Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the government’s demolishing of a former naval base was inefficient and immoral. This is based on the fact that using the base’s facilities for other purposes would have benefited everyone.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that if using the base for other purposes would have benefited everyone, then demolishing the base is immoral. This overlooks the possibility that demolishing the base could have been a morally acceptable action even if not demolishing the base could have benefited everyone. There’s no necessary relationship between benefiting others and being moral or immoral. The author also ignores that demolishing the base might be even more beneficial for everyone than using the base for other purposes.
A
fails to consider that an action may be morally permissible even if an alternative course of action is to everyone’s advantage
The author fails to consider that an action (demolishing) may be morally permissible even if an alternative course of action (using the base for other purposes) is to everyone’s advantage. (A) shows that the author’s premise doesn’t establish demolishing the building was immoral.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that the actual consequences of an action are irrelevant to the action’s moral permissibility
The author doesn’t assume that actual consequences are irrelevant. After all, one actual consequence of demolishing is that the base can’t be used for the purposes described. This is something the author takes into account and uses in the argument.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that the government never acts in the most efficient manner
The author’s argument concerns only the demolishing of the former naval base. The author concludes that this action was inefficient. That doesn’t commit the author to an assumption that the government never acts in the most efficient way.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that any action that is efficient is also moral
The author does not assume that if an action is efficient, then it must be moral. The conclusion is that the government’s action was inefficient and also immoral. This doesn’t commit the author to a belief about a conditional relationship between efficiency and morality.
E
inappropriately treats two possible courses of action as if they were the only options
The author does not treat demolishing the base and using it for other purposes as the only options. For example, maybe the government could have left the base up and just abandoned it completely. The author doesn’t assume this wasn’t possible.
Tova: You assume that communication via computer replaces more intimate forms of communication and interaction, when more often it replaces asocial or even antisocial behavior.
Speaker 1 Summary
Communication via computer contributes to the dissolution of lasting communal bonds. Why? Because communication via computer is usually conducted privately and anonymously between people who would otherwise interact in person.
Speaker 2 Summary
Communication via computer more often replaces asocial or antisocial behavior. You cannot assume communication via computer replaces intimate forms of interaction.
Objective
We need a statement that Samuel and Tova disagree on. They disagree whether communication via computer dissolves social bonds. Samuel thinks that it does because communication via computer replaces in-person interactions. Tova thinks that it does not because communication via computer replaces asocial or antisocial interactions.
A
A general trend of modern life is to dissolve the social bonds that formerly connected people.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Neither speaker classifies computer communication as a general trend of modern life.
B
All purely private behavior contributes to the dissolution of social bonds.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Samuel only thinks that some private behavior contributes to this dissolution. “All” private behavior is too strong.
C
Face-to-face communication is more likely to contribute to the creation of social bonds than is anonymous communication.
Tova does not express an opinion on this statement. Tova only expresses that it’s not necessarily true that computer communication dissolves social bonds.
D
It is desirable that new social bonds be created to replace the ones that have dissolved.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. We don’t know what either speaker would believe is a desirable outcome.
E
If people were not communicating via computer, they would most likely be engaged in activities that create stronger social bonds.
Samuel and Tova disagree on this statement. Samuel agrees and thinks that this is the reason computer communication can be said to contribute to the dissolution of social bonds. Tova disagrees and thinks that computer communication replaces asocial behavior.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that historians should interpret what people who participated in historical events thought about those events, instead of trying to interpret the historical events themselves. This is because historians always have biases that affect their work.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the people who participated in historical events do not always have biases that affect their work. This overlooks the possibility that focusing on interpreting what people who participated in historical events thought would result in work that is equally biased as work based on the historian’s own interpretations.
A
historians who have different biases often agree about many aspects of some historical events
The fact that historians might often agree doesn’t change the fact that their work is always biased. The author wants historians to avoid such bias; the author didn’t assume that there’s never any agreement.
B
scholars in disciplines other than history also risk having their biases affect their work
Whether scholars other than historians are biased has no effect on whether historians should rely on the accounts of people who participated in events for their work. There’s no indication that the people who participated in events are scholars in other disciplines.
C
many of the ways in which historians’ biases affect their work have been identified
We already know historians are biased. The author wants to avoid those biases. Identification of those biases doesn’t affect the argument unless we have some reason to think we can remove those biases.
D
not all historians are aware of the effect that their particular biases have on their work
We already know historians are biased. If historians are not aware of those biases, that doesn’t constitute a reason why they should not focus on interpreting the accounts of people who participated in events.
E
the proposed shift in focus is unlikely to eliminate the effect that historians’ biases have on their work
This possibility, if true, shows that the author’s recommended solution doesn’t make any more sense than having historians themselves interpret historical events. Work based on their own interpretations might be biased, but so will work based on others’ interpretations.
Summary
The stimulus presents several conditional statements that can be connected.
early urban society → large-scale farming
large-scale-farming → irrigation
irrigation → not far from rivers/lakes
Note that the second sentence of the stimulus tells us that other ways of acquiring food besides large-scale-farming can’t support an urban population. But this just repeats the relationship expressed in the first sentence, so it’s not important.
early urban society → large-scale farming
large-scale-farming → irrigation
irrigation → not far from rivers/lakes
Note that the second sentence of the stimulus tells us that other ways of acquiring food besides large-scale-farming can’t support an urban population. But this just repeats the relationship expressed in the first sentence, so it’s not important.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The three conditionals can be connected to produce the following inference:
early urban society → not far from rivers/lakes
In other words, early urban societies must not have been far from rivers/lakes.
early urban society → not far from rivers/lakes
In other words, early urban societies must not have been far from rivers/lakes.
A
Most peoples who lived in early times lived in areas near rivers or lakes.
Unsupported. Even though early urban societies couldn’t be far from rivers/lakes, most people could have lived in rural, non-urban societies far from rivers/lakes.
B
Only if farming is possible in the absence of irrigation can societies be maintained in areas far from rivers or lakes.
Unsupported. The stimulus only tells us about requirements for large-scale farming, not farming generally. Perhaps small-scale farming is possible through irrigation far from water. And we only know about what’s required for early urban societies, not for modern urban societies.
C
In early times it was not possible to maintain urban societies in areas far from rivers or lakes.
Strongly supported. This is the inference we could anticipate from connecting the conditionals in the stimulus. In diagram form it means “far from rivers/lakes → /early urban societies.” This is the contrapositive of the inference described in the summary above.
D
Urban societies with farms near rivers or lakes do not have to rely upon irrigation to meet their farming needs.
Unsupported. We can infer early urban societies had to have large-scale farming, which required irrigation. This doesn’t tell us what kind of society doesn’t require irrigation.
E
Early rural societies relied more on foraging than on agriculture for food.
Unsupported. We know early urban societies required large-scale farming. But early rural societies may have had small-scale farming and may have relied on it more than foraging. The stimulus doesn’t tell us anything about early rural societies.
Correction: At 0:22 J.Y. mistakenly says that (E) is the right answer choice. (C) is the actual right answer choice.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that University Hospital could decrease its average length of stay without affecting its quality of care. This is based on the fact that the average length of stay for patients at University Hospital is higher than that of patients at Edgewater Hospital, and the recovery rates at University and Edgewater are similar for patients who have similar illnesses.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the proportion of patients at University Hospital that have illnesses that require longer treatment is higher than the proportion of those patients at Edgewater. This disparity could be the reason University has a higher average length of stay. “Similar recovery rates for patients with similar illnesses” doesn’t tell us that University and Edgewater have similar proportions of patients with each kind of illness.
A
equates the quality of care at a hospital with patients’ average length of stay
The author believes University can decrease average length of stay without changing quality of care. So the author doesn’t treat the two things as equal. The author believes that they are different and changing one does not necessarily change the other.
B
treats a condition that will ensure the preservation of quality of care as a condition that is required to preserve quality of care
The author doesn’t confuse sufficient and necessary conditions. The author doesn’t assert that anything is enough to preserve quality of care, nor does he assert that anything is necessary for preserving quality of care.
C
fails to take into account the possibility that patients at Edgewater Hospital tend to be treated for different illnesses than patients at University Hospital
This possibility shows that the greater average length of stay at University could be due to having a higher proportion of patients with longer-to-treat illnesses. So, University might not be able to bring length of stay down without hurting quality of care.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that the length of time patients stay in the hospital is never relevant to the recovery rates of these patients
The author’s position is that University’s average length of stay could be brought down without impacting recovery rates. This doesn’t mean he thinks the length of stay could be brought down to zero without impacting recovery rates.
E
fails to take into account the possibility that patients at University Hospital generally prefer longer hospital stays
What patients prefer has no impact on the author’s reasoning. Even if some might prefer longer stays, the author has statistics that appear to suggest that University can bring down its length of stay without affecting quality of care.