that a tree bought last summer would have grown stronger roots and better survived this summer's drought, reinforcing that buying it last summer would have been wiser.
D
A tree purchased last summer would have established roots.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion by highlighting the benefit of buying the tree last summer. A tree with more established roots would have better survived this summer's drought, reinforcing that buying a tree last summer would have been wiser.
E
Trees with established roots can better withstand droughts.
This premise supports the main conclusion by explaining why buying the tree last summer would have been smarter. With established roots from last summer, the tree would be stronger and more resilient to this summer's drought. Thus, buying it last summer was the wiser choice.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
Some party members are government officials.
Some party members are speakers at the convention.
Some delegates to the convention are speakers at the convention.
Some party members are speakers at the convention.
Some delegates to the convention are speakers at the convention.
A
Every party member at the convention is a delegate to the convention.
Could be false. While we know that every delegate is a party member, we do not know whether every party member is a delegate. There might be more party members than delegates! (A) confuses the necessary and sufficient conditions.
B
At least some speakers at the convention are neither delegates nor party members.
Could be false. We know that some speakers at the convention are delegates and party members, and those speakers could easily constitute the entire lineup! There could also be other speakers, but there don’t have to be.
C
At least some speakers at the convention are delegates to the convention.
Must be true. As shown below, by chaining the conditional claims, we see that there is a “some before all” relationship between “delegate” and “speaker”. This yields the valid conclusion that at least some delegates are speakers and vice versa.
D
All speakers at the convention are government officials.
Could be false. While we know that every government official at the convention is a speaker, we do not know whether every speaker is a government official. There might be more speakers than government officials! (D) confuses the necessary and sufficient conditions.
E
Every government official at the convention is a party member.
Could be false. We know that some government officials at the convention are party members, because all delegates are party members and some delegates are government officials. Yet it’s possible that there are also government officials at the convention who are not party members.
Summarize Argument
If scientists keep focusing only on making artificial intelligence really good at solving problems, they won't be able to create truly smart machines. Right now, scientists are focusing solely on computational ability and ignoring other abilities. A machine that can only compute but does nothing else won't be truly intelligent, just like a person with no emotions wouldn't be fully smart.
Identify Conclusion
The argument’s main conclusion is that if the focus of artificial intelligence research is not broadened beyond improving machines' computational ability, then such research will not produce truly intelligent machines.
A
The current focus of research into artificial intelligence will produce devices no more capable of displaying true intelligence than a person would be who lacked emotions and other noncognitive responses.
This is a premise. It supports the conclusion by highlighting the limitations of focusing only on computational ability in AI research. It suggests that ignoring other skills will result in devices as limited as a person lacking emotions, underscoring the need for broader focus.
B
If the current focus of research into artificial intelligence is not radically changed, this research will not be able to produce machines capable of true intelligence.
This captures the argument’s main conclusion. It paraphrases its central point: without a significant shift in the current focus of artificial intelligence research, which is too narrowly centered on computational ability, researchers will not create truly intelligent machines.
C
Despite progress in creating machines of great computational sophistication, current research into artificial intelligence has failed to fulfill its objectives.
The stimulus doesn't make this argument. It only states that current research has not created true intelligence but does not discuss the objective of AI research. While the author might agree with this goal, the author doesn’t make this claim in the stimulus.
D
The capacity to express noncognitive responses such as emotion is at least as important for true intelligence as is computational sophistication.
The stimulus doesn’t make this claim. It states that truly intelligent machines need more than computational ability, like humans need more than cognitive responses, but it doesn’t compare their importance or argue that true machine intelligence requires noncognitive responses.
E
If a machine is not capable of producing humanlike noncognitive responses, then it cannot be regarded as truly intelligent.
The stimulus does not make this claim. The stimulus states that truly intelligent machines need more than computational ability, like humans need more than cognitive responses, but the stimulus does not argue that true machine intelligence requires noncognitive responses.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that parents should not trust their own abilities to rate the educational value of children’s shows if educational psychologists rate them accurately. This is because, in a relevant study, parents largely ignored the views of such psychologists when rating the shows.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the parents’ ratings differ from those of the psychologists. If the parents’ ratings of the value of children’s shows are similar to the psychologists’, then the psychologists’ views being sound actually gives parents a reason to trust their own judgment.
A
relies on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative of the population with which the conclusion is concerned
Both the study and the conclusion are focused on parents, so there’s no reason to believe that the sample in the study is unrepresentative.
B
takes for granted that parents do not enjoy the same sort of children’s television shows that children themselves enjoy
This is irrelevant. The conclusion is just that parents shouldn’t trust their own abilities to rate shows if the psychologists rate them accurately, so it doesn’t matter what children enjoy.
C
takes for granted that the educational value of a television show should be the only consideration for a parent trying to decide whether a child should watch the show
The conclusion is only concerned with parents’ ability to rate the educational value of children’s shows, so reasons why children should or shouldn’t watch a show are irrelevant.
D
fails to rule out the possibility that parents’ ratings of the shows based on their own enjoyment coincide closely with the educational psychologists’ views of the shows’ educational values
This describes how the argument fails to establish that the psychologists give different ratings than the parents do. If they rate shows similarly, then psychologists having accurate ratings would mean that parents do too.
E
takes for granted that educational psychologists are the only people who can judge the educational value of children’s television shows with a high degree of accuracy
The argument doesn’t assume that psychologists can judge children’s shows’ value accurately, let alone that they’re the only ones who can. The conclusion only claims that if psychologists’ ratings are accurate, then parents shouldn’t trust their own ratings.
Simon: It’s unclear whether Pellman’s leaders expected to lose in court. But I think they expected that, whether they won or lost the case, the legal fees involved in going to trial would have been more costly than the settlement. So settling the lawsuit seemed the most cost-effective solution.
Speaker 1 Summary
Justine doesn’t make an argument, because there’s no support structure to her claims. Justine just states that a company, Pellman, recently settled a lawsuit. She then expresses her opinion that the decision to settle shows that Pellman expected to lose in court.
Speaker 2 Summary
Simon’s claims support an unstated conclusion that settling doesn’t give evidence about Pellman’s expectation to lose in court. Why not? Because Pellman’s leaders likely expected the court fees not to be worth it even if they won, making settlement the cheapest option. This detaches the decision to settle from Pellman’s predictions about the case’s success.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement between Justine and Simon. They disagree about whether Pellman’s decision to settle a case shows that Pellman expected to lose.
A
If the lawsuit against Pellman had gone to trial, it is likely that Pellman would have lost in court.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Justine and Simon’s discussion is about whether they can tell that Pellman expected to lose in court. That’s a distinct question from the actual odds of the case.
B
Pellman’s corporate leaders were able to accurately estimate their chances of winning in court.
Neither Justine nor Simon talks about whether Pellman’s corporate leaders made an accurate prediction about their odds in court. They’re still trying to figure out what the prediction was in the first place.
C
If Pellman’s legal fees for going to trial would have been more costly than the settlement, then settling the lawsuit was the most cost-effective solution for the corporation.
Simon agrees with this, but Justine never disagrees. Justine just doesn’t discuss the role of cost-effectiveness in Pellman’s decision to settle.
D
If Pellman’s corporate leaders had expected that the legal fees for going to trial would have been less costly than the settlement, they would have taken the lawsuit to trial.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Simon is the only one who talks about cost-effectiveness as a factor in Pellman’s decision, but he never says that lower legal fees would have guaranteed Pellman would have gone to court.
E
If Pellman’s corporate leaders had expected to win in court, then they would not have settled the lawsuit out of court for $1 million.
Justine agrees and Simon disagrees, so this is their disagreement. Justine claims settling shows that Pellman expected to lose, meaning they would not have settled otherwise. Simon thinks they would have settled whatever their odds, because it’s less expensive than court.
Summarize Argument
The claim that there’s no connection between astrological signs and personality types is scientifically unjustified. Why? Well, science can’t precisely distinguish personality types, so scientific studies can’t prove or disprove anything about personality types. We don’t know enough about personality types to use them in any legitimate scientific process.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text supports the conclusion. Why is the claim scientifically unjustified? Because scientific studies can’t be used to disprove a correlation between astrological signs and personality types.
A
It is a claim offered as support for a conclusion that is in turn offered as support for the overall conclusion drawn in the argument.
The referenced text only supports the main conclusion. It’s supported by another premise.
B
It is a conclusion for which support is offered and that in turn is offered as support for the overall conclusion drawn in the argument.
The referenced text is supported by another premise—that science doesn’t have precise criteria for distinguishing personality types—which makes it a conclusion. And it supports the main conclusion, which makes it a sub-conclusion. This is perfect.
C
It is the overall conclusion drawn in the argument.
The overall conclusion is that the claim about astrology and personality types is unjustified. The referenced text supports that claim.
D
It summarizes a position that the argument as a whole is directed toward discrediting.
The argument is trying to discredit the theory that astrology has no correlation to personality types. The referenced text isn’t summarizing that position.
E
It provides a specific instance of the general principle that the argument as a whole is directed toward establishing.
The referenced text isn’t a specific instance of anything. It’s a claim about whether or not science can draw conclusions about personality types.