Miriam: A moral theory, like an overcoat, can be quite useful even if it is not useful in every possible situation. Being useful in a wide variety of common circumstances is all we need from a moral theory.
Speaker 1 Summary
Laurel concludes that modern moral theories have to be abandoned or reworked, because they don’t provide guidance in extreme. Extreme cases are the times when people most need guidance.
Speaker 2 Summary
Miriam asserts that moral theories can still be useful, even if not useful in all situations. They serve their purpose if they’re useful in a wide variety of common situations.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. They disagree about whether moral theories’ failure to help in extreme situations justifies abandoning or reworking them. Laurel think it does, but Miriam thinks it doesn’t.
A
it is preferable to develop a moral theory that provides solutions to all the moral dilemmas that could arise
Miriam doesn’t have an opinion. She describes what we need from a moral theory, but doesn’t describe whether it’d be better for a moral theory to provide solutions to all problems that could arise.
B
people abandoned earlier moral theories when they encountered dilemmas that those theories did not adequately address
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss whether people abandoned earlier theories or why people abandoned earlier theories.
C
a moral theory’s adequacy depends on its ability to provide guidance in extreme cases
This is a point of disagreement. Laurel thinks a moral theory’s adequacy does depend on its ability to guide in extreme cases. But Miriam believes it doesn’t. A moral theory just needs to provide guidance in the most common situations.
D
just as people need different overcoats in different climates, so too do they need different moral theories on different occasions
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss whether people ever need different moral theories during different situations.
E
a moral theory developed in the light of extreme cases is unlikely to provide adequate guidance in more usual cases
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss whether moral theories that apply in extreme cases are unlikely to provide guidance in more typical cases.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The scientist confidently claims that the ice ages were caused by widespread, unusually rich growth of vegetation. His reasoning is that vegetation converts oxygen into CO2. CO2 retains heat. Excess vegetation caused a reduction in CO2, causing the earth to cool due to a lack of heat retention. This cooling caused the ice ages.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the scientist’s explanation for the ice ages: “There is little doubt that the ice ages were caused by the unusually rich growth of vegetation worldwide.”
A
Excessive growth of vegetation worldwide could have caused one or more ice ages by depleting the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This is too weak to match the conclusion. The scientist claims that the excessive growth of vegetation almost definitely caused all of the ice ages.
B
If the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is depleted, the earth cools significantly, thereby causing an ice age.
This is part of the causal explanation that shows how excessive vegetation would cause an ice age.
C
An excessive growth of vegetation causes the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to be depleted.
This is also part of the chained explanation showing the process of how excessive vegetation would cause an ice age.
D
If unusually rich growth of vegetation caused the ice ages, it undoubtedly did so by depleting the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This “if” statement does not match the conclusion. The author definitively states that the phenomenon did happen, and it happened by this process.
E
Unusually rich growth of vegetation worldwide was almost certainly the cause of the ice ages.
This accurately matches the strength and content of the conclusion. “Almost certainly” matches the author’s “there is little doubt” that this unusual vegetation growth caused the ice ages.