A
Prohibitions against graphic designers’ signing their works are common in advertising.
B
In advertising, the purpose of a graphic design is to focus attention on an advertised product or service rather than on the designer.
C
It is not desirable that graphic designers remain anonymous.
D
Graphic design is made less effective by anonymity on the part of graphic designers.
E
Holding graphic designers accountable for their work is difficult when those designers are anonymous.
A
uses evidence that is in principle impossible to disprove
B
uses the key term “student” in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion
C
generalizes from a single instance of a certain kind to all instances of that kind
D
infers a specific causal relationship from a correlation that might well have arisen from another cause
E
contains a premise that presupposes the truth of the conclusion
Archaeologist: The people who lived in this area deposited their rubbish in pits near their dwellings. Some claim that the rubbish found in those pits provides great insight into the possessions these people had, but this rubbish by itself actually tells us relatively little about those possessions; among other reasons, the pits have been subject to erosion over long periods of time, with destructive effects on the rubbish within.
Summarize Argument
The archaeologist concludes that the rubbish found in pits near old dwellings reveals little about the possessions of the people who once lived there. She supports by saying that the pits have been eroded over time, damaging the rubbish inside.
Notable Assumptions
The archaeologist assumes that the erosion has damaged the rubbish in the pits so much that it no longer provides much information about the possessions of the people who lived there. She also assumes that any rubbish that didn't decay or erode is either gone or else is not enough on its own to reveal much about the people’s possessions.
A
The pits contain certain tools not found in dwellings or at other above-ground locations.
This weakens the argument because, if the pits contain tools found nowhere else in the dwellings, then they do provide some great insight into the possessions that the people had.
B
Scavengers routinely salvaged the most durable items from the rubbish pits.
This addresses the assumption that items less affected by erosion are either gone or else don't provide much insight. If scavengers took the most durable items and only the most eroded ones are left, it makes sense that the pits may not reveal much about the people's possessions.
C
The soil surrounding the rubbish pits was sometimes removed for the manufacture of bricks.
This is irrelevant because we don’t know if removing the soil around the pits would have had an effect on the rubbish inside the pits.
D
The pits in which the rubbish was deposited had earlier been used by this group of people as burial sites.
The argument only focuses on the pits being used for rubbish and what that rubbish shows about the people's possessions. Previous uses of the pits are not relevant because we don't know how, if at all, they would have affected the rubbish.
E
Certain types of items were never discarded by members of this group of people.
The argument only addresses what the items that are in the rubbish pits reveal about the people’s possessions. While there are likely many other items that are not in the pits that also provide information, they are not relevant to the argument.