define: internalize
Psychology - make (attitudes or behavior) part of one's nature by learning or unconscious assimilation.
acquire knowledge of (the rules of a language).
define: retain
keep in one's memory.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there must be some food served at Jason’s Restaurant that contains products grown with chemical pesticides. This is based on the fact that the restaurant gets its produce from Kelly’s Grocery, and workers at the grocery were observed unloading produce from a truck belonging to Megafarm, which uses chemical pesticides on all its crops.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that Jason’s Restaurant isn’t purchasing from Kelly’s Grocery any produce that doesn’t have chemical pesticides. (Although Kellly’s Grocery purchases produce from MegaFarm, that doesn’t mean all of its produce comes from MegaFarm. Some produce could come from places that don’t use chemical pesticides.)
A
Jason does not know that Kelly’s Grocery buys produce from MegaFarm.
If anything, this strengthens the argument by suggesting Jason wouldn’t know to avoid MegaFarm’s produce.
B
Jason buys ingredients from several suppliers besides Kelly’s Grocery, and those suppliers sell only products that are grown without chemical pesticides.
The author never assumes that every ingredient Jason uses was grown with chemical pesticides. As long as the produce was grown with pesticides, the author’s argument can still make sense.
C
At Kelly’s Grocery, most of the produce items that are grown without chemical pesticides carry a label to indicate that fact.
This raises the possibility that Jason can avoid picking the produce that has chemical pesticides at Kelly’s Grocery. So, the mere fact that he shops at Kelly’s Grocery would not guarantee that he’s using produce grown with chemical pesticides.
D
None of the farms that supply produce to Kelly’s Grocery use any pesticide that has not been approved by the government as safe for use on food crops.
Whether a pesticide has been approved by the government has no impact on whether it is a chemical pesticide.
E
Most people who buy produce at Kelly’s Grocery would never knowingly buy produce grown with any chemical pesticides.
The author never assumes that Jason knowingly purchases produce that has chemical pesticides. Maybe Jason doesn’t know that what he’s buying was grown with chemical pesticides.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that politicians could persuade more voters if they made their opponents’ positions seem plausible and attractive before arguing against them. As a premise, the author explains that scholars successfully utilize this method to make their positions more persuasive to their colleagues.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of utilizing an analogy that isn’t analogous enough, in which the author assumes that because two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect. Specifically, the author of this stimulus assumes that because politicians and scholars both try to convince others of their views, the methods that work for scholars will work well for politicians, too.
A
fails to address the possibility that an approach that works with one kind of audience will not work with another
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of utilizing an analogy that isn’t analogous enough. The author assumes that because politicians and scholars both try to convince others of their views, the methods that work for scholars will work well for politicians, too.
B
fails to account for the difficulty of coming up with charitable formulations of positions to which one is opposed
This isn’t relevant to the argument. Whether or not it’s difficult to come up with charitable positions, the author’s argument is that politicians should do so.
C
focuses on the differences between two styles of argumentation even though those styles might be suited to similar audiences
The politicians’ and scholars’ audiences are quite different—one is trying to appeal to voters and the other is targeting professional scholars—so it doesn’t matter if the different argumentation styles might be suited to similar audiences.
D
takes for granted that both scholars and politicians have persuasion as their aim
The author tells us in the argument’s context and premise that politicians and scholars attempt to persuade voters and colleagues. This is a fact the author provides as part of the foundation for the argument, not a flaw in the argument structure itself.
E
presumes, without giving justification, that politicians formulate the positions of their opponents uncharitably even when they share those positions
The author doesn’t say that politicians always paint their opponents’ positions as implausible, just that they “typically” do. We don’t know if she makes this presumption. Even if she did, it would be irrelevant to the conclusion that politicians should adopt scholars’ methods.
Espinoza: The mayor will not get her road repair proposal passed because it is more important to her that taxes not increase.
Speaker 1 Summary
Durham concludes that the mayor will agree to a tax increase. This is because a tax increase is the only way the city council will agree to the mayor’s road repair proposal, and that proposal is the mayor’s top priority.
Speaker 2 Summary
Espinoza concludes that the mayor will not get the road repair proposal passed, because the mayor finds avoiding a tax increase more important than getting the proposal passed. Espinoza’s assumptions are that Espinoza will not agree to the tax increase and that such agreement is required in order to get the road repair proposal passed.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of agreement. The speakers agree that the mayor’s agreement to the tax increase is required in order to get the road repair proposal passed.
A
The mayor will agree to a tax increase.
This is a point of disagreement. Durham thinks the mayor will agree. Espinoza thinks the mayor won’t.
B
The only way that the city council will agree to pass the mayor’s road repair proposal is if she agrees to a tax increase.
This is a point of agreement. Durham directly states this. Espinoza assumes this. Espinoza believes the mayor won’t agree to the tax increase, and that this failure to agree implies that the road repair proposal won’t be passed.
C
The mayor’s road repair proposal is her top priority.
This is a point of disagreement. Durham thinks it is the mayor’s top priority. Espinoza thinks it isn’t.
D
The mayor will not get her road repair proposal passed.
Durham expresses no opinion about this. Durham believes the mayor will agree to the tax increase, which is a necessary condition for the council’s passage of the proposal. But Durham doesn’t indicate whether the proposal will or won’t pass.
E
It is more important to the mayor that taxes not increase than it is that her road repair proposal passes.
This is a point of disagreement. Durham thinks the road repair proposal is a higher priority. Espinoza thinks avoiding a tax increase is a higher priority.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The philosopher concludes that it’s untrue that most university students today have no interest in philosophical issues. Her premise is that university students who attend her talks are deeply interested in philosophical issues.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of basing a conclusion about a group on information from an unrepresentative sample. Students attending a philosopher’s talk are likely to be interested in philosophical issues! That doesn’t tell us much about the broader student body’s interest levels.
A
uses the term “interest” in two different ways when the argument requires that it be used consistently throughout
This is a cookie-cutter flaw, but it isn’t present in the philosopher’s argument. Here, the meaning of the term “interest” remains consistent throughout.
B
treats a group as representative of a larger group when there is reason to believe it is unrepresentative
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of basing a conclusion about a group on information from an unrepresentative sample. Students attending a philosopher’s talk are likely to be more interested in philosophical issues than are members of the broader student body!
C
appeals to the popularity of an academic field as evidence of the worth of that academic field
The philosopher’s argument doesn’t mention or depend on the worth of any academic field.
D
takes for granted that just because there is no evidence that interest in something is decreasing, it must be increasing
The philosopher doesn’t claim that interest in philosophical issues is increasing among university students.
E
takes for granted that it is good that university students have an interest in a certain subject just because the person making the argument has that interest
The philosopher doesn’t take for granted that university students have an interest in philosophical issues. She has observed this interest in the students who attend her talks.