Nguyen: But the filmmaker wanted viewers to focus on the complex relationship between the chief detective and her assistant. The murder just provided the context in which the relationship developed, and should not be taken as a defining characteristic of the film.
Speaker 1 Summary
Marife claims that a particular movie was bad. Why? Because it didn’t give viewers all the necessary clues to solve the murder, and therefore broke a rule of murder mysteries. Presumably, if a murder mystery film breaks this rule, that makes it a bad movie.
Speaker 2 Summary
Nguyen’s claims support the unstated conclusion that breaking this rule is not grounds to call this movie bad. Why not? Because the filmmaker was actually focusing on the relationship between the detective and her assistant. Plus, the murder was just context for this relationship. Presumably, that means the film isn’t really a murder mystery movie.
Objective
We want to find a disagreement between the speakers. They disagree about whether a film is truly a murder mystery.
A
whether the movie was a bad one
Marife agrees that this is the case, but Nguyen never disagrees. Nguyen’s issue is with the rule Marife uses to conclude that the movie was bad, not necessarily with the conclusion itself.
B
whether the relationship between the chief detective and her assistant was an important part of the movie
Nguyen agrees that this is true, but Marife never offers an opinion. Marife doesn’t discuss the relationship between the chief detective and her assistant at all.
C
whether the movie should be classified as a murder mystery
Marife agrees but Nguyen disagrees, so this is their disagreement. Marife applies a rule about murder mysteries to this movie, indicating that it is indeed a murder mystery. Nguyen says there are more important aspects of the film, making it not a murder mystery.
D
the appropriateness of trying to find criteria that all mystery movies must meet
Neither speaker really discusses this. Marife proposes a rule that applies to all murder mysteries, which may indicate that broad criteria like this are appropriate, but it’s never directly stated. Nguyen doesn’t talk about universal mystery requirements at all.
E
whether the filmmaker wanted viewers to be able to solve the murder
Both speakers likely agree that the filmmaker did not want this. Marife’s complaint is that the filmmaker made it impossible for viewers to solve the murder, while Nguyen points out that the filmmaker actually just wanted to focus on a relationship in the film.
Summarize Argument
The educator concludes that the educational programs teaching parents to be their child's "first teacher" are successful and should be expanded. He supports this by pointing out that children in these programs perform better than average in school.
Notable Assumptions
The educator assumes that the educational program directly causes the better school performance, without considering other possible reasons for it, like the natural abilities of the children or parents, or parental involvement outside the program.
He also assumes that better than average school performance is the primary marker of the program’s successfulness, without considering any other outcomes or effects among the children in the program.
He also assumes that better than average school performance is the primary marker of the program’s successfulness, without considering any other outcomes or effects among the children in the program.
A
Not all small children enjoy being taught by their parents.
The school performance of children in the program is better than average, whether they enjoy the program or not, and (A) doesn’t account for this difference. So (A) doesn’t weaken the conclusion that the program is successful and should therefore be expanded.
B
Most of the parents participating in the programs have prior experience as educators.
This weakens the conclusion by showing that one of the educator’s assumptions is false. He assumes that the program itself causes the children’s good performance, but (B) explains that their performance could actually be due to most of the parents having experience as educators.
C
Surveys show that most parents would approve expanding the programs.
The school performance of children in the program is better than average, whether parents approve of the program or not, and (C) doesn’t account for this difference. So (C) doesn’t weaken the conclusion that the program is successful and should therefore be expanded.
D
The cost of expanding the programs has not been precisely determined.
First, we don’t know that this means that the program will be expensive. Perhaps the cost hasn’t been determined but it will be quite low. But either way, (D) doesn’t account for the children’s school performance and thus doesn’t weaken the conclusion.
E
Some children who did not participate in the programs performed exceptionally well in school.
Just because some children who didn’t participate in the program performed well in school doesn’t mean that the program is unsuccessful. The children in the program still performed better than average. So (E) doesn’t weaken the educator’s conclusion.
Summarize Argument
The astronomer concludes that life on Earth might’ve started with a microbe-carrying meteorite from Mars. While Earth was rendered inhospitable to early life by asteroid strikes, Mars escaped such strikes and therefore could’ve fostered life early in its history. And many meteorites originating on Mars have ended up striking Earth.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text helps explain how life on Earth could’ve started with a meteorite from Mars. If Mars actually wasn’t able to generate microbial life before Earth was, then there would be no reason to believe the meteorite argument. So, the astronomer makes sure to tell us that Mars could’ve hosted microbial life.
A
It is a claim for which no justification is provided but that is required in order to establish the argument’s main conclusion.
The reference text is justified by the claim that Mars escaped asteroid bombardment early in its history. It’s a reason why Mars might’ve been able to host microbial life even when Earth couldn’t.
B
It is a claim for which no justification is provided and that, if true, ensures the truth of the argument’s main conclusion.
The reference text is justified by the claim that Mars escaped asteroid bombardment early in its history. It certainly doesn’t ensure the truth of the argument’s conclusion, as there could be other factors that limit this meteorite-strike theory.
C
It is a claim for which some justification is provided and that is required in order to establish the argument’s main conclusion.
The claim is certainly justified—Mars wasn’t bombarded by asteroids like Earth was. It’s also required to establish the conclusion. If Mars couldn’t have hosted microbial life before Earth, then the meteorite-strike theory falls apart.
D
It is a claim for which justification is provided and that, if true, establishes the truth of the argument’s main conclusion.
The claim, while justified, doesn’t establish the truth of the argument’s main conclusion. There could be other reasons why the meteorite-strike theory is problematic.
E
It is a claim that provides some support for the argument’s conclusion but that neither ensures the truth of that conclusion nor is required in order to establish that conclusion.
The referenced text supports the conclusion, and is indeed necessary to establish that conclusion. If Mars couldn’t have hosted microbial life before Earth, how could the meteorite-strike theory make any sense?
Summarize Argument
We have a series of conditional statement premises:
Excellent pollination → bees
Beehive → bees
Keeping bees economical → use for homegrown honey
Intermediate conc.:
Gardeners without a use for homegrown honey will tend not to have beehives.
Main conc.:
Gardeners without a use for homegrown honey won’t have excellent pollination.
Identify and Describe Flaw
In the jump from the int. conc. to the main conc., the author assumes that failing to have beehives implies there won’t be excellent pollination. This reverses the statement “beehive → bees.” Beehives ensure bees, but that doesn’t mean beehives are necessary for bees.
Also, in the jump to the int. conc., the author assumes that if keeping bees isn’t economical for someone, they probably won’t have beehives.
A
The argument fails to consider the possibility that obtaining homegrown honey is only one of several advantages of beehives.
The argument doesn’t concern whether it’s a good idea to have beehives. So other benefits of honey are irrelevant.
B
The argument confuses what is necessary for pollination to take place with what would guarantee that it takes place.
The argument doesn’t confuse the statement about pollination. If bees aren’t present, pollination can’t happen. What the argument confuses is whether beehives are necessary for the presence of bees.
C
The argument confuses what is necessary for an abundance of fruits and vegetables with what is usually conducive to it.
The argument doesn’t use the statement about fruits and vegetables as part of how it reaches the conclusion. So there’s no confusion about that statement.
D
The argument fails to consider that bees might be present even in the absence of a particular condition that would ensure their presence.
Although we know beehives ensure bees, that doesn’t mean they’re necessary for bees. So we can’t infer from the lack of beehives that there won’t be excellent pollination. There can still be excellent pollination, because there can still be bees present.
E
The argument bases a claim that there is a causal connection between beehives and excellent pollination on a mere association between them.
There is no causal claim concerning beehives and excellent pollination. The author assumes that lack of beehives implies lack of excellent pollination, but that isn’t a causal claim.
I misspoke at 2:48. Regarding the conditional EBH -> KB, EBH is the subset and KB is the superset. I said it the other way around, making the oldest mistake in the book, sufficiency necessity confusion. Egg on my face.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people shouldn’t praise poems for their truth. This view is based on the claim that the excellence of a poem should be based on something that’s rare, not something that’s common. And, truth is something that’s common.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is a premise. The author uses the assertion that poetic excellence should be based on something that’s rare to support the view that we shouldn’t praise poems just for expressing truths.
A
It is the overall conclusion drawn by the argument.
The referenced text is not the conclusion. It supports the conclusion.
B
It is a premise that, in conjunction with another premise, is intended to support the argument’s conclusion.
This accurately describes the supporting role played by the referenced text. It’s one of the two premises in the argument.
C
It is a premise offered as the sole support for the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text is a premise, but it’s not the only premise.
D
It is background information that, in itself, does not provide support for the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text isn’t just background information. It’s offered to support the conclusion.
E
It is a proposition for which the argument seeks to advance an explanation.
The author doesn’t try to explain why the basis of poetic excellence must be rare.