Dr. Z:
Many of the characterizations of my work offered by Dr. Q are imprecise, and such characterizations do not provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of my work.
Summary
Regarding Z’s work, many (i.e., some) characterizations by Q are imprecise characterizations.
Imprecise characterizations don’t provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Z’s work.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
Some characterizations by Q don’t provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Z’s work.
A
Some of Dr. Q’s characterizations of Dr. Z’s work provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr. Z’s work.
Unsupported. We’re given no information on what provides an adequate basis for sound criticism. We can infer that at least some of Q’s characterizations fail to provide an adequate basis, but that doesn’t imply that any of his characterizations do provide an adequate basis.
B
All of Dr. Q’s characterizations of Dr. Z’s work that are not imprecise provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr. Z’s work.
Unsupported. We’re given no information on what provides an adequate basis for sound criticism. We do know that if any of Q’s characterizations provides an adequate basis for sound criticism, it must not be an imprecise characterization. But (B) gets that relationship backward.
C
All of the characterizations of Dr. Z’s work by Dr. Q that do not provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr. Z’s work are imprecise.
Unsupported. This gets the sufficient and necessary conditions backward. The stimulus says that if a characterization is imprecise, it fails to provide an adequate basis for sound criticism. We don’t know if the reverse relationship is also true.
D
If the characterization of someone’s work is precise, then it provides a sound basis for criticizing that work.
Unsupported. We’re given no information on what provides a sound basis for criticism. Also, the stimulus only addresses what’s true of Z’s work—we don’t know what’s true of “someone’s work” more generally.
E
At least one of Dr. Q’s characterizations of Dr. Z’s work fails to provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of that work.
Very strongly supported. Many (i.e., some, meaning one or more) of Q’s characterizations are imprecise, and an imprecise characterization always fails to provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Z’s work.
P: Your hypothesis is laughable! What would have been the point of such a person’s writing Homeric epics down? Surely a person who knew them well enough to write them down would not need to read them; and no one else could read them, according to your hypothesis.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
P concludes that M’s hypothesis that the Greek alphabet was invented by someone who wanted to record Homeric epics is laughable. As support, P questions the purpose of such a person recording Homeric epics, since that person would know the epics well enough to not need to read them. Additionally, nobody else would be able to read the stories if the person was writing them in a newly invented language.
Describe Method of Reasoning
P responds to M by making M’s hypothesis seem ridiculous. P claims that the type of person who M claims would have invented the Greek alphabet would not have had a reason to write down Homeric epics in Greek.
A
attacking M’s understanding of the literary value of oral poetry
P does not discuss the literary value of oral poetry, so P’s argument did not contain an attack against M’s understanding of the literary value of oral poetry.
B
disagreeing with M’s thesis without attempting to refute it
P does attempt to refute M’s thesis. P does so by illustrating that the type of person who M claims would have invented the Greek alphabet would not have had a reason to write down Homeric epics in Greek.
C
challenging M’s knowledge of the Phoenician writing system
P does not challenge M’s knowledge of the Phoenician writing system; P does not mention the Phoenician writing system nor does she question M’s knowledge.
D
attempting to undermine M’s hypothesis by making it appear absurd
P concludes that M’s hypothesis is laughable, and attempts to show that the person who M claims invented the Greek alphabet would not have any reason to write down Homeric epics, thus making M’s argument seem absurd.
E
providing an alternative interpretation of evidence put forward by M
Neither P nor M provides evidence, and P does not give an alternative interpretation of any previously discussed evidence.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the North American Free Trade Agreement is misnamed. As evidence, the author points to the principles outlined by Adam Smith which describe any obstacle placed in the way of free movement of goods, investment, or labor defeats free trade. Moreover, since under the agreement workers would be restricted by national boundaries, the North American Free Trade Agreement would not truly result in free trade.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author criticizes the North American Free Trade Agreement as being misnamed because of the restrictions the agreement would place on workers. He does this by appealing to economist Adam Smith, whose principles of free trade are in contrast with what the agreement entails.
A
ruling out alternatives
The author does not rule out any alternatives. The author’s argument is limited specifically to the North American Free Trade Agreement, no other agreements or acts are mentioned.
B
using a term in two different senses
The author concludes that the North American Free Trade Agreement is misnamed, but the author himself does not use the term “free trade” in two different senses.
C
citing a nonrepresentative instance
The author does not cite a nonrepresentative instance. The author’s argument is restricted specifically to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
D
appealing to a relevant authority
The authority is the economist Adam Smith. He is a relevant authority because he is the economist who first articulated the principles of free trade.
E
responding to a different issue from the one posed
The author does not respond to a different issue. The issue is the misnaming of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the author never strays away from addressing this issue.
Dr. Carabella: Not so. Telemedicine might help rural patient care initially. However, small hospitals will soon realize that they can minimize expenses by replacing physicians with technicians who can use telemedicine to transmit examinations to large medical centers, resulting in fewer patients being able to receive traditional, direct medical examinations. Eventually, it will be the rare individual who ever gets truly personal attention. Hence, rural as well as urban patient care will suffer.
Speaker 1 Summary
Dr. Jones claims that telemedicine will improve care for rural patients. How so? Because it will allow far-away specialists to consult on rural patients’ conditions. This will give rural patients access to additional sources of advice, thus improving their care.
Speaker 2 Summary
Dr. Carabella argues that telemedicine will actually lower the quality of care for both rural and urban patients. This will happen because small hospitals will cut costs by replacing in-person doctors with remote care. Because of this, fewer patients will receive traditional care. Thus, it will become rare that patients receive personalized care. (We can infer that this means a lower quality of care.)
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The doctors disagree on whether telemedicine will ultimately raise or lower the quality of care for rural patients.
A
whether medical specialists in general offer better advice than rural physicians
Neither doctor makes a claim about whether specialists give better advice than rural physicians. Even Dr. Jones only discusses specialists as an additional source of advice, not necessarily a better source. Dr. Carabella just doesn’t mention specialists.
B
whether telemedicine technology will be installed only in rural hospitals and rural medical centers
Neither doctor expresses an opinion about telemedicine being limited to rural healthcare settings. For one, Dr. Jones makes a limited argument about the benefits of telemedicine for rural patients, but doesn’t discount the possibility of urban telemedicine as well.
C
whether telemedicine is likely to be widely adopted in rural areas in future years
Neither doctor directly talks about how likely telemedicine is to be widely adopted anywhere over any length of time. Their discussion is focused on the predicted effects of telemedicine, not its future popularity.
D
whether the patients who most need the advice of medical specialists are likely to receive it through telemedicine
Neither doctor talks about patients who most need specialists’ advice. Dr. Jones discusses rural patients in general, and Dr. Carabella throws an even wider net when talking about both rural and urban patients. Neither goes into this specific of a category.
E
whether the technology of telemedicine will benefit rural patients in the long run
Dr. Jones thinks that telemedicine will benefit rural patients by improving access to specialists, while Dr. Carabella thinks that telemedicine will ultimately harm rural patients through a general decline in the quality of care. This is the point of disagreement.