Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that restrictions on tobacco advertising have significantly reduced smoking among adults. This is based on a correlation observed between a decline in % of people who smoke and an increase in restrictions on tobacco advertising.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the correlation between decline in tobacco smoking and increase in restrictions on tobacco advertising is explained by the restrictions causing the decline. This overlooks alternate explanations for the correlation. For example, maybe both the decline and the increase in restrictions are caused by something else.
A
fails to consider whether there have been any changes over the last two decades in the percentage of the teenage population who smoke
The conclusion concerns adults’ smoking. Whether teens have also seen a decline in smoking doesn’t affect adults’ smoking.
B
uses evidence that describes only a percentage of the adult population to reach a conclusion about the entire adult population
The conclusion is not about the entire adult population. The conclusion simply asserts a causal relationship between restrictions on advertising and a decline in smoking. This doesn’t mean every adult stopped smoking or that every adult is affected by restrictions on advertising.
C
reaches a conclusion about smoking among today’s adults based on statistics from ten or twenty years ago
The conclusion is not about “today’s adults.” It assert that restrictions have “had” a significant impact on adults’ smoking. Evidence of what has happened in the past is relevant to a claim about what effects restrictions have “had.”
D
neglects to take into account whether there have been restrictions on the advertising of other products besides tobacco in the past ten years
It’s not clear what impact restrictions of other products could have on smoking. The author did not assume that there weren’t restrictions on canned food, toys, or pencils, for example.
E
fails to consider the possibility that factors other than restrictions on advertising have contributed to the decline in smoking among adults
This possibility, if true, shows why the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. If other factors could have contributed to the decline in smoking, then the correlation between restrictions and the decline does not have to be significantly due to those restrictions.
Ms. Yerky: The blood contains no such substance. Laboratory experiments involving a number of animals, including the arctic squirrel, have shown that a vial of blood from any of the animals freezes at just the same temperature as does a vial of water.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Xu concludes that the arctic squirrel’s blood has a substance that prevents it from freezing at the freezing temperature of water. This is based on the claim that the squirrel’s blood temperature falls below the freezing temperature of water when the squirrel is hibernating, but the blood never freezes during hibernation.
Yerky concludes that the squirrel’s blood doesn’t have a substance that keeps it from freezing at water temperature. This is based on the claim that lab experiments show the squirrel’s blood freezes at the same temperature that water freezes.
Yerky concludes that the squirrel’s blood doesn’t have a substance that keeps it from freezing at water temperature. This is based on the claim that lab experiments show the squirrel’s blood freezes at the same temperature that water freezes.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Yerky presents evidence that suggests Xu’s conclusion is wrong.
A
presenting evidence that supports a conclusion inconsistent with Mr. Xu’s conclusion
Yerky presents evidence (the lab experiment results) that supports a conclusion that contradicts Xu’s conclusion. Yerky concludes squirrel blood doesn’t have a substance that keeps it from freezing at water temperature. This contradicts Xu’s conclusion.
B
showing that the evidence offered by Mr. Xu was collected by means of unreliable methods
Yerky doesn’t comment on the way in which Yerky’s evidence was gathered. We don’t know why Xu thinks that a squirrel’s blood doesn’t freeze during hibernation, or that a squirrel’s blood gets colder than the freezing temperature of water during hibernation.
C
offering an alternative explanation for why the squirrel’s blood fails to freeze at the temperature at which water freezes
Yerky probably doesn’t agree that a squirrel’s blood fails to freeze at the freezing temperature of water. The lab tests show that it does freeze at that temperature. So there’s no way that Yerky provides an explanation for a phenomenon that she doesn’t even think happens.
D
showing that a key term used by Mr. Xu is ambiguous
None of the terms in Xu’s argument is used ambiguously. “Hibernation” means the same thing throughout Xu’s argument. Same with “blood” and “freezing” and “temperature” and every other word.
E
showing that the evidence provided by Mr. Xu has no bearing on the point at issue
Yerky brings up lab results that suggest Yerk’s conclusion is wrong. But this doesn’t mean Xu’s evidence has no bearing (i.e. is irrelevant.) Evidence can be relevant, even if its ultimately not persuasive.
Summarize Argument
A group of psychologists argues that young children’s compassionate behavior in certain situations demonstrates that moral behavior begins early in life. A second group of psychologists disagrees, claiming that an empathetic response (by itself) is not a moral behavior. They argue that moral behavior requires an understanding of moral principles and reasoning skills, which the children lack based on their unsophisticated verbal responses to hypothetical dilemmas.
Notable Assumptions
The children’s verbal responses to the hypothetical dilemmas accurately measures their moral reasoning skills.
A
The children studied by the second group of psychologists displayed a slightly higher level of moral reasoning when they were well rested than when they were tired.
That some children displayed “slightly higher” levels of reasoning when they were well-rested does not impact the argument. The argument is focused on whether the children’s responses to hypothetical dilemmas indicate their moral reasoning abilities.
B
Adults who respond to hypothetical moral dilemmas display a much higher level of moral reasoning than do children who responded to the same hypothetical moral dilemmas.
If anything, this supports the argument by showing that moral reasoning develops later in life. It does not cast doubt on the claim that *children* lack moral reasoning skills.
C
The children studied by the second group of psychologists displayed a slightly higher level of moral reasoning in response to hypothetical dilemmas involving adults than in response to hypothetical dilemmas involving children.
This only details some variation in how the children responded to certain hypotheticals. It does nothing to cast doubt on the second group of psychologists’ main conclusion.
D
In actual situations involving moral dilemmas, children display a much higher level of moral reasoning than did the children who, in the study by the second group of psychologists, responded only to hypothetical dilemmas.
This calls out a key assumption and gets to the heart of the argument’s reasoning. This suggests that the children’s verbal responses to hypothetical dilemmas do not accurately reflect their reasoning in real-life situations.
E
Some adults who respond to hypothetical moral dilemmas reason at about the same level as children who respond to the same hypothetical moral dilemmas.
A comparison between children and adults does nothing to weaken the argument. The argument hinges on children’s subpar response to hypothetical dilemmas and that “proving” that they do not have moral reasoning.