Summarize Argument
The scientist concludes the first dinosaurs to fly probably glided out of trees, rather than flying from a running start. Why? Because gliding from trees requires only simple wings that are stepping stones, evolutionarily, to the larger wings of later dinosaurs.
Notable Assumptions
The scientist assumes it’s more likely the first flighted dinosaurs had wings for gliding than wings for lifting off. This means assuming wings for lifting off the ground are either less simple than wings for gliding or less of a stepping stone toward the wings of later dinosaurs. It also means assuming there’s no other characteristic of the first flighted dinosaurs that would make it less likely they glided from trees than lifted off the ground.
A
Early flying dinosaurs built their nests at the base of trees.
This doesn’t favor the scientist’s argument. It implies the first flighted dinosaurs lived on the ground, which if anything makes it less likely they flew by gliding out of trees.
B
Early flying dinosaurs had sharp claws and long toes suitable for climbing.
This strengthens the scientist’s argument. It implies the first flighted dinosaurs were capable of climbing trees, which rules out the possibility they were confined to the ground.
C
Early flying dinosaurs had unusual feathers that provided lift while gliding, but little control when taking flight.
This strengthens the scientist’s argument. It implies the first flighted dinosaurs had biological characteristics more consistent with gliding than with lifting off from the ground.
D
Early flying dinosaurs had feathers on their toes that would have interfered with their ability to run.
This strengthens the scientist’s argument. It implies the first flighted dinosaurs had toes that would have made it difficult to lift off from a running start.
E
Early flying dinosaurs lived at a time when their most dangerous predators could not climb trees.
This strengthens the scientist’s argument. It implies the first flighted dinosaurs had a reason to climb trees: to avoid predators. It rules out the possibility those dinosaurs would have gained no advantage by living in trees.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that any impact from viewers’ perception that political candidates who blink excessively during a debate perform less well than those who blink an average amount is harmful. This is because a candidate’s rate of blinking is not a feature that contributes to performing well in elected office.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that blink rate is not a signal of features that are relevant to performing well in office, such as confidence.
A
Voters’ judgments about candidates’ debate performances rarely affect the results of national elections.
The argument never specifies that it’s concerned only with national elections. Effects on state elections or local elections can still be harmful. Also, the conclusion doesn’t assert that there are any effects on elections. Only that if there are effects, they’re harmful.
B
Blinking too infrequently during televised debates has the same effect on viewers’ judgments of candidates as blinking excessively.
This simply describes another way that blink rate can affect someone’s perception of a candidate. This doesn’t undermine the author’s position that perceptions based on blink rate are harmful.
C
Excessive blinking has been shown to be a mostly reliable indicator of a lack of confidence.
This suggests that excessive blink rate can be a signal of confidence, which is a feature that contributes to performance in elected office. So, judging a candidate based on excessive blinking might not be harmful, because it’s an indicator of something we were told is relevant.
D
Candidates for top political offices who are knowledgeable also tend to be confident.
This doesn’t tell us anything about blink rate or why judging candidates based on blink rate might not be harmful.
E
Viewers’ judgments about candidates’ debate performances are generally not affected by how knowledgeable the candidates appear to be.
This doesn’t tell us anything about blink rate or why judging candidates based on blink rate might not be harmful.
Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that one should not confuse the desire for money with the desire for material possessions. Why? Because there are many things that money can buy that are not material possessions, and material possessions are usually desired for experiences they make possible.
Identify Argument Part
The claim is the argument’s main conclusion.
A
It is a generalization from which the argument draws inferences regarding several particular cases.
The claim does not support a specific case. There are no specific cases in this argument, it stays in general territory.
B
It is the overall conclusion of the argument.
The claim is the argument’s main conclusion.
C
It is a subsidiary conclusion used by the argument to support its overall conclusion.
The claim is not a sub-conclusion.
D
It is a recommendation that the argument evaluates by considering specific counterexamples.
The claim is not evaluated by the argument.
E
It alludes to a problem for which the conclusion of the argument offers a solution.
The claim does not identify a problem.