The eye of the mantis shrimp is likely the most complex visual organ in all of the animal kingdom. Each of its parts must be present and function with the other parts in order for its vision to render polarized light and multispectral images. Therefore, an ancestor of the mantis shrimp with only a few of those parts would have gained no survival advantage.

Come on!

Do you see how terrible this argument is? It's presuming that say, a simple eye that could, say, only perceive vague shapes in low resolution in black and white, is useless. How obviously, flagrantly, false.

But, we have to find a necessary assumption for this terrible argument.

To keep this argument alive, we must establish that for parts of the mantis shrimp eye to have aided survival, it must have helped it to render polarized light and multispectral images.

Imagine if we negated this assumption. So, parts of the mantis shrimp eye that could not render polarized light and multispectral images (in other words, the "simple eye" that could only make out vague shapes) could still aid survival. Well, yeah, now the terribleness of the argument comes to light.


32 comments

Style manual: Archaic spellings and styles of punctuation in direct quotations from older works are to be preserved if they occur infrequently and do not interfere with a reader’s comprehension. However, if they occur frequently, the editor may modernize them, inserting a note with an explanation to this effect in the text, or if similar modernizing has been done in more than one quotation, inserting a general statement in the preface. On the other hand, obvious typographical errors in quotations from modern works may be corrected without explanation.

Summary

The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences

If an older work contains frequent archaic spellings or styles of punctuation in direct quotations, the editor may modernize said spellings or styles.

A
If an editor corrects the spelling of a quoted word and the word occurs only once in the text, then an explanation should appear in a note or in the text.

Could be false. If the word in question was misspelled by an obvious typographical error and if the work it’s quoted in was modern, the editor may correct the spelling without explanation.

B
An editor may modernize an archaic spelling of a word found in a modern work without providing an explanation.

Could be false. The only rule we have about editing modern works is that it’s okay to correct obvious typographical errors without explanation. We have no information about when or how it might be acceptable to modernize an archaic spelling of a word in a modern work.

C
An editor should modernize an archaic spelling of a word that is quoted from an older work if the spelling interferes with reader comprehension.

Could be false. We only know that an editor may modernize an archaic spelling of a word that is quoted from an older work if the archaic spelling occurs frequently. We also don’t have any information about whether or not the editor actually should do so.

D
An editor may modernize punctuation directly quoted from an older work if that punctuation occurs frequently and interferes with reader comprehension.

Must be true. As shown below, by chaining the conditional claims, we see that “may modernize” is a necessary condition of “frequent occurrence.” As long as the punctuation occurs frequently, we know that the editor may modernize it.

E
If an editor modernizes only one of several similar instances of quoted archaic punctuation, an explanation should appear in the preface of the work.

Could be false. We know that if an editor modernizes more than one similar instance of quoted archaic punctuation, that editor should include a general statement in the preface. But that’s not a requirement if only one modernization was made.


19 comments

Most opera singers who add demanding roles to their repertoires at a young age lose their voices early. It has been said that this is because their voices have not yet matured and hence lack the power for such roles. But young singers with great vocal power are the most likely to ruin their voices. The real problem is that most young singers lack the technical training necessary to avoid straining their vocal cords—especially when using their full vocal strength. Such misuse of the cords inevitably leads to a truncated singing career.

Summary
Most opera singers who take on demanding roles when young lose their voices early. Although some people think this is because voices typically aren’t powerful enough for demanding roles when singers are young, the actual reason these singers lose their voices early is that young singers don’t have the training they need to avoid straining vocal cords.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Singing a demanding role when young can cause vocal straining.
Lack of training, rather than lack of power, causes most singers who take on demanding roles when young to lose their voices early.
Improved training of young singers can help them keep their voices longer.

A
Young opera singers without great vocal power are unlikely to ruin their voices by singing demanding roles.
Unsupported. Although singers with great vocal power are the most likely to ruin their voices, that doesn’t imply singers without great vocal power are unlikely to ruin their voices. The stimulus indicates power or the lack of it is not the problem. Lack of training is.
B
Some young opera singers ruin their voices while singing demanding roles because their vocal cords have not yet matured.
Antisupported. This describes a perspective the author rebuts. The author tells us that lack of matured voices is not the cause of losing voices early. Rather, lack of training is the cause.
C
Only opera singers with many years of technical training should try to sing demanding roles.
Unsupported. There’s no suggestion that the necessary training requires many years. Perhaps there are some young people who do have the necessary training. It’s OK for those singers to take on demanding roles.
D
Only mature opera singers can sing demanding roles without undue strain on their vocal cords.
Unsupported. The issue is not the maturity of the voice. The issue is proper training to avoid straining one’s voice. So, young singers with proper training may still be able to sing demanding roles without undue strain.
E
Most young opera singers who sing demanding roles strain their vocal cords.
Strongly supported. We know most young opera singers who sing demanding roles lose their voices early. The author tells us this is because these singers lack the training required to avoid straining their voices.

24 comments

Ethicist: It would be a mistake to say that just because someone is not inclined to do otherwise, she or he does not deserve to be praised for doing what is right, for although we do consider people especially virtuous if they successfully resist a desire to do what is wrong, they are certainly no less virtuous if they have succeeded in extinguishing all such desires.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The ethicist refutes the idea that those who are not inclined to do wrong don’t deserve to be praised for doing what is right. Why is that idea flawed? People who succeed in avoiding all desires to do what is wrong are just as virtuous as those who struggle to resist one desire at a time.

Identify Argument Part
This is a commonly held belief that the author says is not enough to support the claim being refuted. Although we tend to think people are especially virtuous for successfully resisting a desire, they are no more virtuous those who get rid of all their immoral desires. Therefore, they are not more deserving of praise.

A
It is a claim for which the argument attempts to provide justification.
The author says this claim is insufficient, and justifies why it is insufficient.
B
It makes an observation that, according to the argument, is insufficient to justify the claim that the argument concludes is false.
This is accurate. This part of the argument would support the claim being refuted, but the author shows why this commonly held belief isn’t enough to say that group deserves more praise.
C
It is a claim, acceptance of which, the argument contends, is a primary obstacle to some people’s having an adequate conception of virtue.
Adequate conceptions of virtue are not at issue in the argument. Additionally, the acceptance of this claim is not an obstacle as long as those who extinguish all desires are considered equally virtuous.
D
It is, according to the argument, a commonly held opinion that is nevertheless false.
The ethicist does not say that this assertion is false. It can be true that those individuals are especially virtuous, perhaps when compared to those who don’t resist desire. They just are no more virtuous than those who extinguish all desire.
E
It reports an observation that, according to the argument, serves as evidence for the truth of its conclusion.
This does not support the conclusion. It almost supports the claim that is being refuted, but the ethicist shows why it is insufficient.

33 comments

In ancient Greece, court witnesses were not cross-examined and the jury, selected from the citizenry, received no guidance on points of law; thus, it was extremely important for litigants to make a good impression on the jurors. For this reason, courtroom oratory by litigants is a good source of data on the common conceptions of morality held by the citizens of ancient Greece.

Summarize Argument
The author argues that courtroom speeches by litigants are a good source of information on the common morality of the citizens of ancient Greece. She supports this by saying that the jury was made up of citizens and had no legal guidance and no cross-examination of witnesses. This made it crucial for litigants to impress the jurors.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because litigants were concerned about making a good impression on the jury, they designed their speeches to reflect the moral beliefs of the jurors. In other words, she assumes that the litigants thought that jurors were impressed by oratory that appealed to the jurors’ own morality.
By concluding that these speeches are a good source of data on the common morality of citizens in ancient Greece, she also assumes that jurors’ values were representative of all citizens.

A
Litigants believed jurors were more likely to be impressed by litigants whose personality they preferred.
The author assumes that litigants believed jurors were impressed by litigants who appealed to their moral beliefs, not by litigants whose personality they preferred.
B
Litigants believed jurors were more likely to subject the litigants’ personal moral codes to close critical scrutiny than were people who did not sit on juries.
The author assumes that litigants tried to impress jurors by reflecting the jurors’ moral codes, not by discussing their own personal moral codes. Also, whether jurors scrutinized the litigants more than other people is irrelevant.
C
Litigants believed jurors were likely to be impressed by litigants whose professed moral code most resembled their own.
If litigants believed jurors were impressed by those litigants whose moral views matched their own, it makes sense that litigants’ speeches would reflect jurors' beliefs. Since jurors were selected from citizens, these speeches may indeed reflect common moral views of citizens.
D
Litigants believed jurors to be more impressed by litigants who were of the same economic class as the jurors.
The author assumes that litigants tried to impress jurors by reflecting the jurors’ moral codes. Her argument has nothing to do with the economic class of jurors’ or litigants.
E
Litigants believed jurors were likely to render their decisions based on a good understanding of the law.
The author assumes that litigants tried to impress jurors by appealing to the jurors’ morality. She doesn’t assume that litigants thought that jurors made decisions based on a good understanding of the law.

10 comments

Studies have shown that treating certain illnesses with treatment X produces the same beneficial changes in patients’ conditions as treating the same illnesses with treatment Y. Furthermore, treatment X is quicker and less expensive than treatment Y. Thus, in treating these illnesses, treatment X should be preferred to treatment Y.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that treatment X should be preferred to treatment Y. This is because the treatments are equally beneficial, but treatment X is cheaper and quicker than treatment Y.

Notable Assumptions
The author believes that, all else equal, the treatment that’s quicker and cheaper should be preferred. This means the author assumes that all things really are equal. While we know the treatments provide the same benefits, we don’t know about any possible downsides to treatment X that would make it an inappropriate substitute for treatment Y.

A
Unlike treatment Y, treatment X has produced harmful side effects in laboratory animals.
While treatment X is cheaper and quicker, it may produce harmful side effects. Thus, treatment Y may actually be the preferred treatment.
B
There are other illnesses for which treatment Y is more effective than treatment X.
We don’t care about those illnesses. We’re talking about this illness.
C
Until recently, treatment X was more expensive than treatment Y.
Treatment X isn’t more expensive anymore. We don’t care how much it used to cost.
D
Treatment Y is prescribed more often by physicians than treatment X.
We don’t care how often physicians prescribe these treatments. We care which should be preferred.
E
A third treatment, treatment Z, is even quicker and less expensive than treatment X.
We don’t care about other alternatives. Treatment X may still be preferable to treatment Y.

18 comments