Sociologists study folktales because they provide a means of understanding the distinctive values of a culture. However, the folktales in almost all cultures are adaptations of the same ancient narratives to the local milieu.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
How can folktales help sociologists understand cultures’ distinctive values when almost all cultures’ folktales are derived and adapted from the same ancient narratives?

Objective
The right answer will describe some way in which folktales from different cultures are distinct from each other even when the stories are adapted from semi-universal narratives. That distinctive feature will possess some capacity to teach folktale-studying sociologists about cultures’ distinctive values.

A
Because no single person is the author of a folktale, folktales must reflect the values of a culture rather than those of an individual.
This reinforces the idea that folktales are a good way to study a culture’s values, but it doesn’t touch on the discrepancy we need explained: how do folktales represent those unique values when the stories are usually based on the same ancient narratives cross-culturally?
B
Folktales are often oral traditions that persist from times when few people left written materials.
The manner in which folktales are passed down has no bearing on what sociologists are or aren’t able to learn from them. This doesn’t speak to the discrepancy at hand, so it isn’t helpful here.
C
The manner in which a culture adapts its narratives reveals information about the values of that culture.
This explains how sociologists learn about cultural values from folktales! Even if the stories are often based on the same ancient narratives, each culture adapts those narratives in a unique way. Those adaptations reveal information about a culture’s distinctive values.
D
The ancient narratives persist largely because they speak to basic themes and features of the human condition.
This is the opposite of helpful: it reinforces the idea that the narratives folktales are based on are universal, meaning we wouldn’t expect to be able to learn much about individual cultures from them. We need to know what makes the folktales distinct from one another.
E
Folktales are often morality tales, used to teach children the values important to a culture.
This reinforces the idea that folktales are a good way to study a culture’s values, but it doesn’t touch on the discrepancy we need explained: how do folktales represent those unique values when the stories are usually based on the same ancient narratives cross-culturally?

8 comments

It has been argued that the immense size of Tyrannosaurus rex would have made it so slow that it could only have been a scavenger, not a hunter, since it would not have been able to chase down its prey. This, however, is an overly hasty inference. T. rex’s prey, if it was even larger than T. rex, would probably have been slower than T. rex.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The author concludes that the theory that Tyrannosaurus rex was exclusively a scavenger is an overly hasty inference. As support for this conclusion, the author addresses a possibility that those who believe that T. rex was a scavenger fail to consider: that the prey of T. rex could be even larger than T. rex. If this was the case, then the prey would probably have been slower than T. rex. This possibility weakens the theory that T. rex was primarily a scavenger.

Identify Argument Part

The claim in the question stem is the inference that the author concludes was made too hastily.

A
It is a hypothesis that is claimed in the argument to be logically inconsistent with the conclusion advanced by the argument.

The conclusion advanced by the argument is just that the theory that T. rex was exclusively a scavenger is a hasty inference. There is no logical inconsistency here; the author is just asserting that the given evidence is not enough.

B
It is a hypothesis that the argument contends is probably false.

The author does not claim that the hypothesis in the question stem is probably false––this language is too strong. The author only claims that this hypothesis was “overly hasty,” meaning that we cannot make this conclusion from the information given.

C
It is a hypothesis that the argument attempts to undermine by calling into question the sufficiency of the evidence.

In asserting that the claim in the question stem is “overly hasty,” the author is saying that this claim doesn’t have enough support, not that it’s false. This is why (C) is correct––the author claims that the evidence is not sufficient to claim that T. rex was a scavenger.

D
It is offered as evidence in support of a hypothesis that the argument concludes to be false.

The claim in the question stem is the hypothesis that the author is discussing; it is not offered as evidence of a hypothesis.

E
It is offered as evidence that is necessary for drawing the conclusion advanced by the argument.

The statement in the question stem is the hypothesis that the author claims was an overly hasty inference; it is not offered as evidence.


24 comments

A philosophical paradox is a particularly baffling sort of argument. Your intuitions tell you that the conclusion of a philosophical paradox is false, but they also tell you that its conclusion follows logically from true premises. Solving a philosophical paradox requires accepting any one of three things: that its conclusion is true, that at least one of its premises is not true, or that its conclusion does not really follow logically from its premises.

Summary
Philosophical paradoxes are particularly baffling arguments. On one hand your intuitions tell you the conclusion of the paradox is false, but on the other hand they also tell you that its conclusion follows logically from true premises. Solving a philosophical paradox requires accepting any one of three things: that its conclusion is true, that at least one of its premises is not true, or that its conclusion does not really follow logically from its premises.

Notable Valid Inferences
Solving a philosophical paradox requires denying one or the other of your intuitions.

A
Solving a philosophical paradox requires accepting something that intuitively seems to be incorrect.
Must be true. The stimulus tells us that solving a paradox requires accepting one of three things. Accepting any of these three things contradicts either sense of intuition described in the second sentence.
B
The conclusion of a philosophical paradox cannot be false if all the paradox’s premises are true.
Could be false. The stimulus tells us that one of the three things we could accept when solving a paradox is that its conclusion does not really follow logically from its premises.
C
Philosophical paradoxes with one or two premises are more baffling than those with several premises.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus that tells us which types of paradoxes are more baffling than others. The stimulus introduces philosophical paradoxes as baffling in a matter-of-fact way, not in a comparative way.
D
Any two people who attempt to solve a philosophical paradox will probably use two different approaches.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about people who attempt to solve these paradoxes. It is possible that two people could use identical approaches.
E
If it is not possible to accept that the conclusion of a particular philosophical paradox is true, then it is not possible to solve that paradox.
Could be false. The stimulus gives us three options to accept in order to solve a philosophical paradox. It is possible for a person to solve a paradox by accepting either of the other two options instead.

29 comments