Summarize Argument
The author concludes that one should choose a career in something other than art. He supports this by saying that an artist’s pay depends on subjective evaluations of their work, and it’s unacceptable for one’s pay to depend on subjective evaluations of one’s work.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author argues that one should choose a career outside of art because it's unacceptable for pay to depend on subjective opinions of one's work. To draw this conclusion, he must assume that other careers don't have the same issue. But what if other careers do involve some level of pay being based on subjective evaluations of one’s work? In that case, it isn’t a reason to choose a career other than art.
A
takes for granted that people should choose careers solely on the basis of how much they pay
Like (D), the author never addresses how much artists are paid. Instead, he takes issue with the fact that their pay depends on subjective evaluations of their work. He also never argues that people should choose careers solely on this basis, just that it’s a relevant factor.
B
takes for granted that a work of art will be considered beautiful either by everyone or by no one
The author argues that it’s unacceptable for one’s pay to depend on subjective evaluations of one’s work. But he never makes any assumptions about what those subjective evaluations might be. He doesn’t assume that a work of art will be considered beautiful by everyone or no one.
C
overlooks the possibility that one’s pay in any profession involves a certain degree of subjective evaluation
In order to argue that one should avoid a career in art because it's unacceptable for pay to depend on subjective evaluation, the author must assume that pay in other careers isn't also based on subjective evaluation. But if it is, why should one choose a career other than art?
D
overlooks the possibility that some artists are paid very well
Like (A), the author never makes any claims or assumptions about how much artists are paid. Even if all artists are paid very well, this doesn’t change the fact that their pay is determined by subjective evaluations of their work, which the author claims is unacceptable.
E
treats a criterion that must be satisfied in order for a career choice to be a good one as a criterion that will ensure that a career choice is a good one
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The author doesn't make this mistake. He doesn't present any criteria that are necessary for a “good” career. He only says that it’s unacceptable for pay to be determined by subjective evaluation.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The critic believes that the recent trend to humanize vampires in entertainment is unfortunate. The critic acknowledges that the overall trend in entertainment toward moral complexity is generally a good thing, but asserts that the vampire myth should remain a powerful representation of evil because evil exists in the world.
Identify Argument Part
This claim qualifies how broadly the conclusion should be applied.
A
It states a principle used to support the conclusion of the argument.
This is not descriptively accurate. The conclusion opposes humanizing vampires.
B
It places limits on how broadly the conclusion of the argument should be generalized.
The critic acknowledges that moral complexity is generally good. However, he limits this general trend by supporting the conclusion that the humanization of vampires is unfortunate.
C
It justifies the need for the argument’s being given.
This is not descriptively accurate. The statement is not a premise, so it does not justify anything. There is also no “need” for the argument being given
D
It provides a hypothesis that is rejected in the conclusion of the argument.
The statement is not a hypothesis that is rejected. The statement is acknowledged and concedes some limitations.
E
It is the conclusion of the argument.
This is not the conclusion of the argument. It does not receive support.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The marine biologists hypothesize that young harbor seals start by avoiding all killer whales, but eventually learn which killer whales eat only fish. Why? Because seal-eating and fish-eating killer whales make chattering noises that sound different from each other, and harbor seals use that difference to tell which killer whales are dangerous.
Notable Assumptions
The marine biologists assume harbor seals avoid seal-eating killer whales because they learn to identify the fish-eating killer whales, and not for any other reason. This means assuming the reverse dynamic—that young seals start with no aversion to killer whales, but acquire an aversion to seal-eating whales—doesn’t happen. It also means assuming the ability to identify seal-eating whales is learned, not purely genetic.
A
Killer whales that eat seals also eat other marine mammals that are similar in size to seals.
This doesn’t affect the argument. It’s equally compatible with the leading alternative hypothesis: that young seals start with no aversion to killer whales, but acquire an aversion to seal-eating whales by observing them eat mammals similar to their own size.
B
Unlike harbor seals, which can hear killer-whale chatter even at great distances, most fish cannot hear that chatter, even close at hand.
This is irrelevant. There’s no indication harbor seals use the behavior of fish to distinguish between seal-eating and fish-eating killer whales.
C
When mature harbor seals first listen to the recorded chatter of killer whales that eat only fish but whose dialect is unfamiliar, the seals rapidly swim away from the sound.
This strengthens the marine biologists’ hypothesis that young seals start with an aversion to all killer whales. It casts doubt on the leading alternative hypothesis: that young seals start with no aversion to killer whales, but learn to be afraid of the seal-eating ones.
D
Young harbor seals show no natural aversion to any seal predators other than killer whales.
If anything, this makes the leading alternative hypothesis more likely. Since it means young seals start with no aversion to other predator species, it suggests the marine biologists’ hypothesis—that young seals start with an aversion to killer whales—would be an anomaly.
E
If a fish-eating killer whale mistakenly attacks a harbor seal, that seal, if it survives, will subsequently avoid all killer whales that chatter in the attacker’s dialect, but other harbor seals will not.
If anything, this makes the leading alternative hypothesis more likely. It implies harbor seals at least sometimes learn to pick out the chattering of dangerous killer whales and acquire an aversion to those whales.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the use of heating pads is more effective than stretching is at relieving lower back pain. This is based on the fact that an athlete first tried unsuccessfully to overcome lower back pain through stretching. After, the athlete tried a heating pad. Several days later, the pain was gone.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the heating pad caused the lower back pain to go away. This overlooks alternate explanations, such as the possibility that the pain went away simply with more time.
The author also assumes that this athlete’s experience is representative of others concerning what will relieve lower back pain.
The author also assumes that this athlete’s experience is representative of others concerning what will relieve lower back pain.
A
It fails to consider that even if the use of heating pads is more effective at relieving lower back pain than stretching is, it may be much less effective at helping to heal the underlying injury responsible for the pain.
This possibility is irrelevant, because the conclusion concerns only what is more effective at relieving lower back pain. What is better healing the underlying injury is a separate issue from what’s better at relieving pain.
B
It fails to consider the fact that lower back pain resulting from athletic competitions often disappears after several days regardless of any attempts to relieve it.
This possibility shows that the athlete’s relief from lower back pain does not have to be a result of the heat pad. It could have been due to the additional time after the athletic competition.
C
It fails to consider that the athlete’s experience regarding the effectiveness of different methods of relieving lower back pain may not have been representative of that of the general population.
This points out that the athlete’s experience may not be representative of the general population. So the author cannot conclude what is “generally” more effective at relieving back pain simply based on this one athlete.
D
It overlooks the possibility that the effectiveness of different methods of relieving lower back pain may vary substantially depending on the underlying cause of the lower back pain.
If back pain from some other cause — such as moving heavy objects — might be affected differently from pain relief methods, then we cannot conclude what is “generally” more effective from this one athlete’s experience after an athletic competition.
E
It overlooks the possibility that there might be ways of stretching that are much more effective at relieving lower back pain than were the ways the athlete tried.
This points out that the athlete might not have tried the most effective methods of stretching. This shows that we cannot conclude that stretching is generally less effective simply from this one athlete’s experience stretching. Maybe the athlete didn’t stretch in the right way.
Summarize Argument
The theorists who argue that it is naive to view literary works as embodying varying levels of aesthetic value succumb to the this very view. This is because these theorists judge literary works based on how interesting and successful they are.
Identify Argument Part
The claim showcases how these theorists engage in thinking they disagree with. It is a premise supporting the main conclusion.
A
It is presented as evidence for the conclusion that it is naive to view literary works as embodying a distinct aesthetic value to a greater or lesser degree.
This misidentifies the conclusion. The main conclusion is that these theorists succumb to the view they wish to undermine.
B
It is presented as evidence against the claim that it is naive to view literary works as embodying a distinct aesthetic value to a greater or lesser degree.
The claim is not evidence against the prior claim. It highlights an inconsistency in the theorists' actions. The argument assumes that evaluating the aesthetic value of literary works is the same as judging them based on how interesting and successful they are.
C
It is a conclusion for which the claim that it is naive to maintain that literary works embody a distinct aesthetic value to a greater or lesser degree is offered as evidence.
This is not a conclusion. It does not receive any support.
D
It is presented as evidence for the conclusion that the literary theorists succumb to the view they wish to undermine.
The claim showcases how these theorists engage in thinking they disagree with. It is a premise for the following sentence (the main conclusion).
E
It is presented as evidence against the claim that literary works are expressions of ideology.
This claim does not cast doubt on the claim that literary works are expressions of ideology. It highlights a perceived inconsistency in the literary theorists’ argument.