Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that large corporations’ actions to discourage alternative-energy projects have likely influenced the government’s decisions to curtail funding of alternative-energy projects. This is based on the fact that large corporations have made a point to discourage alternative-energy projects.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no other explanation for the government’s decisions to curtail funding for the alternative-energy projects besides large corporations’ actions.
A
For the past two decades, most alternative-energy initiatives have received little or no government funding.
This doesn’t shed light on the cause of the lack of government funding. We already know that major alternative-energy intiatives have had government funding curtailed. The issue is whether this is due to large corporations’ actions.
B
The funding initially earmarked for a government project is always subject to change, given the mechanisms by which the political process operates.
But, is the decision to cut funding to these projects a result of corporations’ actions, or something else? (B) doesn’t help to eliminate other explanations or to affirm the author’s explanation.
C
The only research projects whose government funding has been severely curtailed are those that large corporations have made it a point to discourage.
This eliminates an alternate explanation that the government was simply cutting funding across the board. (C) establishes a closer connection between having funding cut and corporations’ discouragement.
D
Some projects encouraged by large corporations have seen their funding severely curtailed over the last five years.
The author never suggested that the government does whatever corporations want. Some projects encouraged by corporations may have had funding cut. That doesn’t impact whether other projects had funding cut because corporations discouraged those projects.
E
All large corporations have made it a point to discourage some forms of research.
We already know large corporations have discouraged alternative-energy projects. The issue is whether the government’s decision to cut funding to those projects results from the corporations’ actions. (E) doesn’t help affirm that explanation or eliminate other explanations.
Sklar: My objection to teaching chess to children is that it diverts mental activity from something with societal value, such as science, into something that has no societal value.
Speaker 1 Summary
Talbert claims that chess is good for children (and we can reasonably assume from this that we should teach children chess). Why? Because it teaches the children mental maturity. And how does it do that? By encouraging skills like foresight and logical thinking, and discouraging flaws like carelessness, inattention, and impulsiveness.
Speaker 2 Summary
Sklar’s argument supports the unstated conclusion that we should not spend time teaching chess to children. Why not? Because the mental resources that children spend on chess could instead be used on more socially valuable pursuits like science.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. Talbert and Sklar disagree about whether we should teach children chess.
A
chess promotes mental maturity
Talbert agrees with this, but Sklar doesn’t express an opinion. Sklar doesn’t mention any of the benefits that chess may or may not have for children, and instead just focuses on the social value of chess compared to other pursuits.
B
many activities promote mental maturity just as well as chess does
Neither speaker states an opinion about this claim. Talbert doesn’t discuss activities other than chess at all. Sklar does talk about other activities, but only about their societal value, not their ability to promote mental maturity.
C
chess is socially valuable and science is not
Sklar disagrees with this, but Talbert doesn’t state an opinion. Talbert doesn’t mention social value at all, and also doesn’t mention science at all.
D
children should be taught to play chess
Talbert agrees with this and Sklar disagrees: this is their disagreement. Talbert focuses entirely on the value of chess, so it’s reasonable to assume that Talbert believes we should teach chess. Sklar’s implicit main conclusion is that chess wastes time and shouldn’t be taught.
E
children who neither play chess nor study science are mentally immature
Neither speaker makes this claim. Talbert focuses entirely on the benefits of chess, not on the outcomes for children who don’t play chess. Sklar, on the other hand, never talks about mental maturity.